Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Harrington.

No declarations of interest were received.

Councillor Ash declared his intention to make a representation as Ward Councillor for agenda item 5.3 ‘14/01017/FUL - 16 Eye Road, Dogsthorpe, Peterborough, P1 4SA’.

            The minutes of the meeting held on 2 September 2014 were approved as a correct record.

As several of the registered speakers for agenda item 5.1 ‘14/01301/FUL – 70-80 Storrington Way, Werrington’ were not present, a motion was proposed and seconded to defer discussion of the item until later in the agenda. Following a vote the motion fell.

The planning application was for a new shop unit with two flats above at 70-80 Storrington Way, Werrington. The application outlined in the report was a resubmission, following refusal of a previous scheme in 2013.

The main considerations were:

·    The Principle of Development

·    Highways

·    Design and Visual Amenity

·    Residential Amenity

·    Neighbourhood Amenity

·    Landscaping

·    Section 106

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the signing of a legal agreement.

The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The Committee previously refused planning permission for a previous version of this application, against officer recommendation.

·         The Committee refused on the grounds of highways. The footprint of the site would extend into the visibility slope.

·         The Committee’s decision was upheld at appeal, however the planning inspector was critical of the lack of detail presented to Committee and costs were awarded.

·         The current application before Committee proposed a revised footprint which cleared the forward visibility slope.

·         The matters for Committee to consider were the forward visibility, which Highways were happy with, and the altered design.

·         The condition of the flats and issues regarding fly tipping were not material planning considerations.

Mr David Shaw, Agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The previous application had been refused on a single highways ground. This problem had been resolved with the redesign of the building.

·         The current condition of the site was not relevant.

·         It had been claimed that the grass was cut on the site by the Council, at its cost. It was the case that the Council had been required to cut the grass. This, however, had been paid for by the applicant in the past.

·         Several of the leases at the site placed the responsibility for maintenance on the tenants.

The Committee discussed the amended application and considered that the problem of highway visibility had been resolved. It was raised by a Member of the Committee that the trees proposed for removal added to the site and requested that officers consider action in relation to these trees carefully.

The Senior Engineer (Development) explained that a speed survey had been conducted and, after evaluation of the plan and site survey, Highways were happy with the visibility proposed within the application.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the signing of a LEGAL AGREEMENT and the conditions set out in the reports.

Reasons for the decision

Subject to the imposition of the attached conditions, the proposal was acceptable having been assessed in the light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and specifically:

·         The proposal was for retail development within a local centre;

·         The site had extant planning consent for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The planning application was for a residential development of up to 55 dwellings on land at Guilsborough Road, Eye Green, Peterborough. The application also included means of access, open space and any associated works.

The main considerations were:

·    The Principle of Development

·    Transport

·    Noise

·    Ecology Impacts

·    Amount of Development

·    Local Services

·    Drainage

·    Section 106

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the signing of a legal agreement.

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

·         The application included an additional 0.74 hectares of land above the 2.44 hectares included in the site allocation. This 0.5 hectares would be lost from the surrounding Country Wildlife Site (CWS) if permission was granted.

·         Objections to the application were on the grounds of overdevelopment, resulting highways problems and detrimental impact on public services. Objections had been received from the Wildlife Trust and Buglife regarding the loss of habitat.

·         A transport assessment had been carried out and it was concluded that the A47 would not be affected. The impact on the nearby roundabout would be minimal.

·         The Council’s Wildlife Officer considered the loss of CWS to be acceptable if appropriate habitat was made available elsewhere. There would be no harmful impact on the adjacent nature reserve.

·         The impact on local services had already been considered during the site allocation process. The additional numbers had been considered and none of the relevant authorities had objected. It was estimated that the additional housing would only generate one additional pupil per school year.

·         This was an outline application. If the reserved matters application was unacceptable the number of dwellings approved may be less than 55.

Stewart Jackson MP addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Mr Jackson urged the Committee to reject the planning application before them for a more appropriate planning brief.

·         The Wildlife Trust and Buglife had objected.

·         Eye was the key service centre and a hub for new residential housing. The services would not be able to cope with additional users.

·         The 35 dwellings outlined in the core strategy was appropriate.

·         The proposal would impact on residential amenity and on traffic and parking in the surrounding area.

·         Mr Jackson suggested that the Committee should reject the application until the provision of school places had been clarified. He referenced an email from the Council’s education services which indicated that the school would be unable to accept an increase in pupil numbers.

·         Development was not objected to, however the proposal before the Committee was considered to be too dense.

·         Mr Jackson had received a significant number of objections from residents.

Dale McKean addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         He had been involved in the initial site allocations process and received feedback from local residents on the allocations proposal.

·         The buffer zones around  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Councillor Ash withdrew from the Committee.

The planning application was for a residential development at 16 Eye Road, Dogsthorpe, consisting of 20 flats.

The main considerations were:

·    The Principle of Development

·    Siting, Scale and Design

·    Impact of Neighbours

·    Highways

·    Noise

·    Impact of Trees

·    Ecology

·    Section 106

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the signing of a legal agreement.

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

·         The properties surrounding the development site were of a mix of styles, with bungalows directly opposite.

·         Objections has been raised on the grounds of access, view, highways and not being in keeping with the character of the area.

·         The proposed flats would front onto Eye Road and would have staggered frontage. As such, the development was not considered to be overbearing.

·         26 Eye Road, which would share a boundary with the proposal would 13 metres distance from the development and would be overlooked by one bathroom window.

·         The proposal was in line with highways standards and parking capacity. The road had sufficient capacity to deal with the extra vehicles.

·         Conditions would be put in place to regulate noise and landscaping. The tree belt on the site would be retained.

·         The Section 106 Agreement would provide 30% affordable housing.

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

·         The proposal was for two blocks of flats on a street which housed mainly single dwellings and semi-detached houses.

·         There had been several accidents on the road, which was very busy. Adding to the traffic would increase the problem.

·         The design of the development was not in keeping with the local area.

Jean Biggs and Jean Austin, Local Residents, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The information regarding accidents on Eye Road was questioned.

·         Ms Biggs new of five accidents on the road due to the high amount of traffic.

·         An extra 44 vehicles with one point of access would increase the likelihood of further accidents.

·         Flats would change the character of the street, which was mainly houses.

·         Ms Austin explained that her property would be directly opposite the entrance to the site.

·         There were significant problems joining the road, with the traffic, as vehicles speeded around the corner.

·         Ms Austin’s wall had been demolished after being hit by a vehicle.

·         There was a crossing on the road, however, it was further up from the development site.

·         It was noted that the site’s previous use as a pub would attract less traffic during the day and more at night, when the road was quieter.

The Senior Engineer (Development) clarified that the data provided in the report was police data, detailing all the accidents that had been reported. The speed of vehicles on the road was an existing problem and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Councillor Ash re-joined the Committee.

The planning application was for proposed additions to an existing ‘play hide’ at 101 Garton End Road, Peterborough. The main consideration was the impact upon the amenities of neighbouring occupants.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The ‘play hide’ had been built with a slide and steps up to an elevated platform, which allowed children to see in to the neighbouring property.

·         This was not considered acceptable and an enforcement notice was made. Subsequently a retrospective application was made, which was refused by Committee.

·         A further application was approved for a ‘play hide’ with use of the upper levels restricted.

·         The current application before the Committee sought to reinstate the upper level of the ‘play hide’.

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

·         The nursery owner had adapted the ‘play hide’ and added a panel so that it was no longer possible to see into the neighbouring gardens.

·         The height of the panel was 120cm. The tallest child using the structure was 107cm.

·         The neighbour who objected to the original application is satisfied with this proposal and no longer objects.

·         The nursery needed to provide sufficient play opportunities for children.

·         The opening hours of the nursery were Monday to Friday for three hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon.

Mohammed Younis, Applicant, and Catrina Story, Early Years, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The screen which was now on site meant that no privacy was lost.

·         The screen was approximately two metres away from the boundary and had mitigated any objections from the neighbours.

·         The children using the ‘play hide’ would be under five years old.

·         The structure provided a learning opportunity for the children.

·         The ‘play hide’ allowed for sensible risk and challenge opportunities as well as imaginative play.

·         The structure would only be used in term time and for the youngest children.

A Member of the Committee suggested that as the ‘play hide’ would not be in use constantly in the day or throughout the year, privacy would not be a problem. It was countered that children could be inquisitive and many people may not be happy with such a situation. It was suggested that the screen reference by the Ward Councillor and speakers would resolved the problems within the application.

The Committee discussed whether the screen was, in fact, included in the application. The Head of Development and Construction clarified that it was not included in the submission, but a condition could be added to ensure this panel be retained.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, against officer recommendation, subject to a condition to retain the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The Chair advised that agenda item 5.5 ‘14/01187/FUL – 9A Norfolk Road, Millfield, Peterborough, PE1 2NP’ had been withdrawn.

The Committee received a report which outlined the application to designate a neighbourhood area from Ailsworth Parish Council, in accordance with the procedures contained in the adopted Peterborough City Council Statement of Community Involvement.

The Senior Strategic Planning Officer provided an overview of the report and raised the following key points:

·         The Committee could either approve, approve with minor amendments, or amend the application significantly, which would result in another round of consultation. They did not have the power to refuse the application outright.

·         It was not considered appropriate for the area to be designated as a business area.

·         It was not considered that any amendments would result in a more appropriate area. As such Option A, approval, was recommended.

RESOLVED that:

1.    The Ailsworth Parish Council’s application to designate a neighbourhood area is approved without amendment, and

2.    That the neighbourhood area is not designated as a business area.