Peterborough City Council

Home | On-Line Services | Site Map | Adv. Search | Help | Contact Us | News | Accessibility | Return to graphics mode
A-Z of Services | About Peterborough | Advice & benefits | Business | Community & living | Council & democracy | Education & learning | Environment & planning | Health & social care | Housing | Jobs and careers | Leisure & culture | Streets & transport
 
 
Calendar
Committees
Decisions
Forward plans
Library
Meetings
Outside Bodies
Parish Councils
Search documents
Statistics
Subscribe to updates
What's new
Your Councillors
Your MEPs
Your MPs
 

Agenda and minutes

Planning and Environmental Protection Committee
Tuesday 21st October, 2014 1.30 pm

Venue: Bourges/Viersen Rooms - Town Hall

Contact: Philippa Turvey Senior Governance Officer 

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

No apologies for absence were received.

 

2.

Declarations of Interest

At this point Members must declare whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest, or other interest, in any of the items on the agenda, unless it is already entered in the register of members’ interests or is a “pending notification “ that has been disclosed to the Solicitor to the Council.

Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

 

Minutes:

No declarations of interest were received.

 

3.

Members' Declaration of intention to make representations as Ward Councillor

Minutes:

No Member Declarations of intention to make representations as Ward Councillor were received.

 

4.

Development Control and Enforcement Matters

5.

14/00895/HHFUL - 80 Ledbury Road, Netherton, Peterborough, PE3 9PJ pdf icon PDF 283 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The planning application was for a two storey side extension and first floor rear extension at 80 Ledbury Road, Netherton.

 

The main considerations were:

·         The impact of the proposal on the character of the area

·         The impact of the proposal on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings

·         Objections

 

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

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

·         A previous scheme on the site had been approved in 2013, however the proceeding development was not in line with the approval.

·         An error had been identified within the current on site construction as the roof trusses were of the incorrect size. This was in the process of being corrected.

·         Issues had been raised in relation to the neighbouring garage and water pooling as a result of the extension. This was not a planning matter, but a private matter between parties.

·         The method for drainage prior to previous garage extension was unclear.

·         The overhanging nature of the eves, on the neighbour’s property was similarly a private matter that could not be resolved by the Committee.

·         Further objections had been received in the update report from Stewart Jackson MP, Councillor Arculus and a local resident.

 

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

·         A lot of time had been spent on this application, with reservations from neighbours and local residents associations.

·         Normal protocol for planning permission had not been followed, as such this application was retrospective.

·         Individuals living nearby were keen to have the development completed as soon as possible, if permission was granted.

·         The proposal was considered to be oversized.

·         The applicant had disregarded planning law.

·         The construction site was an eyesore.

·         The Committee had no power to force the applicant to finish work, even if permission was granted, and this could be a problem.

·         It was questioned whether the Committee could approve an application which did not meet building control regulations.

·         The Ward Councillors suggested that, once finished, the development would not be a problem but were concerned that work would not be completed or would not be completed in line with approved plans.

 

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

·         Mr Oommen and Ms George had moved into the property neighbouring the development site in late 2013.

·         The previous joint garage had been knocked down to build an extension.

·         The original plan indicated a gap between the two properties, however when built the two were joined together.

·         While the applicant had offered to fix the drainage problem on the garage roof by installing a pipe this was not considered sufficient.

·         Mr Oommen could not believe that the Council could not assist to rectify this problem, as it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

14/01033/FUL - 270 Eastfield Road, Eastfield, Peterborough, PE1 4BE pdf icon PDF 271 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The planning application was for the change of use of an original building from office building to Elderly Care Home plus side and rear extensions to provide, overall, a 62 bedroom Elderly Care Home for the over 65’s at 270 Eastfield Road, Eastfield.

 

The main considerations were:

·         Principle of Development

·         Recent Site History

·         Design

·         Amenity for future residents

·         Access and Parking

·         Impact on Neighbours

·         Sustainability

·         Drainage

·         Impact on Locally Listed Building

·         Landscape and Ecology

·         Section 106

 

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

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

·         The existing modern extensions to the building were proposed to be removed and access to the rear maintained.

·         A previous scheme for the site was refused permission, in part, because of its proximity to nearby residential properties. The current scheme before Committee allowed for a greater separation distance from neighbouring properties.

·         The design was in keeping with the host property.

·         The windows on the upper floors were angled and recessed to avoid overlooking.

·         The previous reasons for refusing development on this site had all been addressed within this revised scheme.

·         A condition in order to restrict the use of the site to residential accommodation and care for adults in need of full-time care was included in the recommendation.

 

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

·         Residents welcomed the improvements made from the previous scheme submitted.

·         The fact that it was no longer proposed to house student accommodation and that the original building and trees were to be protected was welcomed.

·         The mass of the proposal was still too large.

·         Parking was not assured and appeared to be dependent of staff travelling via mini-bus. This was not considered to be good enough.

·         There was still a considerable amount of overlook on neighbouring properties.

·         It was requested that the extra condition restricting use be altered to ‘elderly care home’ as per the application.

·         Traffic is a concerning issue. The road was very busy and College Park Road was very narrow.

·         It was requested that all trees be protected.

 

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

·         The proposal was too big for the site.

·         Residents were happy that the site would be used for elderly care and that the original building was to be retained.

·         Previous reasons for refusal regarding design and mass of the buildings were still relevant.

·         The proposal sill presented a lack of privacy.

·         The parking difficulties that would result from the development would add to those already existing. The footprint of the development should be decreased and parking provision increased.

·         It was questioned whether conditions relating to enforcement, lighting and restriction of use were robust enough to implement.

 

The Senior Engineer (Development) explained that parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

14/01060/R3FUL - Thorpe Primary School, Atherstone Avenue, Netherton, Peterborough pdf icon PDF 290 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The planning application was for the partial infill of the existing courtyard at Thorpe Primary School, Artherstone Avenue and the single storey rear extension and erection of a single storey teaching block. Associated alterations to the car park at the front of the site were also applied for, with an extension of the car park to the rear.

 

The main considerations were:

·         Principle of Development

·         Highways Impacts and Car Parking

·         Design and Layout

·         Landscape Impacts

·         Ecological Issues

·         Construction Management

·         Other Matters

 

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

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

·         The application had been deferred from a previous meeting of the Committee in order to consider impact on parking and congestion.

·         Four options had been outlined to mitigate any highways impact. Options C and D involved the loss of playing field areas and were not workable for the school. These options were unlikely to attract support from Sport England.

·         Option A provided a layby on Atherstone Avenue with space for two vehicles. As this option was on street and would have only a small impact, it was considered unsuitable.

·         Option B was recommended to the Committee. This provided a drop off area in the front car park with separate entryway and exitway.

·         As the expansion of the school would be phased, it was proposed that the need for a drop of provision be monitored at each phase.

·         A base line survey of traffic levels would be undertaken before and expansion occurred. After each expansion phase a further survey would take place to establish if any increase in traffic had resulted. Only if there was a significant increase, the drop off scheme would be implemented.

·         If the entire expansion was completed without a significant increase in traffic, the drop off scheme would not be actioned.

 

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

·         The Councillor had met with school parties.

·         The increase in pupil numbers would be phased over several years.

·         The options put forward to Committee show that further thought had been given to the highways impact of the proposals.

·         The options put forward represent a compromise.

·         If the area at the front of the school was needed it could be used, if the survey highlighted a more significant increase in traffic than expected.

·         Councillor Fitzgerald was reluctant to see the loss of a sporting site.

 

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

·         Even if the increase in pupil numbers was phased, the traffic would still get worse.

·         Options A and B would provide insufficient mitigation.

·         If option D was not possible, option C would be preferable.

·         Attention was drawn to a traffic incident which had occurred in the area which had resulted in a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

14/01375/FUL - Land To The Rear Of Barsby Cooked Meats, Northey Road, Peterborough pdf icon PDF 189 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The planning application was a retrospective application for the retention of two touring caravans at the land to the rear of Barsby Cooked Meats, Northey Road and the siting of one new static caravan with facilities block and relocation of existing stables.

 

The main considerations were:

·         Principle of development

·         Access to services / facilities

·         Archaeology

·         Landscape character

·         Access and highway implication

·         Residential amenity

·         Contamination

·         Ecology

·         Drainage and flood risk

·         Minerals and waste safeguarding

 

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

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

·         A development similar to that proposed had been approved on the land adjacent to the application site.

·         Access to the site would be hardsurfaced and the remaining site would be laid with stone chippings.

·         The stables currently on the site would be relocated to elsewhere on site.

·         The Council had no allocation for permanent pitch sites. This absence of existing provision meant that it would be difficult to refuse this application.

·         English Heritage had objected to the application because of the impact it would have on the flag fen monument. However, the adjacent site had been approved and a site existed immediately adjacent to the monument which had recently been upheld at appeal as not having an impact on the monument.

 

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

·         Thorney Parish Council had also objected the proposals.

·         Concerns were raised in relation to flooding risks and the loss of possible archaeological findings.

·         It was accepted that the site was in a low flood risk area and that no evidence of archaeological remains had been found.

 

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

·         The Parish Council’s objection had been without grounds and it was not necessary for this application to be brought to Committee.

·         The applicant had accepted all the proposed conditions, including those in relation to landscaping.

·         The site present no real risk of flooding.

·         The proposal would help the Council fulfil its five year supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites.

·         Seven letters of support had been received from local residents.

 

The Committee discussed the objection raised by the Minerals and Waste Officer. It was advised by the Head of Development and Construction that the proposal threaten reserves to such a small degree that it was not considered a reason to refuse 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 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

14/01509/FUL - 241 Park Road, Peterborough, PE1 2UT pdf icon PDF 316 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The planning application was for an additional single storey building at 241 Park Road, Peterborough for childcare provision.

 

The main considerations were:

·         Expansion of an existing education facility

·         Parking and highway implications

·         Design and impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area

·         Neighbour amenity

 

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 site currently catered 52 child spaces. The proposals would increase this to 76. No additional staff would be required.

·         The development would fill a grass play area between two existing buildings and would be 2.9 tall with a flat roof.

·         The site currently provided eight parking spaces, however this was reduced to four when taking into account turning space. Discussions were being had with adjacent property owners to obtain an additional two spaces.

·         Site visits had been undertaken by the planning officer where it was observed that cars were parking on the pavement or blocking the car park, which resulted in stacking.

·         Refusal was recommended on the grounds of parking, overdevelopment, impact on neighbour amenity and noise and disturbance.

·         An additional objection had been received from Stewart Jackson MP as well as two additional letters of support from Early Years staff.

 

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

·         The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that great weight needed to be placed upon the expansions of schools.

·         There was a shortfall of places in the area, which had been increased by the Government initiative to provide places for more two year olds.

·         Education standards needed to be raised in the area and could be done through more spaces in this outstanding nursery.

·         There were challenges to meet regarding car parking, however teachers urge parents to be sensible.

·         It was hoped that conditions could be suggested to deal with the parking arrangements, such as a staggered start or off-peak hours, and planning permission be granted.

·         The nursery was in a residential street, however permission had been granted for nursery use.

 

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

·         Mr Brown lived in the property neighbouring the site and was Chair of Governors and Kings School, as such he had an interest in the safety of young people.

·         If this proposal was approved, 50% of the site would be built on. Only a small section of the site would be left for play space for up to 76 children.

·         The proposal represented overdevelopment which the street would be unable to accommodate.

·         It was believed that the nursery did not currently operate at maximum capacity, so additional spaces were not required.

·         The shortage of spaces was prevalent in other areas and would mean that parents would travel from further afield.

·         The access was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

14/01416/HHFUL - 33 The Orchards, Orton Waterville, Peterborough, PE2 5LA pdf icon PDF 264 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Serluca retired from the Committee.

 

The planning application was for a proposed two storey side and single storey rear extension at 33 The Orchards, Orton Waterville.

 

The main considerations were:

·         The design of the extensions and their impact on the visual appearance and character of the area.

·         The impact of the proposals upon the amenity of neighbouring / nearby residents.

 

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

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

·         The first floor extension was only above the garage and no further.

·         It was not considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the neighbours, nor would it be overbearing.

·         The separation distance between the proposed development and the neighbouring property increased further into the site due to the layout of the plots. At its largest the distance between the two properties would be approximately three metres.

 

The Committee discussed the application and several Members commented that the proposals were too large and would have an overbearing impact on the neighbouring property. The possibility of ensuring the first floor window was obscure glazed and non-opening was discussed, to mitigate concerns regarding loss of privacy.

 

It was clarified that permitted development rights allowed extensions of up to four metres at ground floor level. The proposal for the most part projected 4.3 meters from the rear wall however did extent to 6.28 metres at its longest.

 

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be refused, contrary to officer recommendation because of the overbearing impact of the proposal and the loss of privacy. Four voted in favour, four voted against and two abstained from voting. The Chair used his casting vote against the motion, as such the motion fell.

 

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation, with the inclusion of a condition that the first floor rear window be obscure glazing and non-opening. The motion was carried six voting in favour, one voting against and two abstentions.

 

RESOLVED: (six voted in favour, one voted against, two abstained from voting) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the reports and an additional condition that the first floor rear window be obscure glazing and non-opening.

 

Reasons for the decision

 

The proposal had been considered against the relevant development plan policies namely policies PP2 and PP3 of the Planning Policies DPD.  It was considered that these policies were in accordance with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework and as such there were no other material considerations to take into account.  The views of the neighbours had been taken into account.  The original proposal had been amended and it was considered that the revised scheme would not have any significant impact upon any neighbouring or nearby resident.  The proposal was also acceptable in terms of design.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

 

 

 
Peterborough City Council. Town Hall, Bridge Street, Peterborough, PE1 1HF - (01733) 747474
 
Return to graphics mode