Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Serluca, Martin, Sylvester and Ash. Councillors Rush, Johnson and Saltmarsh were in attendance as substitutes.

There were no declarations of interest.

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

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 November 2014 were approved as a correct record.

The planning application was for a proposed new cottage style dwelling with a detached double garage at 55 Wisbech Road, Thorney.

The main considerations were:

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

·         Landscape implications and the impact upon Thorney Conservation Area

·         Neighbour amenity

·         Amenity provision for future occupants

·         Parking, access and highway implications

·         Flood risk

·         Developer contributions

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the signing of a Legal Agreement and 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:

·         Two previous applications had been submitted for development on this site, both of which had been refused. The most recent refusal had been on the grounds of the size, scale and positioning of the proposal, which was considered to be cramped and not in keeping with its surroundings. The proposal had an overbearing impact and provided a poor outlook.

·         The loss of hedging had also been cited as a reason for refusal, however as the hedge could be removed without requiring permission, this was not considered to be a relevant reason to refuse the application.

·         The current scheme was in line with the neighbouring property and had been placed further away from the site boundary. It was felt that this addressed all the previous reasons for refusal.

·         No objections had been raised from the Tree Officer or the Internal Drainage Board.

·         A condition was included in the recommendation to ensure that rear bathroom and en-suite windows were obscure glazed and non-opening.

·         Additional representations had been received from the parish council and neighbours.

·         An error had been highlighted in the report. The distance from the building and the site boundary with 55A Wisbech Road was 1.9m, not 0.9m.

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

·         The proposal had attracted objections for the Parish Council and immediate neighbours.

·         The development would be overbearing in size, cramped and not in keeping with the surrounding area.

·         Previous applications for a bungalow on the site had been refused because of their intrusive nature. This one and a half storey development would be more invasive.

·         The consultation had been incorrect and had not identified all the trees within the site. As such, those consulted were not in possession of the full facts.

The Head of Development and Construction clarified that whilst the document circulated for consultation had included the previously proposed building footprint, it did correctly identify all the relevant trees on site.

Andy Gutteridge, local resident, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The current application had not overcome the reasons for refusal set out in previous applications.

·         The area surrounding the site was characterised by detached dwellings with spacious curtilage. The current proposal was for too small a site.

·         The loss of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The planning application was an in part retrospective application for the filling in of a ditch on land to the north of Maxey Road, Helpston.

The main considerations were:

·         Drainage and surface water flood risk

·         Impact on visual amenity

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:

·         When development on Maxey Road had originally been approved, the ditch was to be retained. The ditch had initially been isolated and subject to periodic scraping in order for water to drain from the highway.

·         The developer departed from this plan and installed a pipe drainage system. Following this a retrospective application was submitted, then subsequently withdrawn.

·         The current proposal retained the pipe drainage system and connected this to the existing Internal Drainage Board network.

·         The highway verge would be regarded to slope toward the ditch, thus eliminating the need for periodic scraping.

·         The Internal Drainage Board had no power to retrospective schemes, however had not expressed any objections.

·         It was determined that the landscaping plan would not be affected, nor would it affect the pipe drainage system.

·         Additional comments has been received from the Parish Council and residents.

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

·         The village of Helpston had grown and its rural nature had almost been destroyed.

·         The dykes within the village were a traditional feature and worked to drain away flooding from the fields.

·         The village was prone to flooding, with a number of houses built on raised banks.

·         The proposed pipe drainage system may work for one or two years, but after five or 10 years the land may shift and break.

·         The adjacent road was very narrow and cars would park on the verge, which could crack the pipe.

·         Further infill development would continue to cause ongoing problems.

Mr Smith, Helpston Parish Council, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The dyke had previously run off to a nearby drainage channel.

·         The retrospective application was not necessary, as the initial application had identified the dyke as a feature.

·         The developer was circumventing the planning system by a ‘planning creep’ process or subsequent, retrospective applications.

·         The trees that had been removed from the site had previously assisted in clearing any flooding.

·         The application ignored the man-made causes for flooding.

·         It was considered that the surface water situation had worsened since building work had commenced.

·         It was believed that traffic parking on the verge would damage the pipe, which would then provide inadequate drainage.

In response to a question the Head of Construction and Development advised that as there was sufficient parking provided on site and that the verge was a highway verge, it was not considered necessary to provide a feature to physically block parking on the verge.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Committee received a report which outlined a number of changes to how developer contributions were collected which were in process. Specific wording was identified to be added to all Committee reports during the period leading up to the adoption of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

It was officer’s recommendation that that a wording was inserted in all Committee reports during the lead up to the adoption of a CIL to prevent planning applications having to go through the Committee process twice.

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

·          The new CIL regime would commence in April 2015. Prior to this an examination would take place in January and results would be fed back.

·         The main agents and developers in the Peterborough area were being written to, advising them of the timescale for upcoming changes.

·         Current applicants were also being contacted and advised of the changes.

·         A new set of wording had been proposed to include in future Committee reports, to address the CIL regime.

RESOLVED: that the wording:

“Recommendation:

[The Director of Growth and Regeneration] [The Planning and Environmental Protection Committee] recommends that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the following conditions and satisfactory completion of a Section 106 legal agreement.

If the required Section 106 legal agreement is not completed within a reasonable period, then the Committee delegates the issuing of a notice of refusal to the Director of Growth and Regeneration on the grounds that the development has failed to adequately mitigate its impacts.

Should the Community Infrastructure Levy(CIL) Charging Schedule come into force prior to the completion of the Section 106 legal agreement, the development may be wholly liable to CIL or the S106 legal agreement may be amended to exclude those items that could be funded by the CIL.

Items that could be funded by CIL will be listed on the Council’s Regulation 123 List in accordance with Regulation 123 of the CIL Regulations 2010.

A Regulation 123 List will be adopted by the Council on the same day as the Council’s CIL Charging Schedule. Currently, a Draft Regulation123 List can be viewed on the CIL pages of the Council’s website.”

be inserted in all Committee reports during the lead up to the adoption of a Community Infrastructure Levy.

Reasons for the decision

To prevent applications having to go through the Committee process twice.