Venue: Bourges/Viersen Rooms - Town Hall
Contact: Philippa Turvey Senior Governance Officer
Apologies for Absence
No apologies for absence were received.
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.
Councillor Ash declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 5.1, as he had received an email from Mr Paul Froggitt regarding the application and was acquainted with him, however had not discussed any aspect of the application with him. Councillor Ash also noted that although he referred agenda item 5.2 to the Committee, he had maintained an open mind as to the application.
Councillor Casey declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 5.1, as one of the speakers in objection to the application was his Parish Councillor.
Councillor Stokes declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 5.1, as she had received an email from Mr Paul Froggitt regarding the application and was on the Parish Council with him, however had not discussed any aspect of the application with him.
Councillor Sylvester declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 5.1, as she was acquainted with one of the public speakers, however she maintained an open mind as to the application.
Councillor North declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 5.1, as he was acquainted with him Mr Paul Froggitt and the public speakers, however maintained an open mind as to the application.
Members' Declaration of intention to make representations as Ward Councillor
There were no declarations of intention to make representations as Ward Councillor.
The minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2014 were approved as a correct record.
Development Control and Enforcement Matters
The planning application was for the development of land to the north of Norman Cross, east of the A1(M) and west of London Road (A15), Peterborough into an urban extension comprising of up to 5,350 residential dwellings, a district centre (with up to 9,200 square metres of retail floor space) and two neighbourhood centres (with up to 2,300 square metres of retail floor space) comprising of district / neighbourhood retail, community and health, leisure, residential and commercial uses. Provision for education facilities, sports and recreational facilities, a range of strategic open spaces including new landscaping, woodland and allotments and cemetery provision were also included in the application. Associated highway infrastructure (including pedestrian, bridleway and cycle routes), public transport infrastructure and car parking for all uses were to be provided as well as utilities, renewable energy infrastructure, and foul and surface water drainage networks (including SuDs and lakes).
The application was first presented to Members of the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee on 19 March 2013. At that meeting Members resolved to approve the application subject to:
a) A further report back to Committee to agree the finer detail and design of the Yaxley loop road
b) A report back to Committee to agree the review mechanism for the S106
c) The conditions as set out in the original report and the Update Report
The main considerations set out in the report were:
· Further detail on the function of the Yaxley Loop
· Review Mechanism for the Section 106 Agreement
It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, for the reasons set out in the report.
The Development Management Manager and the Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:
· The Committee had previously approved the alignment of the ‘Yaxley Loop’. Before the Committee now was purely information on the design of the route.
· The drawings submitted showed a single carriageway with two lanes for turning. Footpaths were proposed along the roadway, which were to be wider around the school sites. There would be limited access points from residential parcels.
· The busiest part of the road would be around the school and district centre. This was proposed to have traffic light controls, pedestrian crossings and a town square designed to control speed and create a safe space for pedestrians. It was not believed that this would discourage use of the road.
· The junctions at either end of the ‘Loop’ would require drivers to physically turn off from the natural sweep of the road in order to travel through Yaxley.
· These junctions would be in place early on, along with traffic calming measures throughout Yaxley.
· A new approach to the affordable housing allocation within the Section 106 Legal Agreement had been proposed. Previously an initial allocation of 7.5% affordable housing had been proposed, with subsequent trigger points set out for its increase.
· Further viability assessments had been undertaken and a fixed rate of 16% affordable housing had been proposed. It was thought that ... view the full minutes text for item 6.
The planning application was for a proposed single storey extension to a restaurant at 63 Sycamore Avenue, Dogsthorpe.
The main considerations were the siting, scale and design of the extension.
It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, for the reasons set out in the report.
The Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:
· The proposal was for a single storey extension to the existing restaurant site. A new car parking layout had been proposed alongside the extension.
· Ward Councillors Miners and Saltmarsh has submitted representations outlining the current problems faced with car parking in the area, welcoming any improvements proposed. Councillor Miners further welcomed conditions restricting firework use on the site.
· The management had stated that they would be doing all they could to ensure the proper conduct of their customers in relation to parking.
· The design of the extension was considered to be in keeping with the height and design of the existing dwelling, and was recommended for approval. There was not considered to be overbearing or overshadowing impact.
· Twelve extra car parking spaces would be provided with the extension, bringing the total to thirty-nine spaces. This was three less than the maximum standard and was considered acceptable.
The Committee was pleased to see that work was being undertaken to improve the site. The Committee further discussed the clarity of the entrance and egress of the car park, and enquired as to whether appropriate fencing could be included as a condition.
The Principal Development Management Officer clarified that a condition could be added to any planning permission in relation to boundary treatment, to find a suitable solution. Condition three could also be strengthened in relation to the car park lay out and line out of spaces.
A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation, with the strengthening of condition three in relation to the lay out and lining of the car park, and an additional condition regarding boundary treatment. The motion was carried unanimously.
RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report and:
i) The strengthening of condition three in relation to the lay out and lining of the car park; and
ii) The addition of a condition in relation to boundary treatment.
Reasons for the decision
Subject to the imposition of the attached conditions, the proposal was acceptable having been assessed in light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and specifically:
· The siting, scale and design of the proposed extension was considered to be visually compatible for the site and the surrounding streetscene.
· The proposed car parking provision was considered on balance to be sufficient for the extended restaurant proposed.
· The proposed extension would not adversely reduce the current residential amenity of neighbours in terms of any overbearing or overshadowing impacts.
· The proposal was therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy CS16 ... view the full minutes text for item 7.
The planning application was for the change of use of land to the east of 9 Windmill Street, Millfield from car parking lot and domestic garden to car sales.
The main considerations were:
· Impact of residential amenity
· Highway implications
It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused, for the reasons set out in the report.
The Development Management Manager provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:
· The site was neighboured on either side by residential dwellings.
· At current the site was gated. This gate would be retained, however moved further into the site. The office building on the site would be retained and repositioned.
· The front of the site would contain three visitor car parking spaces and one staff car parking space.
· The rear of the site would be used to sell cars, with a maximum of five cars on site at a time. It was proposed that business would operate on an appointment only basis.
· One objection had been received. A petition containing sixty signatures and eight letters had been received in support of the application.
· Pre-application advice had been provided to the applicant that this proposal was considered by officers to be unacceptable.
· It was believed that the proposal would represent an intensification of use that could not be reasonably controlled through the use of conditions. The support of residents did not negate the negative impact on residential amenity.
· It was required within policy that a site of the use applied for have sufficient parking and turning space for delivery vehicles. The application site did not meet this requirement
Councillor Nadeem, Ward Councillor, was unable attend the Committee meeting, however his representation was read out by the Senior Democratic Services Officer. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· The proposal would be a less intense use than that already existing.
· The area was used for several varied commercial activities, which generated commercial noise.
· Deliveries could be covered by conditions.
· An appointment based system would be used, which would monitor the business.
· Sound reduction measures could be conditioned. The current level of surrounding noise was much greater than that of the proposal.
· The site would, in reality, have minimal impact on the area.
Mr Barry Nicholls, Architectural and Surveying Services Ltd, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· The site would not be permanently manned. Only when a prior arrangement appointment was scheduled would the owner be on site.
· No car transport was proposed for use, the owner would drive each car to the site. If one was necessary it would be a single car transporter only.
· Noise reduction could be achieved. The application would be happy to follow the Committee’s suggestions.
· The appointment system proposed would be applied and the application would accept conditions proposed regarding this. When the owner was not on sire the gates would be shut, with signage outlining the appointment system.
· In reality the ... view the full minutes text for item 8.