Search powered byGoogle

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Bourges/Viersen Rooms - Town Hall

Contact: Philippa Turvey Senior Democratic Services 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 for interest were received.

 

3.

Members' Declaration of intention to make representations as Ward Councillor

Minutes:

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

 

4.

Minutes of the Meeting Held on 9 June 2015 pdf icon PDF 90 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 2015 were approved as a correct record.

5.

Development Control and Enforcement Matters

6.

15/00415/FUL - Peterborough City Lawn Tennis Club, Park Crescent, Peterborough, PE1 4DX pdf icon PDF 27 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The planning application was for the demolition of a timbre pavilion at Peterborough City Lawn Tennis Club, Park Crescent and the erection of two detached “Prestige” homes.

 

The main considerations set out in the reports were:

·    Planning History

·    Replacement Tennis Facilities

·    Siting, scale and design

·    Impact on residential amenity

·    Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

·    Highways

·    Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

 

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

 

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

·         Previous applications on this site had been refused because of issues arising from the provision of replacement tennis courts.

·         The most recent application was approved, with a condition attached that restricted occupation of the proposed dwellings until a time after replacement tennis courts were completed and operational.

·         This condition resulted in developers being reliant on third parties. As such, no finance had been granted to the developers.

·         Sports England had been approached regarding the matter and were happy with a new approach. It was now proposed to omit a placing restrictive condition regarding replacement courts on the development, and instead enter into legal agreement for these provisions.

·         Concern had been raised by Ward Councillors regarding the two separate access points proposed.  It had been suggested that a single access point would be safer and more appropriate.

·         The Highways Authority had requested for each access to have sufficient visibility splays for pedestrians, as the site was located near pedestrian heavy areas.

·         Planning officers did not consider pedestrian visibility splays to be necessary, given the nature of the proposal.

 

John Dadge and Bill Skead addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The proposal was similar to the previously granted permission and was reflective of the surrounding area.

·         The construction of the developments was planned to take place as soon as possible to release the funds to provide replacement tennis courts.

·         Two separate access points had been proposed as the two dwellings were “prestige” in nature. The access points would be similar to the current situation and the majority of the hedging would be retained.

·         The proposed legal agreement was already drafted and it was hoped that the tennis courts could be provided within a few months.

 

The Committee were pleased with the proposed solution to the issues regarding replacement tennis courts. Following the Highways Authority’s comments, concern was raised in relation to the width of the access points. The Head of Development and Construction advised that this could be addressed via condition.

 

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation and an additional condition requiring visibility splays for each access. The motion was carried unanimously.

 

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to:

 

·         The conditions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

15/00521/FUL - Peakirk Cum Glinton Voluntary Aided Primary School, School Lane, Glinton, Peterborough pdf icon PDF 27 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The planning application was for the construction of a new standalone nursery facility at Peakirk Cum Glinton Voluntary Aided Primary School, School Lane, Glinton.

 

The main considerations set out in the reports were:

·    The principle of the development

·    The impact of the development on the character and appearance of the Glinton

·    Conservation Area

·    The impact of the development on neighbour amenity

·    Highway Implications

·    Landscaping implications

·    Other issues

 

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 proposal was for the replacements of an existing mobile with a permanent structure. This would be location on a different part of the site.

·         There would be losses to scrub and trees for the construction of the proposal, however no officer objection had been received.

·         The proposal consisted of a two storey, flat roofed, wood clad structure.

·         3 School Lane was the nearest residential property. The Crown Inn opposite the site currently housed a playgroup.

·         Any overlooking windows were to be obscure glazed and the structure was to be connected to the main school building by a covered walkway.

·         Access for construction vehicles would be via Lincoln Road, to avoid disruption in the village.

·         There were an extensive number of updates included within the additional information document. These included further information from the Council’s Tree Officer, who had requested additional conditions, further information from the Council’s Conservation officer, comment from Councillor Holdich and comments from the neighbour at 3 School Road.

 

Councillor Bob Johnson, Glinton Parish Council, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The Parish Council were supportive of extending the school facility, however in the right place and design.

·         As the site was within the Glinton Conservation Area, the design should be in line with the village design supplementary planning document.

·         The current design and material, it was suggest, would fail. Glinton was selected as a limestone village and wood cladding did not fit in with this character.

·         It was considered that the location identified within the application was inappropriate. The Parish Council believed that the site of the current temporary mobile structure was the most appropriate and that a single storey development would be suitable.

·         The Parish Council was unanimous in its oppositions to the proposal and supported the objections of residents in School and Rectory Lane. The Parish Council were unaware of any representations of support within the village.

 

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

·         Mr Titman had provided a number of visuals which were included within the Committee’s additional information document. These visuals highlighted the overlooking and overbearing nature of the proposal on his residential amenity.

·         Concern was raised regarding the architect’s planning statement and how a number of disadvantages raised for alternative sites  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

15/00621/FUL - Land to the Rear of 37 and 39 Lincoln Road, Glinton, Peterborough pdf icon PDF 27 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The planning application was for the erection of a detached bungalow with relevant access at the land to the rear of 37 and 39 Lincoln Road, Glinton.

 

The main considerations set out in the reports were:

·    Principle of Development

·    Design and Layout

·    Access, Parking and Highway Safety

·    Neighbour Amenity

·    Amenity of Future Occupiers of the proposed Dwelling

·    Biodiversity

·    Environmental Capital

·    Flood Risk

·    Section 106 and CIL Regulations

·    Other Matters

 

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission is 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:

·         A previous, similar application on this site and been refused. Refusal had been on the grounds of the cramped nature of development, overdevelopment and the uncharacteristic design of the proposal.

·         The proposed broad access was considered to be out of keeping with the area.

·         The current proposal had sought to address these issues by increasing the size of the development site, altering the design of the access arrangement and reducing the footprint of the proposed dwelling.

·         It was not considered by officers that the alterations were sufficient to address the previously raised concerns.

 

Councillor Bob Johnson, Glinton Parish Council, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The application had been discussed at a meeting of the parish council, which the applicant did attend and explain their application.

·         It was decided that the Parish Council would object to the proposals and were happy to accept planning officers’ recommendation for refusal.

 

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

·         It was suggested that the Parish Council had been evenly split 5 in favour and 5 against this application.

·         The applicant wished to succeed in this application to allow for her parents to live nearby.

·         The proposed access was already utilised by the care home and other residences. It was not considered that one additional residence would have a significant impact.

·         It was suggested that as part of the proposal, the materials of the access could be replaced to decrease the level of noise created.

·         The surrounding area was home to a number of back land developments. As such, it was not believed that this proposal would be out of character.

·         It was suggested that the nature of the dwelling would attract those seeking a quiet lifestyle.

 

The Committee discussed the application and it was suggested that the back land nature of the development was not inconsistent with other previous developments in the surrounding area. The Committee welcomed the applicant’s suggestion to retreat the access road.

 

Comment was also made regarding the overdeveloped nature of the area and that the Committee should take into account current policy frameworks.

 

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be refused, as per officer recommendation. The motion was defeated, three  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

15/00667/FUL - 17 Castor Road, Marholm, Peterborough, PE6 7JA pdf icon PDF 27 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The planning application was for a proposed three bedroom detached dwelling at 17 Castor Road, Marholm, with associated driveway.

 

The main considerations set out in the reports were:

·    Principle of residential development

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

·    and heritage assets

·    Neighbour amenity

·    Access, parking and highway implications

·    Tree implications

·    Archaeology

·    Developer contributions

 

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 application site abutted the conservation area.

·         A similar application on this site had recently been presented to Committee and refused as it was considered overbearing and with a loss of outlook.

·         The revised proposal currently before the Committee had set the dwelling back within the plot and reduced the second story element by 1 metre, with a ground floor rear extension.

·         It was considered that the amendments made addressed only an aspect of the concerns raised. The outlook from the middle window of the neighbouring dwelling remained the same.

·         There were no concerns regarding the development’s design and appearance.

 

Councillor Serluca left the meeting at this point.

 

Councillor Tim Hawkins, Marholm Parish Council, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The Parish Council had recently implemented a new programme for dealing with planning applications in the parish, which was explained to the Committee.

·         It was advised the general opinion in the village had altered and it was now considered that appropriate render was not so important.

·         The Parish Council appreciated that action had been taken to address issues of loss of neighbour amenity.

·         It was the general view of the Parish that there was a significant distance between the window of the neighbouring property and wall of the development. As such, the proposal was considered acceptable.

 

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

·         The applicant had liaised with officers and had brought on board a new architect.

·         It had been believed that planning officers and the neighbouring residents were happy with the new proposal, however the situation had now moved on from this.

·         It was suggested that if the Committee felt that the dwelling was situated too close to the neighbouring wall, the dwelling could be push 1 metre to the side. This would still be acceptable from a Highways perspective. If Committee were minded, they could defer the determination of the application to consider this.

·         The views from the neighbouring property’s windows were affected, but the impact was not thought to be unacceptable.

 

The Acting Head of Legal Services advised that if the Committee were minded to refuse, the agent has suggested that a deferral be considered. It would be possible for the Committee to defer the application without debate.

 

The Committee discussed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

14/02222/FUL - The Hostel Site, London Road, Yaxley, PE7 3NQ pdf icon PDF 53 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Serluca returned to the meeting at this point.

 

The planning application was for the development of a miniature railway and ancillary infrastructure at the Hostel Site, London Road, Yaxley.

 

Councillor North declared that as he had provided residents in his ward with advice surrounding this planning application, he would not take part in the meeting for the duration of this item. Councillor North left the meeting at this point.

 

The main considerations set out in the reports were:

·    Principle of Development

·    Neighbour Amenity

·    Contamination

·    Biodiversity

·    Highway and Pedestrian Safety

·    Heritage

·    Design and Layout

·    Other Matters

 

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 application site was within the development plan for the Great Haddon urban development. The area in question had been designated as open space and woodland.

·         The proposal before the Committee was for a miniature railway, with a track on site, scrubland, steam bays, kiosks, club house, storage and car parking. It was intended that the site would be fenced off.

·         It was suggested that gaps would have to be carved through the wooded area for the miniature training to run. Subsequently the Council’s Tree Officer and Ecology Officer had raised some concerns with the proposal.

·         A previous application for four dwellings had been submitted to Huntingdonshire District Council for a nearby area of land. That proposal had utilised the same access point and, at appeal, an inspector identified that the increase in traffic four dwellings would attract would be unacceptable.

·         Following this, it was suggested that as the current proposal would generate more traffic than four dwellings, the impact on residential amenity would also be unacceptable.

 

Councillor McGuire, Cambridgeshire County Councillor for Norman Cross, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         It was stated that this application was premature and that the land as already designated as open space within the Great Haddon development.

·         With reference to the Huntingdonshire District Council appeal decision, the current proposal would generate more traffic than this. The Committee should also consider the possibility of school visits to the site, which would result in coaches using the access road.

·         Councillor McGuire sympathised with the applicants and hoped that a more appropriate site could be found for their proposals, however this site was not suitable.

·         To grant this application would be contrary to Peterborough City Council’s own policies.

 

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

·         Mr Cannell was the Chairman of the Peterborough Society of Model Engineers. The Society currently supported their events via a portable truck. With a permanent site they would be able to provide more public events.

·         The Society would welcome engagement with the City Council in order to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.