Agenda item

The planning application was for the change of use of the existing track on the land adjacent to 1 Regency Way to garden use. The application was referred to the Committee by Councillor Arculus for reasons of right of way, ownership, neighbour concern and inaccuracies in the application.

The key issues to be considered were the right of way, land ownership, alleged commercial use of the site, possible future commercial use and highway safety.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

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

·         14 objections had been received. Stewart Jackson MP had submitted an objection to the application, as he believed it would set a precedent for commercial use in residential areas.

·         Land ownership was not a planning matter and to refuse an application on such ground would leave the Council open to challenge and an imposition of costs.

·         Any right of way matter was for the holder of the right to enforce and would not be overridden by a grant of planning permission.

·         The Council had received complaints regarding the commercial selling of cars from the site and had investigated. No breach was found. Future commercial use of the site could not be considered.

·         A condition restricting the width of the gate to 1 metre will ensure that no cars can be stored on the site.

·         There were no inaccuracies in the application that would stop the Committees determination.

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

·         The Applicant’s family was in the car trade.

·         It was not right that an application could be made for land in the ownership of another, especially in light of such levels of objection from neighbouring residents.

·         There was evident detrimental impact to neighbour’s amenity, including the loss of a right of way over the land.

·         The Councillor was conscious that many objections were not based on planning matters, however believed they should be given appropriate weight.

·         The conditions proposed were currently unenforceable, as there were no time constraints provided. It was suggested that 2 months would be appropriate, if permission granted.

Mr Brian Barrett, 7 Regency Way, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The Applicant would use the land to expand their car trade. This formed the basis of their objections, as well as the loss of a right of way.

·         The Applicant had stated that they had maintained the land since 2006, it was suggested that this was untrue.

·         Residents had seen blatant evidence of commercial activity taking place on the site and the Council has been notified of this.

·         Mr Barrett was aware of the limitations of the Committee and, as such, requested that if the Committee were minded to approve if a condition could be added to ensure the Applicant adhered to parking permit regulations.

Mr Mohammed Syed, Supporter, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Mr Syed and his family had been subject to harassment from objectors.

·         The cars stored on the site, which had been referred to, belonged to family members and were not part of commercial trade activities.

·         No evidence of commercial trade had been found at the site, after investigations were conducted.

·         The right of way referenced by objectors was not used.

·         Mr Syed explained that the resident who held the right of way discussed in the objections was the person to initially suggest to Mr Syed that a fence be erected on the land. This resident had, however, objected to this application.

·         The Committee could be assured that the site would only be used as a garden and not to facilitate trade.

·         Mr Syed was aware of the parking permit regulations.

The Planning and Highways Lawyer reminded the Committee that land ownership, rights of way and potential use of the site could not be considered, as they were not material planning considerations.

The Committee debated the planning application and concluded that there were no planning reasons to refuse the application before them. The Committee discussed the recommended conditions and it was suggested that the requested alterations to the gate be carried out within 28 days and that any cars were cleared from the site immediately. It was emphasized the importance of ensuring these conditions were adhered to.

In response to a question the Planning and Development Manager advised that the condition proposed about permit parking by Mr Barrett and raised again towards the end of the debate could not be considered, as it was not related to planning legislation.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation, subject to the amended conditions:

C1       The site shall not be used for the parking, storage, maintenance or cleaning of motor vehicles.

C2       Within 28 days of the granting of planning permission the gates in the fence at the front of the site shall be altered so that there is only a single gate opening that is no more than 1 metre wide. Thereafter, the 1 metre wide gate shall be retained in perpetuity.

The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the amended conditions.

Reasons for the decision

The proposed change of use to garden land, and retention of the front boundary treatment, would have no detrimental impact on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties, or on the streetscene.

Activities likely to cause disturbance, or to cause a hazard to Highway safety, could be controlled by Condition.

Various matters arising such as a private right of way and land ownership were not planning matters and cannot be taken into account.

The proposal was therefore in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD and Policies PP3 and PP12 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD.