Agenda item

14/01017/FUL - 16 Eye Road, Dogsthorpe, Peterborough, PE1 4SA


Councillor Ash withdrew from the Committee.


The planning application was for a residential development at 16 Eye Road, Dogsthorpe, consisting of 20 flats.


The main considerations were:

·    The Principle of Development

·    Siting, Scale and Design

·    Impact of Neighbours

·    Highways

·    Noise

·    Impact of Trees

·    Ecology

·    Section 106


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


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

·         The properties surrounding the development site were of a mix of styles, with bungalows directly opposite.

·         Objections has been raised on the grounds of access, view, highways and not being in keeping with the character of the area.

·         The proposed flats would front onto Eye Road and would have staggered frontage. As such, the development was not considered to be overbearing.

·         26 Eye Road, which would share a boundary with the proposal would 13 metres distance from the development and would be overlooked by one bathroom window.

·         The proposal was in line with highways standards and parking capacity. The road had sufficient capacity to deal with the extra vehicles.

·         Conditions would be put in place to regulate noise and landscaping. The tree belt on the site would be retained.

·         The Section 106 Agreement would provide 30% affordable housing.


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

·         The proposal was for two blocks of flats on a street which housed mainly single dwellings and semi-detached houses.

·         There had been several accidents on the road, which was very busy. Adding to the traffic would increase the problem.

·         The design of the development was not in keeping with the local area.


Jean Biggs and Jean Austin, Local Residents, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The information regarding accidents on Eye Road was questioned.

·         Ms Biggs new of five accidents on the road due to the high amount of traffic.

·         An extra 44 vehicles with one point of access would increase the likelihood of further accidents.

·         Flats would change the character of the street, which was mainly houses.

·         Ms Austin explained that her property would be directly opposite the entrance to the site.

·         There were significant problems joining the road, with the traffic, as vehicles speeded around the corner.

·         Ms Austin’s wall had been demolished after being hit by a vehicle.

·         There was a crossing on the road, however, it was further up from the development site.

·         It was noted that the site’s previous use as a pub would attract less traffic during the day and more at night, when the road was quieter.


The Senior Engineer (Development) clarified that the data provided in the report was police data, detailing all the accidents that had been reported. The speed of vehicles on the road was an existing problem and the applicant could not be asked to rectify it. The access to the site was up to standards and allowed for vehicles to turn around and leave the site in forward gear. 20 flats would not generate a significant amount of additional traffic and it would be considered unreasonable to object on such grounds. In response to a questions from a Committee Member, the Senior Engineer (Development) clarified that it was not thought necessary to provide gridding to keep the access to the site clear during heavy traffic.


In response to a questions the Planning and Development Manager advised that the bins were located in an underground storage area. Officers considered that, while the access to the site was directly opposite another residence, the other residence was elevated enough above the development site for glare from car headlights no the be an issue.


The issue of play area provision in the area was raised. The Planning and Development Manager explained that when considering the type of development proposed play areas were not a key concern.


A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried seven voting in favour, one abstaining from voting.


RESOLVED: (seven voted in favour, one abstained from voting) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the signing of a LEGAL AGREEMENT and 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 relevant policies of the development plan and specifically:

·         a safe access into the site can be provided from Eye Road and sufficient on site car parking was proposed;

·         the development could be accommodated within the site without any unacceptable adverse impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties;

·         the siting, scale and design was considered to be acceptable with no adverse visual impact on the character or appearance of the surrounding area;

·         the development could be accommodated without any significant adverse impact upon the adjacent tree belt; and

·         appropriate noise mitigation could be provided for the flats to ensure acceptable noise levels were achieved. 


The proposal was therefore in accordance with Policies CS2, CS8, CS10, CS13, CS14, CS16, and CS21 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011), and Policies PP01, PP02, PP03, PP04, PP12, PP13, and PP16 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012).


Supporting documents: