Agenda item

The planning application was for the erection of a two bed dwelling and associated parking on the land to the rear of 26 to 30 Vergette Street, Eastfield. The application was part retrospective.

The main considerations were:

·         The principle of the proposed dwelling

·         The impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the immediate locality

·         Highway safety implications

·         The impact of the proposals upon the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings

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:

·         A previous incarnation of the application, for two flats over three floors, had been refused on the grounds of design, access, highways and neighbour amenity.

·         The proposal now before Committee included windows, sills and brickworks that tied in with the surrounding area. The development also provided nine car parking spaces.

·         The site had approved planning permission for three car parking spaces off the street, which required cars to reverse directly into the road. It was considered that the proposed access would be an improvement on this situation and, as such, a five metre wide access was believed to be sufficient.

·         Highways were concerned about visibility surrounding the site access and had put forward several conditions in the update report. Officers were happy to include these conditions in the recommendation.

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

·         The site in question was previously a garage and garden space. There was no other open space on the street.

·         The parking provided would be insufficient for existing properties.

·         Large trees had already been removed from the site.

·         The proposal would have been classed as a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) if it had not been restricted to two stories.

·         The surrounding area was largely rented with prevalent anti-social behaviour and recent violence.

·         The road was one of the narrowest in the Peterborough district.

·         Many residents objected, as did the MP. Councillor Peach was sure that the police and fire departments had concerns too.

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

·         The proposal before Committee was vastly different to the application previously refused.

·         The development would provide for a modest family home and was a sensitive and consistent in-fill.

·         A single house would complement the surrounding area and would provide off street parking. The development did not constitute an HMO.

·         The upgrades proposed for the car park would reduce noise and allow cars to leave the site in forward gear.

·         Residents had spoken to Councillor Shearman is support of the application, however questioned whether conditions could be added in relation to ensuring residents used the rear car park and not an on street permit, and whether it was possible to restrict the alteration of the property into two flats.

John Dickie, Agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·          A highways audit had been undertaken on the proposal site. The development would remove on street parking and improve the situation of cars reversing onto the road. As such the highway audit concluded that the proposal would improve on the current situation.

·         The substandard residential amenity problems identified within the previous application had been addressed.

·         The reference made to the removal of trees from the site had occurred before the applicant owned it.

·         The objections raised by the MP with regard to the proposal being an HMO and lacking in aesthetic value were incorrect. The proposal was not an HMO and had been simply and carefully designed to fit in with the local vernacular.

·         Mr Dickie was not familiar with any police concerns regarding the site.

The Head of Development and Construction advised that the proposal was not a HMO as defined within planning. The change of use of a property to a small scale HMO (a single property housing up to sic unrelated individuals) was included within permitted development rights. The Committee had the power to remove this permitted development right through condition and require any change of use to be applied for.

Conditions could not be added in relation to use of the car park, as this would be unenforceable. If the development were to be changed into two flats, this would require separate planning permission.

The Committee discussed the local opinion of the development and it was clarified that no letters of support had been received, several comments had indicated that the proposal was an improvement on previous schemes. The Committee raised concerns in relation to the parking space adjacent to the site access and whether this could be decreased to one space instead of two. The Head of Development and Construction advised that the applicant could be requested to commence a traffic regulation order and meet the costs involved.

Discussion was had regarding the in-filling nature of the development and whether the proposal would improve the street scene or remove necessary open space.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation, with the addition of the conditions recommended by Highways, the removal of the permitted development rights for change of use to a small scale House of Multiple Occupation and to encourage the applicant to apply for a traffic regulation order. The motion was carried, nine voting in favour and one voting against.

RESOLVED: (nine voted in favour, one voted against) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the reports, with the addition of the conditions recommended by Highways, the removal of the permitted development rights for change of use to a small scale House of Multiple Occupation and to encourage the applicant to apply for a traffic regulation order.

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:

-       The design of the dwelling had taken into account the local vernacular and would have a positive impact upon the character and appearance of the immediate residential area in accordance with policy PP2 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD.

-       The care park would result in less cars having to park within the public highway to the benefit of the residents of the locality in accordance with policy PP12 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD.

-       The access to Bedford Street was considered to acceptable due to the expected low vehicle speeds of vehicles exiting the car park and the pedestrian to vehicles splays that could be met in full, in accordance with policy PP12 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD. It was also considered to be an improvement on the previous parking arrangements.

-       The outdoor amenity to be provided for the occupiers of nos. 24 – 26A Vergette Street were an improvement to the very small provisions at present in accordance with policy PP4 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD.

-       The rear garden proposed for the new dwelling and that to be retained for the existing dwelling at no. 30 Vergette Street were adequate in accordance with policy PP4 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD.