Agenda item

The planning applications were for and extension at Guthrie House, Rightwell, East Bretton, Peterborough to create 13 new flats (14/01791/FUL) and the alterations to elevations of existing two story blocks of flats at Guthrie House, Rightwell, East Bretton, Peterborough, and the creation of a lobby (14/02078/FUL).

 

The main considerations set out in the reports were:

·         Principle of development

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

·         Landscape implications

·         Parking, access and highway implications

·         Neighbour amenity

·         Amenity provision for future occupants

·         Developer contributions

·         Environment Capital

·         The impact of the proposal on the character of the area

·         The impact of the proposal on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings

 

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permissions be granted subject to, in relation to application 14/01791/FUL, the signing of a legal agreement, and the conditions set out in the respective reports.

 

The Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the applications and raised the following key points:

·         The existing blocks were undergoing conversion to residential flats under the Prior Approval process.

·         The proposals were not considered to have an adverse impact on the character of the streetscene, even though the proposed materials would be slightly different from those used in the existing buildings.

·         It was in line with Council policy to encourage residential development within district centres, as sustainable locations.

·         Concern had been raised in relation to the size of the proposal. It was considered by officers that the proposal fitted in with the other buildings in the locality and sufficient separation distances would be in place.

·         16 category A and B trees were to be removed within the development. It was considered that as a gap in the tree cover already existing and there was sufficient number of trees in the surrounding area the landscaping of the proposal was acceptable.

·         The car parking provided in the proposal adhered to Council policy. It was believed that as the site was within a district centre, in a sustainable location and with parking available nearby in public car parks, visitor parking was not required.

·         Objections had been raised in relation to expected increases in traffic from the site. It was considered that the proposal would not present an unacceptable increase in traffic given the original office use.

·         A pedestrian crossing existed further along the road from the development site. As such, no additional crossing point was believed to be necessary.

 

Councillor David Neville, Bretton Parish Councillor, and Councillor Herdman, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         It was suggested that the height and position of the proposal failed to respect the established character of the area.

·         The loss of trees would cause the development to be unduly dominant.

·         Pedestrian crossing on the road was already thought to be difficult and dangerous. It was believed that the development would exacerbate this.

·         Any residential development should be within the existing building block. Any extension was not necessary.

·         The development would front onto the footpath and have a significant impact on its users.

·         It was suggested that objection had not been raised by many residents of the area as the full impact of the proposal was not appreciated.

·         Several car parks were available for short term use in the area, however these were over 200 yards away from the development site.

·         Concern was raised about the safety of the area during the day, if no residents were at home.

 

Mr Andrew Winterton, Bretton Green Ltd, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The building had been empty for several years.

·         The development site was in a sustainable location, close to public transport and lightly used roads.

·         There was a demand for residential housing nationally and locally.

·         Safety was not believed to be an issue within the proposal.

·         The car parking proposals adhered to Council policy, it was believed that the site would attract less vehicle movements than its previous use. It was considered that sufficient pedestrian crossing points were already in place.

·         The trees on the opposite site of the access would be left, as would the trees on the embankment. It was believed that this would maintain the woodland feel of the area.

·         The applicant had agreed to make all the relevant Section 106 Agreement contributions.

·         It was felt that the proposal was in keeping with the surrounding area and not overbearing. Many of the surrounding buildings of a similar size to the proposed development.

·         A waste management plan could be conditioned. It was the preference of the applicant to develop and above ground scheme.

 

The Committee believed that the building was of an acceptable design and that it fit in well with the character of the surrounding area. It was noted that there was little objection from surrounding residents.

 

In response to questions the Principal Development Management Officer advised that proposed condition 11 required the submission and approval of bin details, albeit that underground bins couldn’t be insisted upon. The development provided one parking space for each one bedroom flat which accorded with policy.

 

Concerns were raised relating to the proposed parking arrangements and the Principal Engineer (Highway Control) clarified that as the development was situated near a district centre, this was considered sufficient for any visitor parking.

 

14/01791/FUL

 

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

 

RESOLVED: (nine 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 report.

 

Reasons for the decision

 

Subject to the imposition of the conditions set out in the report, 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 application site was located within the Bretton District Centre and the surrounding area of Bretton Green was currently undergoing conversion to residential units accordingly. The proposal would represent further residential development within the District Centre which was considered acceptable in principle, in accordance with paragraph 23 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policy CS2 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011);

-     the proposal would not result in any unacceptable impact upon the character, appearance or visual amenity of the surrounding area, in accordance with Police CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP2 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

-     it was considered that on balance, any harm resulting from the loss of trees and landscape features within the application site was outweighed by the benefit arising from additional residential units within the District Centre;

-     there was adequate space within the curtilage of the site to provide sufficient parking to meet the needs of the development and no unacceptable impact to the public highway network shall result, in accordance with Policy CS14 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policies PP12 and PP13 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

-     the proposal would not result in any unacceptable impact of neighbouring occupants, in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP3 of the Peterborough Planning Policies PDP (2012);

-     on balance, the proposal would provide an acceptable level of amenity for further occupants, in accordance with Policy PP4 of the Peterborough Planning Policies (2012); and

-     a financial contribution could be secured to meet the infrastructure needs arising from the proposed development, in accordance with Policies CS12 and CS13 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and the Peterborough Planning Obligations Implementation Scheme SPD (2010).

 

       14/02078/FUL

 

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

 

RESOLVED: (nine in favour, one abstained from voting) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

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 proposal would not unacceptably harm the character of the area or the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings; in accordance with policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy (DPD) 2011 and policies PP2 and PP3 of the Peterborough Planning Policies (DPD) 2012.