Agenda item

Councillor Serluca left the meeting.

 

The planning application was for the erection of up to nine dwellings at the rear of 38 Station Road, Thorney, Peterborough.

 

The main considerations set out in the report were:

·         Principle of development, including flood risk

·         Density and layout

·         Access and highway implications

·         Impact upon the setting of heritage assets and archaeology

·         Neighbour amenity

·         Amenity provision for future occupants

·         Tree and landscape implications

·         Drainage

·         Developer contributions

 

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

 

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

·         The existing vehicular access to the site was proposed to be maintained, which was bounded by properties owned by the applicant.

·         The land to the north of the application site had been granted outline permission for residential dwellings.

·         The application site was designated as flood zone 3A, which was the highest risk level. As residential housing was classed as ‘vulnerable’ use, the sequential test had to be applied. The results of the test undertaken by the agent deemed the location to pass this test. Officers had undertaken their own sequential test, taking into account a wider range of sites, including those that had been previously rejected by the Council in the allocation process. Following this, the application was considered to fail the sequential test.

·         It was considered that up to nine dwellings could be constructed on the site, which would fit in with the surrounding area and have no detrimental impact.

·         No objections had been raised from the North Level Internal Drainage Board (NLIDB), the Environmental Agency (EA), or the Highway Authority.

·         Conditions had been recommended by the by Tree Officers and the Drainage Team.

·         Included in the update report was a letter from the applicant’s agent, disputing the interpretation by officers of the sequential test. Also included was submission of support for the application from Ward Councillor Sanders.

 

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

·         The Councillor agreed with the comments expressed in the report by the Parish Council and supported the application.

·         Significant investment had been made into the flood barriers at Thorney. It was considered unlikely that the site would flood.

·         The land adjacent to the proposal site had been approved by the Committee for development. The same flood risks applied to that land as to the application site.

·         The site had never been known to flood.

 

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

·         On all other matters the proposal was considered acceptable. The only reason given to refuse the application was flooding.

·         No objections had been raised by internal or external consultees.

·         A flood risk assessment had been undertaken and approved by the EA and the NLIDB.

·         Appropriate measures could be put in place to mitigate the risk of flooding, which would only be presented by River Welland, or significant rainfall.

·         There was confusion over how to correctly apply the sequential test. It was suggested that the criteria applied for different applications varied hugely. Mr Dickie was confident that this application passed the sequential test.

·         The development had attracted significant local support.

·         It was the intention of the applicant to leave the trees at the periphery and the front of the site. The large collection of trees beyond the plot would remain.

·         The number of dwellings had been considered appropriate and it was not believed that the proposal would take away the amenity from the existing properties to the front of the site.

 

Councillor Hiller declared that he was a member of the NLIDB, though he had not been involved in any previous discussion in relation to this application.

 

The Committee considered the recommendation from officers and the local knowledge presented by the speakers. The Committee took note of the limited history of flooding on the site and the various preventative barriers that were now in place to avoid such issues. It was considered that, on balance, the application was acceptable.

 

The Development Management Manager advised that officers would meet with the agent to discuss the scope of the sequential test in relation to any future applications.

 

The Development Management Manager further set out various conditions that would be appropriate, if the Committee were minded to approve the application. These included conditions relating to a noise assessment, access arrangements, tree protection, archaeology, materials and a flood risk assessment.

 

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, contrary to officer recommendation, subject to relevant conditions as set out by officers. The motion was carried seven voting in favour, and two voting against.

 

RESOLVED: (seven voted in favour, two voted against) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

 

C 1      Approval of details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called 'the reserved matters') shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

           

            Reason: To ensure that the development meets the policy standards required by the development plan and any other material considerations including national and local policy guidance.

 

C 2      Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 1 above, relating to the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority and shall be carried out as approved.

           

            Reason: To ensure that the development meets the policy standards required by the development plan and any other material considerations including national and local policy guidance.

 

C 3      Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

           

            Reason: In accordance with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

C 4      The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

           

            Reason: In accordance with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

C 5      The plans and particulars submitted under Condition 2 above shall include a noise assessment (based upon background noise levels) and scheme of noise mitigation (if required) based upon the submitted assessment and the details of the proposal.  Any scheme of noise mitigation that is approved shall be carried out prior to first occupation of any dwelling. 

           

            Reason:  To ensure an acceptable level of amenity is afforded to future occupants, in accordance with Policy PP4 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012).

 

C 6      The plans and particulars submitted under Condition 2 above shall include full details of the proposed Sustainable Drainage Scheme which shall itself include full calculations and the results of any necessary investigations including an assessment of ground conditions. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Sustainable Drainage Scheme. 

           

            Reason:  To ensure that the development does not result in increased flood risk elsewhere, in accordance with Policy CS22 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011).

 

C 7      The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted document 'Flood Risk Assessment for Residential Development at Station Road, Thorney, Peterborough' (dated November 2014) and the following specific mitigation measures detailed therein:

           

            a) Finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 1.0 metre above Ordnance Datum (AOD);

            b) The dwellings and any ancillary buildings shall include flood resilient/ resistant techniques; and

            c) Future occupants of the dwellings shall be advised to sign up to flood warnings direct.

           

            The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to first occupation of each dwellinghouse to which they relate. 

           

            Reason:  To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants, in accordance with Policy CS22 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011). 

 

C 8      The plans and particulars relating to access submitted under Condition 2 above shall include the following:

           

            a) Vehicle-to-pedestrian visibility splays measuring 2 metres x 2 metres on either side of the access;

            b) Vehicle-to-vehicle visibility splays measuring 2.4 metres by 47 metres on either side of the access;

            c) An access driveway of no less than 5.5 metres in width; and

            d) Tracking diagrams to demonstrate that a refuse collection vehicle can turn within the site in order to enter and leave the site in a forward gear.

           

            The approved access shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and prior to the commencement of development.  Thereafter, the access shall be retained as for the purposes of the access and manoeuvring of vehicles in connection with the development.  The visibility splays shall be maintained clear of any obstruction above a height of 600mm in perpetuity.

           

            Reason:  In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CS14 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP12 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012). 

 

C 9      No development shall take place until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The Construction Management Plan shall include (but not be limited to):

           

            a) hours of construction;

            b) routes for all vehicles delivering materials to the site;

            c) materials storage within the site;

            d) the parking of all contractors vehicles clear of the public highway;

            e) wheel washing facilities for all vehicles exiting the site; and

            f) measures to control the emission of dust from the site.

           

            Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 

           

            Reason:  In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of neighbouring occupants, in accordance with Policies CS14 and CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policies PP3 and PP12 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012). 

 

C10     The plans and particulars submitted under Condition 2 above shall include a scheme for the landscaping of the site . The scheme shall include the following details:

           

            a) Proposed finished ground and building slab levels;

            b) Planting plans including retained trees, species, numbers, size and density of planting; and

            c) Boundary treatments and areas of hard surfacing.

           

            Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.  The boundary treatments and hard surfacing shall be provided prior to first occupation of the dwelling to which they relate and the planting shall be carried out no later than the first planting season following completion of the development. 

           

            Any trees, shrubs or hedges forming part of the approved landscaping scheme (except those contained in enclosed rear gardens to individual dwellings) that die, are removed or become diseased within five years of the implementation of the landscaping scheme shall be replaced during the next available planting season by the developers, or their successors in title with an equivalent size, number and species to those being replaced. Any replacement trees, shrubs or hedgerows dying within five years of planting shall themselves be replaced with an equivalent size, number and species.

           

            Reason: In the interests of the visual appearance of the development and the enhancement of biodiversity, in accordance with Policies CS16 and CS21 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policies PP2 and PP16 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012).

 

C11     The plans and particulars submitted under Condition 2 above shall include a concise Site Specific Method Statement and/or Finalised Tree Protection Plan to BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design demolition and construction - Recommendations methodology.  The Statement and/or Plan shall identify (but not exclusively) the following:

           

            - Trees to be retained and those to be removed clearly identified;

            - Location and specification of protective tree measures in addition to appropriate ground protection (creating construction corridors where appropriate) within the Root Protection Areas of all retained trees within the application site;

            - Details of all Root Protection Area infringement during the construction and landscaping phases with details on how the impact will be reduced;

            - Details of facilitation pruning;

            - Location of accesses, material storage, site office, mixing of cement, welfare facilities etc;

            - Specification of landscaping prescriptions (including fencing/walls and changes in soil level) within the Root Protection Area of retained trees.

           

            The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and/or plans and the tree protection shall be erected according to the

            specification and locations shown on the agreed Finalised Tree Protection Plan. Signs will be placed on the tree protection emphasising that it is not to be moved, nor the area entered into until the end of development without written permission from the Local Planning Authority's Tree Officer.

           

            Reason: In order to protect and safeguard the amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policies PP2 and PP16 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012).

 

C12     No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological work, including a Written Scheme of Investigation, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved scheme shall be implemented in full (including any post development requirements e.g. archiving and submission of final reports) prior to the commencement of any development. 

           

            Reason: To secure the obligation on the planning applicant or developer to mitigate the impact of their scheme on the historic environment when preservation in situ is not possible, in accordance with paragraphs 128 and 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policy CS17 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP17 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012).

 

C13     No development shall take place until details of the following materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

           

            - Walling and roofing materials (samples to be provided);

            - Windows and doors including garage doors;

            - Rainwater goods;

            - Canopies, brise-soleil etc (if necessary); and

            - Any externally visible sustainable technologies, vents, flues etc.

           

            The details submitted for approval shall include the name of the manufacturer, the product type, colour (using BS4800) and reference number. The development shall not be carried out except in accordance with the approved details.

           

            Reason: For the Local Planning Authority to ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP2 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012).

 

C14     The development hereby approved shall be constructed so that it achieves at least a 10% improvement on the Target Emission Rates set by the Building Regulations at the time of Building Regulations being approved for the development.

           

            Reason: To accord with Policy CS10 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011).

 

C15     If, during development, contamination not previously considered is identified, then the Local Planning Authority shall be notified immediately and no further work shall be carried out until a method statement detailing a scheme for dealing with the suspect contamination has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall thereafter not be carried out except in complete accordance with the approved scheme.

           

            Reason: To ensure all contamination within the site is dealt with in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular paragraphs 120 and 121 and Policy PP20 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012).

 

C16     The combined gross floor space of the development hereby permitted shall not exceed 1,000 square metres.

           

            Reason: To ensure that the development accordance with the National Online Planning Guidance in respect of small-scale residential developments and their associated financial contributions towards infrastructure demands.

 

Reasons for the decision

 

The proposed outline development was considered acceptable in all matters, with the exception of the flood risks present at the site. It was considered that, on balance, the risk of flooding was not significant and the proposal was acceptable.