Agenda item

The planning application was for the demolition of the existing garage and outbuilding at 21 Castle End Road, Maxey, and the construction of three detached dwellings and garages.

The main considerations set out in the reports were:

·         Principle of development

·         Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

·         Neighbouring Amenity

·         Highway Implications

·         Residential Amenity

·         Landscape Implications

·         Ecology

·         Archaeology

·         Food Risk

·         S106

·         Environment Capital

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to conditions set out in the report.

The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The proposed access to the development was pre-existing.

·         Although the site was within a conservation area it was considered by officers that the development would improve the view at the side elevation.

·         Within the context of the site’s pervious use as a coal yard the proposals were considered to be acceptable.

·         The design avoided window placement which were overlooking on neighbouring dwellings.

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

·         The local residents were not in objection to development on this site in principle, however did not feel the proposal put forward was appropriate for the area.

·         The Highways Authority had recommended refusal for this application.

·         The neighbouring residents, as a result of the design of the proposals, would experience a loss of privacy.

·         There were concerns regarding overdevelopment, the safety of the second driveway and the impact the proposal would have on the conservation area.

·         It was considered that there was an issue regarding overlooking windows that could be easily overcome with a more appropriate design, in order to maintain privacy.

·         The proposals were thought to be contrary to the Maxey Conservation Area plan. Within the plan there was a presumption against tandem development and subdivision.

·         There were insufficient visibility splays within the proposed second driveway. The comparison made by the applicant to other driveways in the area were false.

David Dixon addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Mr Dixon was representing a number of local residents who believed that a better thought out and more in keeping development was needed for the application site.

·         There was an established presumption against tandem development as per the Maxey appraisal in 2007.

·         It was believed that the proposal would have a negative effect on neighbour amenity. An increase in the number of vehicle movements on the site would create more noise.

·         The proposed driveways were near to neighbouring bedrooms, which was considered to be an unnecessary aspect of the design.

·         It was emphasised that objections had been raised by the Highways Authority.

·         It was suggested that the application would represent overdevelopment of a small site.

The Committee discussed a number of points including what was considered to be a disregard for the village plan and the objection raised by the Highways Authority. The Committee suggested that a development on the site in question should be in keeping with the local character.

The Head of Development and Construction advised that officers had considered that, on balance, it was no reason to recommend refusal for this application on the basis of lack of visibility splays, as there was only very light resulting traffic expected.

The Principal Engineer (Highway Control) advised that the visibility splays could be achieved if all the land surrounding the road was considered, however in the Highways Authority representation only the land within the application site could be taken into account.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be refused, contrary to officer recommendation for the reasons that the proposals were situated in a conservation area, there was tandem development and subdivision proposed, overdevelopment, impact on residential amenity and highway safety. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is REFUSED for the reasons set out below.

Reasons for the decision

·         The application site fell within a Conservation Area. The main form of development in this part of the Conservation Area is street frontage plots. Whilst part of the site was occupied many years ago by a coal yard the remainder was residential curtilage. Consequently the development was tandem and backland in nature. The proposal was therefore out of keeping with the character of the Conservation Area and detrimental to it. The development was therefore contrary to Policy CS16 and CS17 of the Peterborough Core Strategy (February 2011) and Policy PP3 and PP17 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (December 2012) and para 61 (see also para 64) and 133 of the NPPF and draft Maxey Conservation Area Appraisal (2007).

·         Plot 1 in the proposal was in a location which represented the subdivision of the existing site frontage and the design of the dwelling had a wide plan form which would be detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area. The proposal was therefore out of keeping with the character of the Conservation Area and detrimental to it. The development was therefore contrary to Policy CS16 and CS17 of the Peterborough Core Strategy (February 2011) and Policy PP3 and PP17 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (December 2012) and para 61 (see also para 64) and 133 of the NPPF and the draft Maxey Conservation Area Appraisal (2007).

·         The layout of the development was such that it was of cramped appearance in relation to the built form of the locality and given the resultant over development of the site, there was a detrimental impact on the adjoining existing residents by way of loss of privacy and it having an overbearing impact on their outlook. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy PP3 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (December 2012).

·         The proposed new access which was to serve the existing house and two of the new dwellings, was unsafe as the vehicle to pedestrian visibility splays are shown to be wholly contained within the highway verge when they should be contain within the application site. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy PP12 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (December 2012)