Agenda item

The planning application was for the demolition of existing buildings at 490 Oundle Road, Orton Longueville and the erection of a new convenience food store (Class A1), three detached residential properties, car parking, landscaping and associated works.

 

The main considerations set out in the reports were:

·         Principle of development

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

·         Parking, access and highway safety

·         Neighbour amenity

·         Landscape implications

·         Impact upon heritage assets

·         Contamination

·         Ecology

·         Amenity provision for future occupants

·         Environment Capital contribution

·         Developer contributions

 

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:

·         A previous scheme on this site had been submitted and refused. An inspector dismissed the appeal of this decision, as set out in the update report.

·         Issues raised by the inspector in their report were the three separate accesses, the limited space for car movements, overdevelopment, overlooking and the loss of trees under a tree protection order.

·         The application now before the Committee had a smaller site footprint, only two points of access, a reduction in the number of units and greater separation distances.

·         As the inspector was content with the design of the previous submission, it would be difficult to object to this application on design grounds.

·         A condition had been proposed to restrict deliveries on site. It was proposed that heavy goods vehicles would only be permitted to turn left when leaving the site and would only be able to deliver at times avoiding heavy traffic.

 

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

·         Local views had been sought on this matter and the convenience store was generally opposed in its proposed form, though the housing was not opposed.

·         Concern was raised about the additional traffic which would result.

·         It was suggested that there was insufficient space for delivery vehicles on the site.

·         Oundle Road was a busy road and conditions would be adequate in mitigating the impact of large vehicles nearby the local school.

·         It was considered that the dwellings proposed still constituted overdevelopment and were out of keeping with the surrounding area. It was believed that occupiers of neighbouring properties would suffer from overlooking.

·         It was acknowledged that the site had established use as a garage, which could generate significant amounts of traffic.

 

Councillor Ian Allin, Parish Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Car parking was considered to be a serious problem. It was a concern that the proposed dwellings only provided sufficient space for one car. One garage space and a space in front of the garage was not practical.

·         It was suggested that reduction in the number of dwellings on the site was the best answer.

 

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

·         Mr Slater was representing Mr Vitas of 488 Oundle Road.

·         It was accepted that the site would and should be developed. However, issues were raised relating to the amenity and privacy of neighbouring residents.

·         It was believed that the proximity of the design would result in overdevelopment and an increase in noise pollution.

·         The distance between plot three and the existing dwelling was less than five metres. It was thought this would be relatively easy to re-design.

 

Councillor Sylvester declared an interest in this item, as an elected Member of Central England Co-op Council, and withdrew from the Committee.

 

Giles Walter, Applicant, and Paresh Pancholi, Co-op, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Mr Pancholi explained that the site would house a small convenience store.

·         The work ethos of the Co-op involved serving communities through social and commercial means. It was intended for the store to contribute to the long term good health of the area through sustainable means.

·         Conditions in relation to transport and deliveries would be straightforward to adhere to, as the Co-op used its own vehicles for deliveries and could control the type of vehicle use. It would be able to ensure that only light goods vehicles were used outside of the restrictions proposed. The restriction in hours of delivery only applied to heavy goods vehicles.

·         Giles Walter advised that the site had been vacant for approximately 11 years.

·         The applicant had worked hard to address the issues raised following the previous application being refused.

·         The number of dwellings on site had been reduced and the siting of each dwelling had been examined.

·         It was not proposed to retain all the beech trees on site.

·         The proposal would bring a redundant site back into use.

·         The applicant was previously unaware of any concerns from neighbours regarding overlooking or loss of privacy.

·         It was noted that the officers were content with the proposal to have one garage and one parking space per dwelling. There were to be two visitor spaces on the site.

 

The Committee appreciated that the application site was in need of development and that the Highways Authority had not raised any objection to the proposals. Concern was still raised, however, over the issue of resident parking and overlooking nature of the part of the development.

 

The Head of Development and Construction advised that within the inspectors report concern was only raised about the number of access points. As this had now decreased it would be difficult to refuse on such grounds. The issue of overlooking on 488 Oundle Road was not raised by the inspector, there was no explicit reference to whether the inspector was content with the proposal or not. It was advised that, if granted, an additional condition would need to be added in regarding the opening times of the store; 7am to 10pm were suggested.

 

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that the Director of Growth and Regeneration be granted authority to grant planning permission, as per officer recommendation subject to an acceptable solution to the overlooking first floor window, the provision of an additional visitor car parking space, and an additional condition restricting the store opening hours. It was stated that within the consultation process, only reasonable objections in relation to the window would be considered. The motion was carried five voting in favour, one voting against and one abstention.

 

RESOLVED: (5 voted in favour, 1 voted against, 1 abstained from voting) that the Director of Growth and Regeneration be granted authority to GRANT planning permission subject to:

 

i)              The conditions set out in the report;

ii)             The additional condition ‘Opening hours for customers to be restricted to 7am to 10pm’;

iii)            An acceptable amended plan being received (neighbour to be consulted) which addressed overlooking from the first floor front bedroom window (closest to the site boundary); and

iv)           An acceptable amended plan being received which provided for one additional visitor parking space.

 

If the overlooking issue cannot be addressed then the application shall be refused on the grounds of overlooking. If the additional car parking space cannot be reasonably accommodated then its absence will not be an additional reason for refusal.

 

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:

?       there was an established commercial use on the site and therefore the development of a small-scale retail unit is considered acceptable in principle, in accordance with Policy CS15 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011);

?       given the location of the application site within a predominantly residential area which was well-served by existing services and facilities, the principle of residential development is acceptable, in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011);

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

?       adequate and safe parking, access and turning can be provided to/within the site so as to not result in any unacceptable impact upon the safety of the public highway and highway users, 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 revised proposal would, on balance, not result in any unacceptable level of harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupants, in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP3 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

?       the proposal would retain trees which were of key landscape value to the visual amenity of the locality, in accordance with Policy PP16 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

?       the proposal would not result in any unacceptable impact to heritage assets, in accordance with Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, paragraphs 128 and 131 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);

?       contamination present within the site would be adequately addressed so as to not pose a risk to human health, in accordance with paragraph 121 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policy PP20 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

?       the proposal would not result in any unacceptable impact to ecology or biodiversity within the site, in accordance with paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policy CS21 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policies PP16 and PP19 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

?       on balance, the proposed dwellings would provide an acceptable level of amenity for future occupants, in accordance with Policy PP4 Planning Policies DPD (2012); and

?       there was no requirement for a financial contribution towards infrastructure demands generated by the development, in accordance with the National Online Planning Guidance and the Peterborough Planning Obligations Implementation Scheme SPD (2010).