Peterborough City Council

Home | On-Line Services | Site Map | Adv. Search | Help | Contact Us | News | Accessibility | Return to graphics mode
A-Z of Services | About Peterborough | Advice & benefits | Business | Community & living | Council & democracy | Education & learning | Environment & planning | Health & social care | Housing | Jobs and careers | Leisure & culture | Streets & transport
 
 
Calendar
Committees
Decisions
Forward plans
Library
Meetings
Outside Bodies
Parish Councils
Search documents
Statistics
Subscribe to updates
What's new
Your Councillors
Your MEPs
Your MPs
 

Agenda item

15/01198/FUL - 500 Oundle Road, Orton Longueville, Peterborough, PE2 7DF

Minutes:

Councillor North and Councillor Okonkowski left the Committee at this point.

 

The planning application was for the change of use of 500 Oundle Road, Orton Longueville, Peterborough, from C3(a) (dwellinghouse) to C2 (residential institution).

 

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report. The Development Management Manager provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report.

 

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

·         The concerns in relation to this particular application were from those residents particularly effected.

·         It was anticipated that there would be noise from the site which would disturb residents. Some residents also feared that there would be instances of crime and disorder following the development.

·         Concern was raised over the number of carers on site at any one time and whether they would be suitably qualified.

·         It was noted that residents were aware of previous proposals to use the site as care for autistic individuals. Residents had no objection to this.

 

The Development Management Manager advised that Committee were required to consider the use of the site and not those who would receive care. The qualifications of those employed at the site were not planning matters, though, for information, any manager of such a site was required by regulation to be qualified.

 

Christine Kirby, CPK Architect, and Colins Usada, Semi Independent House, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The applicant had eight years’ experience in this area. The development would care for boys between the 10 and 16 years of age, and would be secure but close to a natural home.

·         The site would be supervised at all times, with a typical one on one staff to resident ratio. This ratio, at its lowest, would be one to five.

·         A similar sites was active in Whittlesey, which was considered effective and had improved the attitudes of neighbours.

·         It was anticipated that there would be low anti-social behaviour and instances of crime, due to the high staff levels.

·         It was proposed to widen the entrance to allow for suitable visibility splays.

·         Staff would be on site at all times, including during school hours.

 

The Committee were happy with the proposals and it was considered that there were no reasons to refuse the development. Members of the Committee noted that, as Corporate Parents, they were pleased to see such applications being submitted.

 

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried unanimously.

 

RESOLVED: (unanimous) 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 proposed use, external changes and parking provision would not result in an adverse impact on the visual amenity or character of the area, nor result in an increase in crime, and the proposal accords with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2012) and PP2 of the Peterborough Policies DPD (2012);

·         the proposed use would not unacceptably harm the amenity of adjoining neighbours by reason of noise or disruption, and therefore accords with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2012) and PP3 of the Peterborough Policies DPD (2012); and

·         the proposal would provide satisfactory car and cycle parking to serve the use, as well as a satisfactory access; therefore the proposal would not constitute an adverse highway safety hazard and would accord with Policies PP12 and PP13 of the Peterborough Policies DPD (2012).

 

Supporting documents:

 

 

 
Peterborough City Council. Town Hall, Bridge Street, Peterborough, PE1 1HF - (01733) 747474
 
Return to graphics mode