Public Document Pack AB

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE

TUESDAY 9 JULY 2013 1.30 PM

Bourges/Viersen Rooms - Town Hall

AGENDA Page No

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Declarations of Interest

At this point Members must declare whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest, or other interest, in any of the items on the agenda, unless it is already entered in the register of members’ interests or is a “pending notification “ that has been disclosed to the Solicitor to the Council. Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

3. Members' Declaration of intention to make representations as Ward Councillor

4. Minutes of the Meetings held on:

4.1 11 June 2013 5 - 16

4.2 17 June 2013 17 - 20

5. Development Control and Enforcement Matters

5.1 13/00606/HHFUL - 13 Nottingham Way, Dogsthorpe, 21 - 28 Peterborough, PE1 4NF

5.2 13/00652/OUT - 95 Thorpe Road, Peterborough, PE3 6JQ 29 - 48

5.3 13/00285/OUT - Land off Coriander Drive, Hampton Vale, 49 - 70 Peterborough

There is an induction hearing loop system available in all meeting rooms. Some of the systems are infra-red operated, if you wish to use this system then please contact Gemma George on 01733 452268 as soon as possible.

5.4 13/00432/WCMM - Cooks Hole, Leicester Road, Thornhaugh, 71 - 86 Peterborough

5.5 13/00434/WCMM - Cooks Hole, Leicester Road, Thornhaugh, 87 - 100 Peterborough

5.6 13/00608/FUL - 1A Peterborough Road, Crowland, 101 - 132 Peterborough, PE6 0AD

5.7 13/00717/FUL - Land to the West of McDonalds, Crowland 133 - 142 Road, Eye, Peterborough

Committee Members:

Councillors: Serluca (Chairman), Harper (Vice Chairman), Hiller, North, Simons, Todd, Shabbir, Sylvester, Lane and Harrington

Substitutes: Councillors: Kreling, Martin and Ash

Further information about this meeting can be obtained from Gemma George on telephone 01733 452268 or by email – [email protected]

CASE OFFICERS:

Planning and Development Team: Nicholas Harding, Lee Collins, Andrew Cundy, Paul Smith, Mike Roberts, Louise Lewis, Janet Maclennan, Astrid Hawley, David Jolley, Louise Lovegrove, Vicky Hurrell, Amanda McSherry, Sam Falco, Matt Thomson, Chris Edwards, Michael Freeman

Minerals and Waste: Theresa Nicholl, Alan Jones

Compliance: Nigel Barnes, Anthony Whittle, Karen Cole, Julie Robshaw

NOTES:

1. Any queries on completeness or accuracy of reports should be raised with the Case Officer or Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering Services as soon as possible.

2. The purpose of location plans is to assist Members in identifying the location of the site. Location plans may not be up-to-date, and may not always show the proposed development.

3. These reports take into account the Council's equal opportunities policy but have no implications for that policy, except where expressly stated.

4. The background papers for planning applications are the application file plus any documents specifically referred to in the report itself.

5. These reports may be updated orally at the meeting if additional relevant information is received after their preparation.

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE HELD AT THE TOWN HALL, PETERBOROUGH ON 11 JUNE 2013

Members Present: Councillors Serluca (Chairman), Harper (Vice Chairman), Hiller, North, Todd, Sylvester, Shabbir, Lane and Ash

Officers Present: Nick Harding, Group Manager Development Management Carrie Denness, Senior Solicitor Sarah Hann, Acting Senior Engineer (Development) Vicky Hurrell, Principal Development Management Officer Emma Naylor, Strategic Planning Officer Gemma Wildman, Principal Strategic Planning Officer Karen S Dunleavy, Governance Officer

1. Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Simons.

2. Declarations of Interests

There were no declarations of interest.

3. Minutes of the Meeting held on 23 April 2013

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 April 2013 were approved as a true and accurate record.

4. Development Control and Enforcement Matters

4.1 13/00347/HHFUL - Double storey side, single storey side and front porch - 15 Kirby Walk, Netherton, Peterborough, PE3 9UD

The application site was a detached dwelling of standard brick and tile construction located at the end of a pedestrian walk, with no through routes. The application site lay on a large plot with an open front garden and fully enclosed rear garden. The property had been previously extended with a single storey extension to the rear. Parking for the property was to the rear, accessed via a separate access.

There were three trees in close proximity to the dwelling. Two trees were located within the front garden, a conifer and maple, the latter benefits from a tree protection order. The crown of a large sycamore tree overhung the application site. None of the trees were likely to be affected by the proposals.

The dominant character of the area was of plain, brick and tile, semi detached dwellings with small enclosed porches and render bands at ground floor level, front to back dual pitch roofs and brick piers at the extremities of the frontage. The application site was mirrored by a single identical property directly opposite the

3 application site.

Permission was sought for:

• The erection of a single storey side extension measuring 1.97 metres wide by 3.6 metres deep; • A front porch measuring 2.7 metres wide by 1.69 metres deep; and • A 4.67 metres wide by 7.3 metre deep two storey side extension, with a dual pitch roof measuring 4.7 metres above ground level at the eaves and 6.6 metres at the apex.

The proposed extensions would increase the number of bedrooms from three to four.

The Group Manager Development Management addressed the Committee and provided an overview of the proposal. The officer recommendation was to refuse the application due to the size of the proposed extension.

A written submission in favour of the application had been submitted by Councillor Arculus, Ward Councillor. The main points contained within the submission included:

• There were no main objections to the application from residents; and • The size difference was not so significant and that other houses in the area could alter or be altered accordingly, which removed the issues of symmetry.

Mr Andy Barker, the Applicant addressed the Committee and responded to questions and comments from Members. In summary the comments and responses included:

• The differences from the previous plans of 600m would take away space between the bed and wardrobe in the master bedroom and it would prove difficult to install a king sized bed; • Land for the extension had been purchased from Horrells farms to avoid building on the south side of the property; • The proposed extension would only be visible by 60 degrees from the footpath and would only be visible to the Postman; • None of the Neighbours were in objection to the proposed extension; • The symmetry of the pathway had already been closed up due to a neighbour’s extension; • Redesign options had been exhausted in order to reduce previous proposals to fit in with Officer’s requirements; • The extra room was needed in order to improve quality of living. The daughter was 15 years of age and was sleeping in a box room. The extension would provide her with a bigger room.

Following questions, Members debated the application further. In summary the points raised had included:

• In general Members felt that there were no issues with the proposal as some of the other houses in the area were also heavily extended;

4 • Extra land had been purchased to extend the property so there was no danger of it dominating the streetscene; • The only concern raised through the Applicant’s proposal was with regard to the access and egress of a neighbour’s garage to ensure that it was not impaired in any way whilst the building was being undertaken; • Concerns were raised that the Planning Inspector felt that the proposed extension was 4.9 metres too wide and that although there was no strong objection to the proposals consideration should be given to implementing conditions regarding the overall size; and • Most of the houses in the area were equal or larger in size than that of others in the street.

The Group Manager Development Management put forward a proposal that if the Committee was minded to refuse the Officer recommendations and approve the application, consideration should be given to introducing the following conditions:

• The materials used for the extension should match the original building; and • An adequate soak away to be installed to manage the water drainage from the extension.

The Senior Solicitor addressed the Committee and advised that further instruction would be issued to address the issue of the access and egress of the neighbour’s garage, which was to be kept clear whilst extension works were being conducted.

A motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application, contrary to officer recommendation, subject to the imposition of relevant conditions. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) to grant the application, as per officer recommendation, subject to the addition of the following conditions and informative:

• The materials used for the extension should match the original building; • As adequate soak away to be installed to manage the water drainage from the extension; and • An informative to be placed concerning the access and egress to the neighbour’s garage.

Reasons for the decision:

The smaller side and porch extension did not impact on the appearance street scene or the neighbour in terms of amenity. Whilst the two storey side extension was large, it had been reduced in size in relation to that refused at appeal and had been stepped back. These changes together with the fact that there were limited street scene views were considered to make the proposal acceptable. The proposal was therefore considered to be in accordance with Policies CS16 of the Adopted Peterborough Core Strategy and Policies PP2 and PP3 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD.

4.2 13/00424/HHFUL - Proposed two storey and single storey extensions - 9 Grafton Avenue, Netherton, Peterborough, PE3 9PD

The application site was a two storey detached dwelling with detached single

5 garage and off street parking for three vehicles. The streetscene was comprised of detached and semi-detached two storey properties with off-street parking.

The Applicant sought consent to erect:

• A single storey extension with a floor area of 5.5 metres (d) x 8.9 metres (w) and proposes to stand at 2.3 metres to eaves and 3.4 metres to ridge. An existing conservatory would be re-used, which had a floor area of 3.5 metres (d) x 3.2 metres (w) and was proposed to stand at 2.3 metres to eaves and 3 metres to ridge. Combined, the single storey rear extension and conservatory would have a total depth of 9 metres; • A two storey rear extension would have a floor area of 3.8 metres x 6.65 metres and was proposed to stand at 4.8 metres to eaves and 6.8 metres to ridge; and • A first floor side extension would have a floor area of 2.2 metres (w) x 4.5 metres (d) and was proposed to stand at 4.9 metres to eaves and 6.6 metres to ridge. Due to officer concerns with this part of the scheme, this element had been removed from the proposal.

The conservatory was constructed out of UPVC; the remaining works would be constructed out of matching materials. First floor side windows were proposed to serve existing bedrooms.

The Committee was advised that a further objection had been received from a neighbour, which had been included within the update report. Key points included:

• The amended scheme did not mitigate impact on No.11; • The proposal would be too close to neighbours, which would result in loss of light, create a shadow and overlook neighbouring properties; • The proposal would be out of keeping (with the street) and would set a precedent in the area; • The mono-pitch roof to the single storey side extension would result in water draining into No. 7 Grafton Avenue and would result in a loss of light to the rear kitchen window and would be out of character with No.7’s flat roof garage; • The first floor side windows would result in loss of privacy; and • The side elevation of the two storey side extension would be visible when using the rear room from No.7.

The officer recommendation was to grant the application subject to relevant conditions and the entering into of a S106 legal agreement.

Mr Robotham, a local resident, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. In summary the concerns highlighted included:

• Neighbouring residents were concerned that the proposal, if approved, would have an overbearing impact on the surrounding properties; • The surrounding green space would be lost; • The proposed extension was large for the existing plot as it would extend by nine metres in length with the bulk of the extension being seven metres in height; • The high walls and would crate a tunnel effect;

6 • Lose of sunlight particularly for No. 7 after midday; and • The three windows, including a bedroom window, would look directly onto the neighbouring property.

Mr Saghir, the Applicant, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the issues highlighted included:

• The proposal had been changed from the initial submission based on what Planning Officers had advised. Following advice the plans for part of the extension was to reduce from a two storey to a single storey building; • The family had just experienced the new arrival of a third child, which had made a total family size of five members; • Mr Saghir’s wife was currently living with her parents and had suffered from medical conditions; and • Mr Saghir was the main carer for his wife and required the extension in order to cope with her needs.

Following the representations, Members debated the application further. In summary the points raised included:

• Although it appeared the extension could cause a loss of light, there were garages either side of the property that would add to the loss of light in neighbouring gardens; • The extension, if approved, may alter the nature of the road and the houses either side of the property; • The Applicant appeared to have worked with the Planning Department in order to find a balance, by moving windows and reducing the height of part of the extension, and had worked towards mitigating the impact of an overbearing extension for the neighbours; • The proposed extension would be located to the rear of the building where there was ample garden space; • Properties within the area had been extended over time and had appeared to be different in length along the street; • The neighbours had been used to having an open aspect from the rear of their properties and in general most people used their garden as an extension to their property; and • Concerns were raised over the mass of the second storey extension located near both garages on either side of the neighbouring properties, however, the single storey extension design was acceptable.

A motion was put forward and seconded to refuse the application, contrary to officer recommendation, under planning policy CS16 as the extension was not felt to be of a high quality design or appropriate to the area, and under PP1, PP2 and PP3.

The motion was defeated by 5 votes against and 4 votes in favour.

A motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application, as per officer recommendation and subject to the imposition of relevant conditions.

RESOLVED: (5 For, 4 Against) to grant the application, as per officer recommendation, subject to:

7 1. The conditions numbered C1 to C4 as detailed in the committee report.

Reasons for the decision:

Subject to the imposition of the 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 design of the extension would not result in an unacceptably adverse impact on the appearance of the dwelling or visual amenity of the streetscene; - The design of the extension would not result in an unacceptably adverse impact on neighbouring amenity and would provide sufficient amenity space and living conditions for future occupiers; and - The proposal would not result in a highway safety hazard and could accommodate sufficient off street parking.

The proposal was in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy (2011), the NPPF (2012) and Policies PP1, PP2, PP3, PP4 and PP13 of the Peterborough Policies DPD (2012).

4.3 13/00530/FUL - Construction of single storey front extension to public house and external alterations to create shop fronts. Change of use of ground floor to form A1 retail and A5 takeaway units, including the installation of extraction equipment. Change of use of existing hotel rooms, construction of first floor side extension, and installation of dormer windows to form three x 2 bed apartments and first floor commercial unit. Construction of second floor extension to side to form 1 x 3 bed and 1 x studio apartments. Change of use of garden area to parking, and reinstatement of parking provision at front - part-retrospective - 85 Mayors Walk, West Town, Peterborough, PE3 6EY

The application site comprised of a two storey semi-detached former public house located within an identified Local Centre. The site occupied a prominent position within the streetscene at the junction of Mayors Walk with Alderman's Drive and Nicholl's Avenue and benefited from a double frontage. The existing building was unique within the locality, with architectural detailing including double storey brick and timber bay windows, projecting gable roofs and stone cills and lintels. Parking was provided within a single storey garage to the rear of the site, adjacent to No. 165 Alderman's Drive.

The application sought planning permission for the following:

• Construction of a single storey front extension and external alterations to create new shop fronts; • Change of use of ground floor to either retail shop (Class A1), professional/financial services (Class A2), restaurant/café (Class A3), retention as a drinking establishment or A5 takeaway unit, including the installation of extraction equipment; • Change of use of existing hotel rooms and construction of a first and second floor side extension, including the installation of dormer windows, to form three no. two-bed apartments, one no. three-bed apartment, one no. studio apartment and commercial unit; and

8 • Change of use of the garden area to provide car parking and reinstatement of parking provision to the front.

The change of use of the ground floor to Classes A1, A2 or A3 did not require the benefit of planning permission (including any potential subdivision to create additional units within these classes).

It should be noted that works had already commenced on site and accordingly, the application was part-retrospective.

This application scheme had been amended following refusal of planning application reference 12/01119/FUL by Members on 19 February 2013. The scheme had been amended following the refusal in the following ways:

• Reduced width, altered elevation and altered fenestration treatment to the eastern elevation along Aldermans Drive and retention of single storey garage drive-through; • Improved shop front design including kick plate and slimline lighting; • Reduction in the number of units by one (from six units to five), thereby reducing the number of proposed bedrooms by two (from 12 bedrooms to 10); and • Introduction of first floor commercial office unit (floor area approximately 38 square metres).

The officer recommendation was to grant the application subject to relevant conditions and the entering into of a S106 legal agreement.

Following a submission from a local resident regarding concerns raised over parking arrangements and light fixings, an additional condition, C10, had been included within the officer recommendations in order to accommodate the lighting concerns.

Following a request to speak, the Committee agreed that Mr Hussain be permitted to provide his representation.

Mr Hussain addressed the Committee and responded to question from Members. In summary the concerns included:

• It was felt that the takeaway may create a noise nuisance; • There would be an increase in parking and traffic volume in the area that would affect local business and residents’ parking; • The takeaway may produce extra litter in the West Town Park especially in the summer months; • There was a primary school located next to the site and there was a concern that school children may be tempted to purchase fast food from the takeaway; and • There had been noise pollution when the site was operating as a public house; however, residents felt that they were not prepared to retain the same level of noise that a takeaway may cause.

Councillor Yasmeen Maqbool, West Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted

9 included:

• Councillors Arculus and Maqbool had visited the site and had been in consultation with Mr Ali and the Planning Department over the development details; • Ward Councillors had received mixed views from residents; • The development was located close to the city centre which was within a growing development area; • The proposed takeaway was to be of a high standard; • There were properties located on Aldermans Drive that appeared to be over developed; • There would not be a substantial impact on traffic volumes; • In general most residents would be in favour if the site was not over developed; • Ward Councillors were working with the Police over traffic incidents in the area; and • The original application was over ambitious, however this application was more in keeping with the original features of the building;

Mr David Turnock, the Applicant, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points included:

• Careful consideration had been given not to over develop the site; • Opening up the ground floor with a variety of shops was intended to enhance the streetscene; • A condition was recommended regarding the floor space of the takeaway within the officer’s report; • The Applicant wanted the option of including a takeaway; • The existing garage access would be retained which lead through the courtyard to the rear; • There were traffic lights near the entrance of the parking area, which seemed to create a calming effect as motorists would wait for vehicles to enter and leave the parking access area; • The parking situation had been addressed and there was a condition stating that a bollard should be installed and a further condition addressed the issue of cars parking on the front of the development; and • The swan shaped lighting was in keeping with the character of the building.

The Group Manager Development Management reiterated that there was no scope to change the hours of operation due to the existing licensing status attached to the site.

The Committee debated the application and raised comments and concerns. In summary the main points highlighted included:

• This application was a vast improvement to the original applications; • The takeaway was the biggest concern with regards to the parking arrangements in front of the building and that there was a risk of dangerous parking; • The rear courtyard parking was an issue in terms of the safety of the access and egress of the site;

10 • Some Members felt that the courtesy of drivers near the access and egress of the site may create a smooth flow of traffic; • Concern over the increased commercial use of the building; • The building was used as a public house and would have created late trading, so there was no difference in it becoming shops or a takeaway; • The condition over signage and lighting would be strong enough to ensure that there was no impact to the residents; • In general Members were in favour of the mix of urban residential with commercial settings and could benefit the area; and • Must ensure condition two in the report was adhered to and would like to see firm sways of casual parking.

The Group Manager Development Management and The Acting Senior Engineer (Development) responded to comments and concerns raised. In summary the comments included:

• The Highways Department had recommended refusal of the application due to inadequate visibility on the access and egress of the parking area; • Highways had requested cycle parking for users; and • There was a good quality shop front proposed and the Planning Department was minded to achieve a good quality lighting scheme.

Following questions and debate, a motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application, as per officer recommendation, subject to the imposition of relevant conditions and an additional condition relating to lighting. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) to grant the application, as per officer recommendation, subject to:

1. The conditions C1 to C9 as detailed in the committee report; 2. An additional condition relating to the provision of details relating to external lighting; and 3. If the S106 had not been completed by 20 June 2013 without good cause, the Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering Services be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reason R1 as detailed in the committee report.

Reasons for the decision:

- The provision of residential units was appropriate and supported the vitality and viability of the identified Local Centre, in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011); - The introduction of a hot food takeaway within the application site would support the vitality and viability of the identified Local Centre and was an appropriate use within the locality, in accordance with Policy CS15 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011); - The proposed extensions, alterations and new shop fronts would not result in any unacceptable harm to the character, appearance or visual amenity of the

11 streetscene, in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policies PP2 and PP11 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012); - The proposal would not result in any unacceptable harm to highway safety, in accordance with Policy CS14 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP12 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012); - The proposal would not result in any unacceptable impact upon 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 provide an adequate level of amenity for future occupants, in accordance with Policy PP4 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012); and - The development had made a financial contribution towards the infrastructure demands generated, in accordance with Policies CS12 and CS13 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011).

The meeting was adjourned for ten minutes.

5. Twelve Month Appeal Performance

The Group Manager Development Management introduced a report outlining the twelve month appeal performance for planning matters. It was considered useful for the Committee to look at the Planning Service’s performance at appeals and to identify if there were any lessons to be learnt in terms of appeal outcomes. The Committee was advised that the report would help to inform future decisions and may potentially reduce costs in the future.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the past performance and outcomes.

6. Neighbourhood Planning – Application to Designate Neighbourhood Areas (Deeping Gate Parish Council; Glinton Parish Council; Northborough Parish Council; and Peakirk Parish Council)

The Strategic Planning Officer introduced a report on the Neighbourhood Planning - Application to Designate Neighbourhood areas. The report was submitted to the Committee following the receipt of applications from Deeping Gate, Glinton, Northborough and Peakirk Parish Councils for the designation of neighbourhood areas and in accordance with the procedures contained in the adopted Peterborough City Council Statement of Community Involvement.

The purpose of the report was to provide the Committee with recommendations for the determination of the applications from Deeping Gate, Glinton, Northborough and Peakirk Parish Councils to designate neighbourhood areas. The reasoning behind the recommendations was included within the report. It was expected that the Committee would determine the four applications following consideration of the recommendations and reasons provided.

The Strategic Planning Officer and Senior Solicitor responded to comments and question from Members. In summary responses included:

• The plans adopted for each area would remain irrespective of any boundary change; • If the boundaries changed following the current boundary review, the plan would have to it accommodate the changes; • Adoption of the Neighborhood plan and would enhance what the local community wanted and how they wished to see their community develop; and • A Neighborhood Plan would allocate sites and would expand on the policies of a local plan it can also reflect the needs of local areas.

RESOLVED:

1. Deeping Gate Parish Council’s application to designate a neighborhood area was approved without amendment (Option A - approval without amendment); 2. Glinton Parish Council’s application to designate a neighborhood area was approved subject to an amendment that included the whole of the parish area (Option B - approval with minor amendments); 3. Northborough Parish Council’s application to designate a neighborhood area was approved without amendment (Option A - approval without amendment); 4. Peakirk Parish Council’s application to designate a neighborhood area was approved without amendment (Option A - approval without amendment); and 5. None of the four neighborhood areas should be designated as business areas.

Reasons for the decision:

Deeping Gate

It was considered that the whole of the parish was a logical and appropriate area for designation as a neighbourhood area. As a rural area, it was considered that designation of only part of the parish would lead to a fragmented approach within the area.

Glinton

It was considered that the designation of only the village envelope as a neighbourhood area was not preferable. Due to the rural nature of the area, it was felt that the designation of only part of the parish would lead to a fragmented approach within the area, and may result in some or all of the remaining parish area being excluded from the neighbourhood planning process (i.e. it was unknown whether the parish council would apply to designate any further neighbourhood areas within the parish boundary). In light of this and of the comment received during the consultation period, it was considered that the whole of the parish was a logical and appropriate area for designation of a neighbourhood area. Therefore it was recommended that the amendment of the area to include the whole parish area was approved.

Northborough

It was considered that the whole of the parish was a logical and appropriate area for designation of a neighbourhood area. As a rural area, it was considered that designation of only part of the parish would lead to a fragmented approach within

13 the area.

Peakirk

1.30pm – 3.44pm Chairman

14 AB

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE HELD AT THE TOWN HALL, PETERBOROUGH ON 17 JUNE 2013

Members Present: Councillors Serluca (Chairman), Harper (Vice Chairman), Hiller, Todd, Shabbir, Lane and Ash

Officers Present: Simon Machen, Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering Nick Harding, Group Manager Development Management Amanda McSherry, Principal Development Management Officer Jez Tuttle, Senior Engineer (Development) Sarah Hann, Acting Senior Engineer (Development) Carrie Denness, Senior Solicitor Jeremy Pike, Legal Advisor Gemma George, Senior Governance Officer

1. Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors North, Simons, Kreling, Sylvester and Harrington.

Councillor Ash was in attendance as substitute.

2. Declarations of Interests

There were no declarations of interest.

3. Development Control and Enforcement Matters

The Chairman addressed the Committee and advised that there had been a request received from the press to be permitted to take photographs throughout the proceedings. The Committee’s approval was sought and this was agreed unanimously.

There had been a further request from a member of the public to be permitted to audio record the proceedings. The Committee’s approval was sought and this was agreed unanimously.

3.1 12/01905/R3FUL – Installation of Solar Farm, with an installed power capacity of up to 26MW, comprising the installation of photovoltaic panels, associated boundary fencing, security and CCTV cameras, site access and associated electrical infrastructure including inverter units, transformer and temporary construction compounds, electricity substation and 2no. terminal towers, Land to the East of Black Drove, Thorney, Peterborough

The site area was approximately 100.6ha and was predominantly Grade 2

15 agricultural land. To the west of the application site were residential properties which ran parallel to Black Drove, one of which (Thorney Lodge) was Grade 2 Listed.

To the south was Thorney Golf Club, which benefitted from partial screening by an established row of conifers. To the south-east was Priest Farm.

The site was located within the Peterborough Fens character area (Policy CS20 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011). To the north and east, as with the immediate surroundings, the landscape was predominantly flat/level with open drainage ditches within and adjacent. The Nene Wash, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and RAMSAR site was located approximately 6km south of the application site. Within 1km of the application site there were several sites of known archaeology. The site was within a Flood Zone 3 and a Mineral and Waste Safeguarding Zone.

Permission was sought for;

• 144,060 panels, which would be arranged in sections of either 50 metres x 5.85 metres or 16.7 metres x 5.85 metres and would stand at 700mm above ground level and 3.4 metres to highest point; • The panels would be affixed to piled metal frames; • Within a Substation compound would be the control building and operation centre (40 metres (l) x 15 metres (w) x 6.5 metres (h) and two switch stations and transformers, surrounded by a 3 metre high palisade fence; • Twenty-three invertors buildings each with a floor area of 5.4 metres (w) x 3 metres (l) and a height of 2.8 metres; • A 2.4 metre high mesh fence to surround the site; • Underground cables to a depth of 1.15 metres; • 18 x CCTV stands at 5 metres in height; and • A network of internal roads to be compacted hardcore. • Access to the site from Black Drove, at the southern most point of the application site.

The proposal would create 14 full time equivalent jobs and produce up to 26MW of electricity.

In response to the Local Planning Authority’s concerns the site compound and its control building, associated apparatus and access had been relocated to the eastern edge of the application site (Drwg S2-ENG-301 B).

As indicated by drawing NTS-2(R) A3 the parcel of land west of Black Drove was no longer proposed for development. This had led to a reduction in the overall site area and the number of proposed solar panels.

The following applications for planning permission had also been submitted to the Local Planning Authority;

• 12/01904/FUL - Installation of a solar farm with an installed power capacity of

16 up to 8MW, comprising the installation of photovoltaic panels, associated boundary fencing, security and CCTV cameras, site access and associated electrical infrastructure including a switch station, inverter units and transformer and temporary construction compounds at Land To The South Of America Farm, Oxney Road, Peterborough (Pending Consideration).

• 12/01906/R3FUL - Installation of a solar farm with an installed power capacity of up to 49MW, comprising the installation of photovoltaic panels, associated boundary fencing, security and CCTV cameras, site access and associated electrical infrastructure including a switch station, inverter units and transformer and temporary construction compounds at Land To The East Of Peterborough Road, Crowland, Peterborough (Pending Consideration).

These proposals were potentially relevant to this application, in the context of potential cumulative environmental impacts resulting from the proposals in combination.

The Chairman advised that there had been an urgent update to the report for consideration by the Committee.

The Group Manager Development Management stated that since the publication of the committee report there had been a change to the recommendation contained within. The recommendation was now to defer consideration of the application to a future meeting of the Committee.

The reason for the revised recommendation was that a late set of comments had been received, which put forward a revised position statement for English Heritage. They were now seeking a programme of archaeological, palaeoenvironmental and hydrological work prior to the application being determined. It was for this reason that the recommendation was for the application to be deferred to enable discussions to take place with English Heritage so that a way forward could be established which could involve additional archaeological works.

On 13 June 2013, communication had also been received from the Secretary of State. He had issued the Council, as the local planning authority, with a direction not to issue a planning permission for the development proposal unless there was specific authorisation to do so; however this direction did not prevent the Committee from considering the application. Also, the direction did not mean that the application would be automatically called in by Secretary of State for his own determination, it merely indicated that the application was being looked at by the Secretary of State and that it may be called in.

The Chairman addressed the Committee and summarised the recommendation. A proposer was sought for the revised recommendation.

The recommendation was proposed and seconded. A vote was taken and it was unanimously agreed to defer the application.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) to defer the application, as per the revised Officer recommendation.

Reasons for the decision:

The decision was deferred to allow for further archaeological works to be undertaken on the site following the additional comments received from English Heritage.

17.00pm – 17.10pm Chairman

18 19 This page is intentionally left blank

20 Planning and EP Committee – 9 July 2013 Item Number 5.1

Application Ref: 13/00606/HHFUL

Proposal: Conversion of garage to living accommodation

Site: 13 Nottingham Way, Dogsthorpe, Peterborough, PE1 4NF Applicant: Mr Jawarjit Singh

Agent: RW Architectural

Referred by: Councillors Peach and Shearman Reason: Level of neighbour objection Site visit: 03.05.2013

Case officer: Miss L C Lovegrove Telephone No. 01733 454439 E-Mail: [email protected]

Recommendation: GRANT subject to relevant conditions

1 Description of the site and surroundings and Summary of the proposal

Site and Surroundings The application site comprises a two storey detached residential dwelling located within a residential estate of uniform character. The main dwellinghouse is set back from the streetscene and sits behind an existing single storey detached double garage. The garage is positioned side- on to the street and shares a driveway with No.11 Nottingham Way. There is a small area of landscaping to the front comprising shrubs and an immature silver birch tree which provides some screening to the dwelling and garage. At present, the garage has a blank gable elevation which fronts the public highway and is constructed of buff brick and brown concrete roof tiles.

Proposal The description of development refers to the conversion of the existing detached garage to form living accommodation. Notwithstanding this description, the proposed use of the existing garage as an annexe for occupation by a family member associated with the occupation of the main dwellinghouse, does not require the benefit of planning permission (this is discussed in greater detail in Section 5 below). Accordingly, the only elements for which planning permission are sought, are the insertion of two small windows to the front elevation, the insertion of a door to the rear elevation and replacement of the existing plastic-clad metal roller shutter doors with a solid brick wall and cladding of a similar appearance to the existing.

2 Planning History

Reference Proposal Decision Date 13/00364/OTH Permitted development enquiry Comments 08/04/2013

21 3 Planning Policy

Decisions must be taken in accordance with the development plan polices below, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011)

CS16 - Urban Design and the Public Realm Design should be of high quality, appropriate to the site and area, improve the public realm, address vulnerability to crime, be accessible to all users and not result in any unacceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residents.

Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012)

PP02 - Design Quality Permission will only be granted for development which makes a positive contribution to the built and natural environment; does not have a detrimental effect on the character of the area; is sufficiently robust to withstand/adapt to climate change; and is designed for longevity.

PP03 - Impacts of New Development Permission will not be granted for development which would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy, public and/or private green space or natural daylight; be overbearing or cause noise or other disturbance, odour or other pollution; fail to minimise opportunities for crime and disorder.

4 Consultations/Representations

Victoria Park Residents Association No comments received.

Local Residents/Interested Parties

Initial consultations: 6 Total number of responses: 10 Total number of objections: 10 Total number in support: 0

Eight objections have been received from local residents on the following grounds: - There will be an increase in on street parking - The property is opposite a junction which will create a traffic hazard - There may be problems for neighbours accessing drives due to increased parking on Nottingham Way - The estate was designed to accommodate a specific number of residents and the roads are already at capacity - The estate is of 3 or 4 bedroom family homes and the character will change - The proposal sets a dangerous precedent - Potential problems of residents using the drives of Nos. 11 and 15 as a short cut - Additional noise and disturbance to No.11 - Problems of using the shared drive with No.11 - Increase in intensity of the use of the site - Not all residents received notice off the planning application - It will be too close to the drive of No.15 and impact on its use - Property values and saleability will be affected

22 - Privacy will be affected - What happens when the elderly relative passes away - There is only one door, what happens if there is a fire - The windows give a view directly into the kitchen of No.11

Councillors Peach and Shearman have expressed their opposition to the proposed development and support the comments raised by local residents.

5 Assessment of the planning issues

The main considerations are: - Design and impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area - Impact upon neighbour amenity a) Introduction The description of development refers to the conversion of the existing detached garage to form living accommodation. Notwithstanding this description, the proposed use of the existing garage as an annexe for occupation by a family member associated with the occupants of the main dwellinghouse, does not require the benefit of planning permission. The proposed use, given that the annexe would retain a functional relationship with the main dwelling i.e. shared cooking facilities, does not represent a material change of use and is retained as ancillary accommodation. Therefore, this element of the scheme does not constitute 'development' and planning permission is not required.

However, given that the existing structure lies forward of the existing dwellinghouse, the associated external alterations - insertion of two windows, insertion of a door and replacement of the existing garage door with cladding of a similar appearance - does require permission.

Accordingly, this assessment relates only to those elements which require planning permission. In light of this, the following objections received from local residents cannot be considered in the determination of this application: - There will be an increase in on street parking - The property is opposite a junction which will create a traffic hazard - There may be problems for neighbours accessing drives due to increased parking on Nottingham Way - The estate was designed to accommodate a specific number of residents and the roads are already at capacity - The estate is of 3 or 4 bedroom family homes and the character will change - The proposal sets a dangerous precedent - Potential problems of residents using the drives of No’s. 11 and 15 as a short cut - Additional noise and disturbance to No.11 - Problems of using the shared drive with No.11 - Increase in intensity of the use of the site b) Design and impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area At present, the existing detached garage has no fenestration to the principal elevation which fronts on to the public highway. Furthermore, within the streetscene there are no other examples whereby such development has taken place. Notwithstanding this, subject to the use of materials of a similar appearance (i.e. wooden frames stained dark brown), it is considered that the insertion of windows will not appear an unacceptably incongruous or alien feature within the locality. The proposed windows are modest in size and reflect the overall proportions of the existing structure. In addition, they are of a size and design which mirror windows which already feature within the eastern elevation. With regards to the proposed single door to be inserted to the eastern elevation, this is of a design and size typical of many garages throughout the City. The door itself will not be visible from the public realm and as such, will not result in any harmful impact to the character of the streetscene.

It is also proposed to remove the existing plastic-clad metal roller shutter garage door to the northern elevation and replace this with cladding of a similar colour and appearance with solid wall behind. The overall appearance of this elevation will not materially differ from the present and as such, the resultant development will retain its appearance of a garage. This will ensure that no detriment to the overall character and appearance of the site within its context will result.

On this basis, it is considered that the proposed external alterations will not result in any unacceptable impact to the character, appearance or visual amenity of the surrounding area and the proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP2 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012). c) Impact upon neighbour amenity Neighbouring residents have expressed concern regarding the potential overlooking impact following the insertion of the proposed windows to the principal elevation. The existing garage is set 19 metres from the principal elevation of the dwelling opposite, No. 24 Nottingham Way. It is considered that this is a sufficient level of separation to prevent any issues of direct overlooking or loss of privacy to occupants of this neighbouring dwelling.

With regards to No.11 Nottingham Way, again it is considered that the proposal will not result in any unacceptable impact in terms of overlooking as a result of the proposed door. The existing 2 small windows and proposed part-glazed door would face directly towards No.13, the host property, with only oblique views at some distance to No.11.

As such, the proposal will not result in any unacceptable 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). d) Other matters In addition to the above assessment, the following objections raised by local residents are addressed:

- Insufficient consultation has taken place with surrounding residents Officer response: The Local Planning Authority (LPA) has consulted all those residential properties with an immediately adjoining boundary. In addition, those properties which are directly opposite the site were notified of the proposal. This accords with national legislation and as such, the LPA has met its statutory duty in terms of neighbour consultation.

- There only appears to be one door within the conversion, what happens if there is a fire? Officer response: This is not a material planning consideration and instead, falls within the remit of Building Regulations.

- The proposed development will obstruct the driveway to No.15 Nottingham Way due to the boiler flue and electricity cabinet. Officer response: This is not a material planning consideration and instead, a civil matter between the Applicant and adjoining landowner.

- The Applicant has already removed the existing landscaping to the front of the site ahead of securing planning permission. The landscaping cannot be removed as it is protected by a restrictive covenant. Officer response: The removal of the existing vegetation on the site does not require the benefit of planning permission. Furthermore, deeds and restrictive covenants are not a matter over which the Council has any jurisdiction.

24 - Property values and saleability will be affected. Officer response: This is not a material planning consideration and cannot be taken into account.

6 Conclusions

Subject to the imposition of the attached conditions, the proposal is acceptable having been assessed in the light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and specifically: - the proposed external alterations will not result in any unacceptable impact upon the character, appearance or visual amenity of the surrounding area, in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP2 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012); and - the proposed windows and door will not result in any unacceptable impact 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).

7 Recommendation

The case officer recommends that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the following conditions and informatives:

C 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

C 2 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the alterations hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

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).

Notes to the Applicant

IN1 It should be noted that the ancillary residential accommodation must retain some functional relationship to the host dwelling (in this case, shared kitchen facilities) and be occupied by relatives of occupants of the host dwelling to prevent the need for planning permission. If at any point in the future, the unit becomes self-contained, or is sold, leased or rented to occupants with no family relationship to the host dwelling, planning permission will be required.

IN2 Building Regulation approval is required for this development. For further information contact the Building Control Section on 01733 453422 or email [email protected].

25 IN3 Your attention is drawn to the relevant provisions of the Party Wall etc Act 1996 which may require notification of the works hereby permitted to all affected neighbours. More detailed information of the provisions of 'The Act' can be obtained from the Council’s Building Control Section on 01733 453422 or email [email protected], or on website http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/partywall .

Copy to Councillors Kreling, Shearman and Peach

26 27 This page is intentionally left blank

28 Planning and EP Committee - 9 July 2013 Item Number 5.2

Application Ref: 13/00652/OUT

Proposal: Construction of a 2 bedroom dwelling

Site: 95 Thorpe Road, Peterborough, PE3 6JQ, Applicant: Mr Peter Maycock

Agent: Planning Places For People

Referred by: Cllr Arculus Reason: The scheme warrants Committee scrutiny to establish whether the loss of garden is outweighed by the sites sustainable location.

Site visit: 12.06.2013

Case officer: Mr M A Thomson Telephone No. 01733 453478 E-Mail: [email protected]

Recommendation: REFUSE

1 Description of the Site and Surroundings and Summary of the Proposal

Site Description The application site is part of the rear garden associated with a two storey, predominantly unaltered Victorian villa. The house is identified as a locally listed building (WE15, under policy PP17 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD). The dwelling forms one of several dwellings of similar style and character and retains a number of architectural features that are important to the historic character of the area. The property has two off-street parking spaces to front. The rear garden slopes to south, falling to a watercourse, and is host to several species of trees, including a Horse Chestnut which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

The immediate area to the west of the application site is characterised by similarly sized, locally listed Victorian villas on large, linear plots which front Thorpe Road. Slightly further west are two modern stone dwellings which received planning permission is 2003. The gardens of these properties have a number of matures trees within them which collectively given them an almost rural character. To the east is Fairmead Way, an estate which received planning permission in the 1970's while to the south is Rivermead which is separated from the application site by a watercourse. There are more residential dwellings to the north.

Summary of the Proposal The application seeks outline planning permission for a two bedroom dwelling with all matters reserved. To support the proposal indicative drawings have been submitted, which illustrate a two storey dwelling built into the slope, a detached garage and vehicular access to the side of 95 Thorpe Road.

Update Further to receiving this application a number of trees have been trimmed/felled adjacent to the watercourse at the bottom of the application site. None of these were protected and so permission for the works was not required.

29 2 Planning History

08/00602/OUT – Erection of a bungalow – Application Refused (26.6.2008) and Dismissed at Appeal (13.01.2009). A copy of the Appeal decision is attached as Appendix A.

3 Planning Policy

Decisions must be taken in accordance with the development plan polices below, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Section 6 - Backland Development Inappropriate development of residential gardens where harm would be caused to the local area should be resisted.

Section 7 - Good Design Development should add to the overall quality of the area; establish a strong sense of place; optimise the site potential; create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses; support local facilities and transport networks; respond to local character and history while not discouraging appropriate innovation; create safe and accessible environments which are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping. Planning permission should be refused for development of poor design.

Section 11 - Biodiversity Development resulting in significant harm to biodiversity or in the loss of/deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused if the impact cannot be adequately mitigated, or compensated. Proposals to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted and opportunities to incorporate biodiversity into new development encouraged.

Development within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest or other specified spites should not normally be permitted where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely. An exception should only be made where the benefits clearly outweigh the impacts.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring Appropriate Assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered or determined.

Section 12 - Conservation of Heritage Assets Account should be taken of the desirability of sustaining/enhancing heritage assets; the positive contribution that they can make to sustainable communities including economic viability; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. When considering the impact of a new development great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

Planning permission should be refused for development which would lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance unless this is necessary to achieve public benefits that outweigh the harm/loss. In such cases all reasonable steps should be taken to ensure the new development will proceed after the harm/ loss has occurred.

Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011)

CS02 - Spatial Strategy for the Location of Residential Development Provision will be made for an additional 25 500 dwellings from April 2009 to March 2026 in strategic areas/allocations.

CS10 - Environment Capital

30 Development should make a clear contribution towards the Council’s aspiration to become Environment Capital of the UK.

CS13 - Development Contributions to Infrastructure Provision Contributions should be secured in accordance with the Planning Obligations Implementation Scheme SPD (POIS).

CS14 - Transport Promotes a reduction in the need to travel, sustainable transport, the Council’s UK Environment Capital aspirations and development which would improve the quality of environments for residents.

CS17 - The Historic Environment Development should protect, conserve and enhance the historic environment including non scheduled nationally important features and buildings of local importance.

CS20 - Landscape Character New development should be sensitive to the open countryside. within the Landscape Character Areas development will only be permitted where specified criteria are met.

CS21 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Development should conserve and enhance biodiversity/ geological interests unless no alterative sites are available and there are demonstrable reasons for the development.

CS22 - Flood Risk Development in Flood Zones 2 and 3 will only be permitted if specific criteria are met. Sustainable drainage systems should be used where appropriate.

Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012)

PP01 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Applications which accord with policies in the Local Plan and other Development Plan Documents will be approved unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where there are no relevant policies, the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

PP04 - Amenity Provision in New Residential Development Proposals for new residential development should be designed and located to ensure that they provide for the needs of the future residents.

PP12 - The Transport Implications of Development Permission will only be granted if appropriate provision has been made for safe access by all user groups and there would not be any unacceptable impact on the transportation network including

31 highway safety.

PP13 - Parking Standards Permission will only be granted if appropriate parking provision for all modes of transport is made in accordance with standards.

PP16 - The Landscaping and Biodiversity Implications of Development Permission will only be granted for development which makes provision for the retention of trees and natural features which contribute significantly to the local landscape or biodiversity.

PP17 - Heritage Assets Development which would affect a heritage asset will be required to preserve and enhance the significance of the asset or its setting. Development which would have detrimental impact will be refused unless there are overriding public benefits.

4 Consultations/Representations

Wildlife Officer (22.05.13) No objection - subject to conditions with respect to no works to hedgerows or trees during bird breeding season, conditioning lighting levels and biodiversity improvements, such as bat and bird boxes.

Conservation Officer (25.06.13) Objects – The sub-division of the rear garden would erode the setting of the building.

Landscape Officer (15.05.13) Objects - A Horse Chestnut covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and off-site Beech are mature trees which dominate the rear garden area. These are imposing in overall size and crown spread, which would overshadow the proposed dwelling and its dedicated amenity space. If consent was granted, future occupiers would place pressure on these trees for removal. These trees add to the green area which runs from Winchester Way, Riverside Gardens, Fairmead Way, Thorpe Road and Thorpe Meadows.

Archaeological Officer (14.05.13) No objection

Building Control Surveyor (10.05.13) No objection - to achieve a satisfactory fire service access the driveway should be constructed to support 12.5 tonnes and a turning area of adequate dimensions should be provided adjacent to the proposed dwelling.

Pollution Team No comments received

Transport & Engineering Services (21.03.13) No objection - subject to conditions being attached with respect to access, provision and retention of parking and turning, details of pedestrian visibility splays and temporary facilities for construction traffic.

Local Residents/Interested Parties Initial consultations: 14 Total number of responses: 6 Total number of objections: 6 Total number in support: 0

6 letters of neighbour representation have been received. These raise the following concerns;

- A similar scheme was refused and dismissed at Appeal in 2008 - Wildlife impact and loss of natural habitat - Future occupiers would place pressure on existing on and off site trees, and seek their felling, as the new build and garden would be in shade throughout the day - The proposed access would generate noise by vehicle movements and harm neighbour amenity - Visual impact - Any landscaping and land profiling post construction would harm the appearance and character of the local environment - The proposal does not make a positive contribution to the quality of the built environment - The proposed elevated position and two balconies would result in unacceptably adverse levels of overlooking to properties on Riverside Gardens - Glare and reflection from south facing windows - Noise mitigation measures would not decrease noise levels - Loss of garden - No justification in support of harming the setting of a locally listed building - No commitment to meeting Policy CS10 (Environmental Capital) - Increased surface run-off - Flats at 119 Thorpe Road face address the street scene and the Stone Houses have a frontage; these are not back land. - Loss of light - Highway safety - Property prices - Noise from construction

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 / Planning Obligations Requests for planning obligations whether CIL is in place or not are only lawful where they meet the following tests:- (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development .

In addition obligations should be: (i) relevant to planning; (ii) reasonable in all other respects.

Planning permissions may not be bought or sold. Unacceptable development cannot be permitted because of benefits/inducements offered by a developer which are not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Neither can obligations be used purely as a means of securing for the local community a share in the profits of development.

5 Assessment of the planning issues

1) History An outline application was received in 2008 (App Ref: 08/00602/OUT) for the erection of a

33 detached bungalow (4 bedrooms). The application was refused on the following grounds; - Impact on the character and appearance of the area, including the loss of a number of hedge rows and high specimen trees - The proposed access would harm neighbour amenity by virtue of vehicle movements. - Excessive overshadowing of the proposed garden area and proposed dwelling given the development’s orientation in relation to the path of the sun. - Failure to enter into a Section 106 agreement.

The decision was appealed and the appeal dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate (App Ref: 2080100/WF), thereby upholding the Local Planning Authority’s decision. Whilst acknowledging that the site is in a sustainable location, the Inspector concluded that this did not outweigh the negative aspects of the scheme in terms of harm to the character and appearance of the area, the probable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed dwelling and lack of information on ecology. He did not accept, as a reason for dismissing the appeal, the Council’s concerns about harm to neighbour amenity as a result of vehicle movements.

2) Principle of Development Policy CS2 of the Peterborough Core Strategy sets out that new development should be located in and around the urban area of the city to create a strong and sustainable community, making the most of previously developed land and enabling better access to existing services and facilities. The application site is located within the urban area and therefore potentially in a sustainable location for a new dwelling. However, it is a residential garden which does not benefit from direct vehicular access. The proposal is, therefore, considered to be backland development. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that Local Planning Authorities should consider policies which resist inappropriate development of residential gardens where harm would be caused to the local area. Policy PP2 of the Planning Policies DPD sets out that development will be supported where it makes a positive contribution to the quality of the natural and built environment and where it would not have a detrimental effect on the character of any immediate adjoining properties or the surrounding area.

As set out under section 1 above the application site and the neighbouring gardens to the west have a very strong and distinct character of long spacious gardens with mature trees. Although the stone dwellings consented in 2003 are set slightly further back from Thorpe Road they are not considered to be backland development. The application site relates more closely in its character to these properties to the west than it does to the dwellings to the east. It is considered that the introduction of dwellings in the rear gardens of these properties would erode the distinct character of this area, thereby having a detrimental impact, particularly in light of the impact which the development would have on a building of local importance and the existing trees. These impacts are set out in the sections below. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy PP2 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

3) Design, Layout and Impact on Heritage Assets To facilitate the proposed vehicular access an existing porch on the side of No 95 Thorpe Road would be demolished. The porch is of no architectural merit and its loss is accepted.

No 95 Thorpe Road is a Locally Listed Building as identified by Policy PP17 of the Peterborough Policies DPD (2012). As such any proposal should not have an unacceptable adverse impact on its setting, unless it is otherwise justified. The supporting documentation sets out that the proposed dwelling would be occupied by the applicant’s parents.

It is considered that the proposal would be harmful to the setting of a Locally Listed Building as it would result in backland development which reduces the extent of its garden area and which would erode the semi-rural character of the immediate area which the site and the adjoining properties collectively form. The justification for the proposal is not considered to outweigh the harm to the setting of this building.

The indicative drawings illustrate a dwelling which would be constructed over two floors with a

34 mono pitch roof and detached double garage. Whilst a topographical survey has not been submitted, the indicative sections illustrate the proposal would be dug into the garden to take account of the change in levels. The indicative design of the dwelling is considered to be innovative and it does make the most of the falling site levels. However, it is not considered that a modern, innovative design would outweigh the harm which would be caused to the setting of this Locally Listed Building and established semi-rural and tranquil character of the area. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies CS16 and CS17 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011), the NPPF (2012) and PP2 and PP17 of the Peterborough Policies DPD (2012).

4) Access and Parking This is an outline application with all matters reserved; however details of the proposed access from Thorpe Road have been shown on the submitted plans. The indicative plans show a two bedroomed dwelling with detached double garage. Building Control has advised that the access will need to support a 12.5 ton vehicle and provide a turning area to provide fire service access. A letter of representation has raised concern with issues of highway safety, however the Local Highway Authority (LHA) has not objected to the proposal. It has requested conditions in respect of access, provision and retention of parking and turning, details of pedestrian visibility splays and temporary facilities for construction traffic.

The site would be capable of providing three off-street parking spaces and the access would not result in a highway safety hazard, as such the proposal would accord with Policy CS14 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and PP12 and PP13 of the Peterborough Policies DPD (2012).

5) Trees and Amenity of Future Occupiers The Landscape Officer has objected to the proposal, advising that the Horse Chestnut which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and off-site Beech tree are mature species which dominate the application site. They are imposing in their overall size and crown spread, and would overshadow the proposed dwelling and its dedicated amenity space. The trees at the south of the site have been thinned and felled to open up the lower part of the site; this supports the Inspector’s previous comments and reasons for dismissal, which stated future occupiers would place undue pressure on felling these trees to provide suitable levels of natural sunlight.

The topography of the land drops sharply from Thorpe Road to the watercourse adjacent to Rivermead. The indicative layout illustrates a dwelling which would be built into the slope therefore the area of land to south would in fact be a steep slope. In the absence of a topographical survey it is not possible to establish whether the proposed garden space would be useable. Further, given the proximity of the protected Horse Chestnut tree and off-site trees, the majority of the garden area would be overshadowed. As such there is little scope to relocate the dwelling within the plot to a location where it would not be overshadowed. Given this it is considered that the future occupiers of the dwelling would place pressure on these trees to be felled as they would cause overshadowing to the principal windows serving the proposed dwelling and useable primary amenity space.

To facilitate access to the site the submitted layout indicates that a Holly Tree (Grade B) would be felled and that it would be located within 1m of a Sycamore (Grade A). The submitted information indicates that there would be no dig construction around the tree but there are no details of existing and proposed site levels and construction details for the proposed access. As such it is considered that the access could have an unacceptable adverse impact on the future health of the Grade A tree. Category A trees are classed as those of a high quality and amenity value. Category B trees are classed as being of moderate quality and amenity value. Category A and B trees should be considered a constraint to development and their retention should be sought unless their loss can be justified. No justification has been provided and given the site constraints is it not considered that an alternate access point or access width could be provided which would not result in an unacceptably adverse impact on these trees.

In light of the above, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies CS16 and CS20 of the

35 Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and policies PP4 and PP16 of the Peterborough Policies DPD (2012).

6) Impact on Neighbour Amenity Whilst the drawings are indicative, it is anticipated that the dwelling would be two storey, built into the slope and that there would be no north, west or east facing windows (this could be conditioned if the principle of development is otherwise considered to be acceptable). In the absence of a topographical survey it is not possible to fully assess neighbour impact; however the raised platforms appear to form the primary amenity space for future occupiers. It is considered that they would, even with the separation distance (some 50 metres), give unrestricted views of properties at Rivermead especially as the trees to the south of the site have been thinned and felled. There are also concerns about overlooking of properties to the east from the raised platforms. Given the site constraints it is not considered that an alternate layout or on-site mitigation could be provided which would overcome these issues.

Issues relating to the noise and disturbance to neighbours generated by the proposed vehicular access were not previously deemed to be contentious by the Planning Inspector, despite being a reason for the Local Planning Authority’s refusal of the application. Whilst the Local Planning Authority continues to have concerns about the potential impact on amenity from the new access in light of the Inspectors decision, it is not considered that the current application could be resisted on this basis.

Issues of glare/reflection, the visual impact and loss of daylight have also been raised. In the absence of detailed level information it is not currently possible to assess whether the proposal if likely to result in glare/reflection although it is considered unlikely. The fact that the dwelling maybe seen from neighbouring plots does not in itself make it unacceptable, unless there would be an associated adverse impact on amenity in terms of factors such as overlooking, loss of daylight etc. Whilst indicative, given the height and juxtaposition of the development it is not considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptably adverse loss of light to neighbour amenity.

The representations received have raised concerns with respect to noise and disruption generated by construction traffic. Should planning permission be granted a Construction Management Plan could be secured by a condition. Whilst there maybe some disturbance during the construction period this is not a reason to refuse planning permission.

In light of the removal of trees to the south of the site there are concerns about the potential for overlooking of properties at Rivermead. It is not considered that the dwelling could be relocated or designed in such a way as to achieve an acceptable relocation to these properties. Any proposal which included raised platforms also has the potential to adversely impact on the privacy of dwellings to the east. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and PP3 of the Peterborough Policies DPD (2012).

7) Biodiversity & Wildlife The Wildlife Officer has raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions with respect to limiting external lighting, opportunities for on-site biodiversity enhancement, such as installing bird and bat boxes, and no hedgerow removal during bird breeding season. Subject to these conditions the proposal would accord with the NPPF (2012) and Policy PP16 of the Peterborough Policies DPD (2012).

8) Flood Risk The application site is located in an area with a low likelihood of flooding, albeit that the southern most part of the site it is adjacent to a water course. Whilst a detailed topographical survey has not been submitted it is anticipated the change in levels is in the region of 7 to 10 metres. Drainage details could be secured by a condition should planning permission be granted. Subject to these details being secured the proposal would not result in a flood risk hazard and would accord with Policy CS22 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011).

36 9) Archaeology The Council’s Archaeologist has advised that the proposal is unlikely to affect undiscovered archaeology and therefore would accord with policy CS17 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and PP17 of the Peterborough Policies DPD (2012).

10) Environmental Capital In order to accord with policy CS10 of the adopted Core Strategy which seeks to secure a contribution towards Peterborough’s objective of becoming an Environment Capital of the UK. If planning permission is granted it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the development to be constructed so that it achieves a Target Emission Ratio of at least 10% better than the Building Regulations in force at the time building regulation approval is sought. Subject to this it will therefore accord with policy CS10 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011).

11) Contamination The application site is not believed to be at risk from contamination given it has been used historically as garden land, however should planning permission be granted a condition should be attached in the event of discovering undiscovered contamination. Subject to a condition being attached the proposal would accord with the NPPF (2012) and PP20 of the Peterborough Policies DPD (2012).

12) Section 106 Legal Agreement The Planning Obligations and Implementations Scheme (POIS) SPG (2010) seeks a contribution of £6,000 and a 2% Monitoring Fee of £120. A Section 106 Agreement has not been entered into therefore the proposal does not accord with Policy CS13 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011).

Other Issues Concerns have been raised regarding the impact of the development on property prices; this is not a material planning consideration therefore cannot be taken into account.

6 Conclusions

The area is traditionally characterised by large properties in spacious plots. The proposed development would constitute backland development and would result in significant and unacceptably adverse harm to the setting of a Locally Listed Building and would erode the established character and appearance of the area.

A topographical survey has not been submitted therefore it is not possible to establish the amount of useable garden which would serve the new dwelling. The indicative drawings indicate two raised platforms which would become the primary amenity space for the proposal; given that the trees at the south of the site have been felled this would result in an unacceptably adverse loss of privacy and amenity to adjacent occupiers.

Notwithstanding the fact that the trees at the south have been felled, the application site would be overshadowed by on-site and off-site trees, one of which is subject to a Tree Preservation Order. Therefore any principal windows and the primary amenity space would be overshadowed throughout the day. As such future occupiers would place undue pressure on these trees to be felled. Further, the proposed access would result in the loss of a Grade B Holly tree and place unknown pressure on a Grade A Sycamore.

Finally, a S106 Agreement has not been entered into; therefore it has not been possible to secure essential infrastructure improvements.

Whilst the submitted drawings are indicative only, given the constraints of the application site it is not considered that the Planning Inspectorates’ reasons for refusing the previous application have been overcome. The removal of the trees along the southern boundary has changed the relationship between the site and the properties to the south from that considered previously to be

37 acceptable and is considered to create a new concern. Further, the scheme has not demonstrated that it can provide a turning area for a fire vehicle.

There have been no changes in planning policy which would now make the scheme acceptable.

The proposal is therefore unacceptable having been assessed in light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and for the specific reasons given below.

7 Recommendation

The Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering Services recommends that planning permission is REFUSED

R 1 The wooded garden of number 95 relates closely with the mature gardens to the west which creates an attractive feature within what is otherwise a high density urban area. Whilst it is noted that there are properties to the east of the site it is considered that the nature and character of the application plot relates more closely to the dwellings to the west. The introduction of a dwelling within the attractive mature open garden would be out of keeping with the mature wooded area created by the application plot and the plots to the west which would in-turn harm its character and appearance. In addition the proposal would require the removal of a number of specimen trees and to make way for the access which would further erode its character. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CS16 and CS20 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011), Paragraph 53 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and PP2 of the Peterborough Policies DPD (2012).

R2 No. 95 Thorpe Road is a locally listed building (WE15) that forms one of seven Victorian villa’s which have been identified for their architectural design, their contribution to the street scene and are served by large, linear rear gardens with mature planting. The proposed dwelling would be located within the rear garden of a locally listed building; by creating a separate plot and vehicular access this would significantly reduce the amount of garden space No. 95 Thorpe Road has enjoyed since it was originally built thereby causing significant harm to the character and setting of this locally listed building. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS17 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011), Paragraphs 53 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and PP17 of the Peterborough Policies DPD (2012).

R 3 The large mature horse chestnut tree, which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order, would cause excessive overshadowing to the proposed garden area given its orientation in relation to the path of the sun. Further, a mature Beech tree which is located within the curtilage of 97 Thorpe Road would also overshadow the proposed dwelling and associated amenity space. It is therefore considered that the proposed garden would not provide for a sufficient level or quality of private amenity space to the occupants of the proposed dwelling. Furthermore this is likely to result in pressure from future occupants for extensive works to the tree which is likely to harm its health and appearance. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS20 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policies PP4 and PP16 of the Peterborough Policies DPD (2012).

R4 The indicative drawings would create two raised platforms which, when considering the change in site levels, would form part of the proposed dwellings primary amenity space. Further to the felling and reduction to a number of trees at the south of the site and the fact that these raised platforms would be located at a higher level than neighbours to the south, from their elevated position future occupiers would be able to look directly in the rear gardens of No’s 6 and 7 Rivermead. The proposal would therefore form an unacceptably adverse impact of overlooking and loss of privacy to these properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and PP3 of the Peterborough Policies DPD (2012).

R 5 The provision of the service and infrastructure requirements which will arise as a consequence of the development has not been secured. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS13 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011).

Appendix A

Planning Appeal Decision - A/08/2080100/WF – Outline application for the Erection of Bungalow.

Copy to Councillors Arculus, Dalton, Maqbool

39 This page is intentionally left blank

40 APPENDIX A

The Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision 4/11 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Site visit made on 2 December 2008 Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

0117 372 6372 by J S Morris BA, DipTP, MPhil, MRTPI email:[email protected] ov.uk an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: for Communities and Local Government 13 January 2009

Appeal Ref: APP/J0540/A/08/2080100 95 Thorpe Road, Peterborough, PE3 6JQ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr P Maycock against the decision of Peterborough City Council. • The application Ref 08/00602/OUT, dated 28 April 2008, was refused by notice dated 26 June 2008. • The development proposed is the erection of a single dwelling (outline).

Decision

1. I dismiss the appeal.

Procedural Issues.

2. The application was submitted in outline with the principle, access, layout and scale to be determined at this stage. I have dealt with the appeal on this basis as these are the issues identified on the application form, although in various correspondence the appellant has indicated that the layout could be altered. I have however considered the appeal on the basis of it being for a bungalow as it is clear from correspondence that the proposal was changed from a split level dwelling to a bungalow prior to consideration by the Council.

Reasons

3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on;

1 the character and appearance of the area,

2 the living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed and neighbouring dwellings, and

3 wildlife including protected species

1 Character and Appearance.

4. The appeal site is part of a large rear garden containing a substantial number of trees. One of the trees in the appeal site, a large horse chestnut, is the subject of Tree Preservation Order (Peterborough City Council (95 Thorpe Road, Peterborough) Tree Preservation Order No. 8 1987). To the south is a watercourse that adds to the almost rural character of the area. To the west are other similarly large and wooded gardens. To the east are the rears of four

41 Appeal Decision APP/J0540/A/08/2080100

more recently built dwellings. The appeal site is thus at the boundary of two areas of significantly different character.

5. I consider that being at the boundary between an area that has a remarkable sense of rural tranquillity within a busy urban area, and a more typical urban area, makes this a sensitive site. The combination of a substantial number of large mature trees forms a very important element of the character and appearance of this area.

6. Although the appeal site can not be seen in public views from Thorpe Road, it would be visible from the rear of a significant number of houses and their gardens on Thorpe Road, Fairmead Way and Riverside Gardens. The visibility of the site from the rear of many of these houses is increased by the substantial slope running from Thorpe Road down to the watercourse at the ends of the gardens.

7. The proposed development would be for a bungalow set within a treed area of the garden and partially obscured from views from nearby dwellings and gardens by trees and other landscaping.

8. The proposal would not affect the protected horse chestnut and the majority of trees would be retained. However the proposed removal of some of the trees, even though these are in poor condition, would make the proposed location of the building more visible from the rears of neighbouring properties on Thorpe Road.

9. The combination of the size of the footprint of the proposed development, the separate garage building to the front, the nearness of the western elevation to the garden boundary along with the loss of trees to the north would give the appearance of a building intruding into a tranquil wooded area.

10. While I consider that the appropriate use of landscaping could mitigate the intrusive appearance of the development to some degree, the size of footprint and its proximity to the western boundary would still result in a development that is too visually intrusive to effectively create the transitional character between the smaller and harder urban gardens to the east and the larger, wooded garden areas to the west.

11. While the appellant has indicated that they would be willing to move the siting of the proposed dwelling, it is not clear that this would involve a reduction in the footprint of the proposed buildings and without this it would not be feasible to move the dwelling far enough from the western elevation to avoid the harm I have identified above. In any event I have dealt with the application on the basis that it was submitted.

12. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would conflict with those aspects of policies DA1, DA2 and DA6 of the Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement) adopted in July 2005 (LP) that require tandem and other development to respect the character and appearance of the area.

13. I do not however consider that the area can reasonably be described as adjoining the countryside and therefore do not consider that it would conflict with LP Policy LNE4.

42 Appeal Decision APP/J0540/A/08/2080100

2 Living Conditions

14. The Council has argued that the proposed dwelling would provide inadequate living conditions for its occupiers due to the extent to which the garden, as well as the dwelling, would be overshadowed by existing trees including the large chestnut tree which is the subject of the TPO. The appellant’s arboricultural report identifies that the whole of the appeal site would be within the shadow footprint of existing trees. While the proposed removal of some trees, mainly to the north of the appeal site, would reduce the effect of shadowing, the whole of the southern elevation would still be affected by shade. It may be possible to design dwellings that though overshadowed make the maximum use of available natural light sources to ensure a satisfactory level of natural day and sunlight. However in the particular circumstances of this case I consider that it would be impractical to produce a design that would provide a reasonable level of natural daylight and sunlight to the southern elevation without further removing trees, possibly including the tree subject to the TPO, and this would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and to the tree that is the subject of the TPO.

15. The design and access statement has indicated that windows would not be provided in either the east or west elevations to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. The provision of appropriate landscaping to the north of the site, so as to reduce the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, would be likely to exacerbate the problems of natural light reaching the north elevation of the house possibly to the extent that it would not be possible to design the dwelling in such a way that it had adequate natural day and sunlight.

16. The proposed garden would still be substantial in size and there would be the potential for access to a reasonable quality of amenity space to both the north and south of the building albeit heavily shaded. However, this could well create future pressure to remove trees from the site. While the tree that is the subject to the TPO could be protected others would not be so protected. Any further loss of trees would be damaging to the character and appearance of the area.

17. The appellant’s arboricultural report indicates that the proposed development would not impact on the root protection zone for the tree and the Council has not challenged this. I consider that the proposed development would not in itself lead to harm to the protected tree. However the degree of overshadowing to the rear of the property could lead to future pressure to remove the protected tree. While I do not consider this threat to be strong enough in itself to be a reason to refuse the appeal it adds to my concerns about the impact on the character and appearance of the area.

18. Concerning the impact on the neighbouring occupiers the Council has also argued that the location of the access would result in excessive noise from vehicles entering and leaving the site. While I accept that such noise would have a greater impact because of the tranquillity of the nearby rear gardens to the west, I consider that it would be possible to include sound attenuating barriers along the access and sound minimising surfaces that would reduce the

43 Appeal Decision APP/J0540/A/08/2080100

impact of such noise to an acceptable level. Such treatment could be required by a condition.

19. The occupiers of No. 6 Riverside Gardens and No 101 Thorpe Road have raised concerns about overlooking and loss of privacy. The proposed development would be a considerable distance from either of these properties and would not in my opinion result in any unreasonable level of overlooking or other harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of these dwellings.

20. I conclude that the proposed development would not be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings and would not therefore conflict with those aspects of LP policies DA2 and DA6 that require development not to harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. However I consider that without causing even greater harm to the character and appearance of the area it would conflict with the requirements of LP policy H16 that residential development should have a satisfactory standard of daylight and sunlight and a convenient area of private garden, and would thus be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed dwelling.

3 Wildlife Including Protected Species

21. Evidence has been provided of the existence of protected species and vulnerable wildlife in the vicinity of the site. Although provided by a nearby resident, this resident is qualified and experienced in undertaking ecological surveys. He provides details of sightings of protected and vulnerable species in the vicinity of the appeal site. I acknowledge that this evidence does not demonstrate that the protected species would necessarily be adversely affected by the proposed development. However it provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate the reasonable possibility of there being protected species in or dependent on the use of the appeal site and that they might be adversely affected by the proposed development.

22. I do not consider that the Council’s suggestion of a full ecological survey being required as part of a condition would be appropriate. The results of the survey are a material consideration that should be considered in advance of the granting of planning permission.

23. Notwithstanding that the Council has not raised this issue as a reason for refusal, I conclude that the appellant has failed to provide evidence in relation to the presence or otherwise of protected species or of appropriate measures that would be taken to protect any such species. This conflicts with the requirement of Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their impact within the Planning System and Planning Policy Statement 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9), that were there is a reasonable possibility of a development adversely affecting protected species, such information be provided and its implications be assessed in advance of planning permission being granted other than in exceptional circumstances. I am aware of no such exceptional circumstances in this case.

24. I conclude that the proposed development would conflict with Circular 06/2005 and PPS9.

44 Appeal Decision APP/J0540/A/08/2080100

Other Material Considerations.

25. Although I have received copies of consultation responses requesting that specified amounts for particular services should be included within a S106 contribution, I have no evidence from the Council as to the specific needs that would arise as a direct consequence of this development and would not be provided without a contribution from the proposed development. In the absence of such evidence I conclude that the proposed development would not conflict with the requirements of LP policy IMP1 that infrastructure, services and facilities that are necessary, as a direct consequence of development should be secured.

26. Nearby residents have raised a large number of additional issues. These include breach of covenants, and hedge maintenance, which should if necessary be addressed through other legislation, as could the issue of disabled access to the proposed building, although this may also be considered at the detailed stage. As far as the potential for flooding is concerned I have no information that the appeal site is within a designated flood plain.

Conclusions

27. I acknowledge the appellant’s argument that the site is in a highly sustainable area and would make better use of brown-field land as encouraged by Planning Policy Guidance Statement 3 Housing . However, I consider that the benefit from this aspect along with the lack of demonstrated harm to local services and lack of detriment to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings does not outweigh the negative impacts identified above. These negative impacts are the harm to the character and appearance of the area, the probable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed dwelling, and the potential harm to vulnerable wildlife and protected species due to the lack of information on the ecology of the site and any necessary measures to control the impact of the proposed development on protected species.

28. For the reasons given above and taking all other matters into account I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J S Morris

INSPECTOR

45 This page is intentionally left blank

46 47 This page is intentionally left blank

48 Planning and EP Committee – 9 July 2013 Item Number 5.3

Application Ref: 13/00285/OUT

Proposal: Residential development of up to 125 dwellings, means of access, open space and associated infrastructure works Site: Land Off Coriander Drive, Hampton Vale, Peterborough

Applicant: Mrs Pippa Cheetham, O & H Properties Ltd Agent: Mrs Gail Revill, David Lock Associates

Referred By: Hampton Parish Council Reason: Impact of the development on existing infrastructure

Site visit: 03.04.2013

Case officer: Miss V Hurrell Telephone No. 01733 453480 E-Mail: [email protected]

Recommendation: GRANT subject to relevant conditions

1 Description of the site and surroundings and Summary of the proposal

The Site and Surroundings The application site is located to the south west of Hampton Vale. It is approximately 9.35 hectares in size, including land which has consent for the Western Peripheral Road and its corridor and for open space (VG9). The site is allocated for development under policy Sa3.47 of the adopted Site Allocations DPD.

The land to the north of the application site has consent for allotments with associated infrastructure (see planning permission 11/00786/FUL). To the east is the existing edge of Hampton Vale. Morris Homes are currently building out on site, some of the properties are occupied. Also to the east/south east is an allocated area of open space (VG9, see 06/00710/REM now known as Robins Wood) which is currently being laid out. Further to the to the south east is an area of land known as Haddon Heights which the Site Allocations DPD allocates for development (approximately 350 houses).

To the west is land set aside for the Western Peripheral Road (planning permission 04/01900/FUL refers) which will ultimately connect with junction 2 of the Fletton Parkway. Beyond the road corridor lies Orton Pit SSSI/SAC a site of international ecological importance for its population of Great Created Newts and Stoneworts. To the south is another part of Orton Pit. Beyond Orton Pit is the site of the proposed Great Haddon urban extension (planning application 09/01368/OUT refers) which the Western Peripheral Road will connect with.

The site was formally used for clay extraction in connection with the brick works. There is a bank on the southern edge of the site which separates it from Orton Pit. The remainder is relatively flat with little vegetation. There are a couple of small ponds within it.

The Proposal This application seeks outline planning permission for up to 125 dwellings with associated vehicular access, and other infrastructure including new open space. All other matters are reserved for later consideration.

It is proposed that access into the site will initially be from Coriander Drive. This access will be maintained but at a later date a new access onto the Western Peripheral Road in the form of a new

49 T-junction will also be constructed. Finally, the T-junction will be removed and a new roundabout on the Western Peripheral Road constructed (which would facilitate access into Haddon Heights).

2 Planning History

Reference Proposal Decision Date 11/00786/FUL Use of land for allotments involving the Application 12/12/2011 enclosure of the site and engineering works Permitted for the laying-out of the allotments and provision of an access from VT25 (to replace the existing allotment site - VG10, allocated and approved as part of the Hampton Vale Development Brief December 2005) 04/01900/FUL Construction of new highway link (western Application 28/08/2008 peripheral road stages 2 and 3) and Permitted associated infrastructure (as amended) 06/00710/REM Landscape proposals including woodland Application 09/08/2006 planting, reptile/amphibian refuges, Permitted roughgrass/wildflora area, marginal planting, pond, informal track, footpath, ditch system, tree seats, litter bins and dog litter bin.

3 Planning Policy

Decisions must be taken in accordance with the development plan polices below, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Section 4 - Assessment of Transport Implications Development which generates a significant amount of traffic should be supported by a Transport Statement/Transport Assessment. It should be located to minimise the need to travel/to maximise the opportunities for sustainable travel and be supported by a Travel Plan. Large scale developments should include a mix of uses. A safe and suitable access should be provided and the transport network improved to mitigate the impact of the development.

Section 8 - Social, Cultural and Recreational Facilities Developments should plan for the provision and use of shared space, community services and other local services; guard against the unnecessary loss of valued services/facilities; allow established shops, facilities and services to develop/modernise; and ensure an integrated approach to the location of housing, economic uses and communities facilities and services.

Section 8 - Safe and Accessible Environments Development should aim to promote mixed use developments, the creation of strong neighbouring centres and active frontages; provide safe and accessible environments with clear and legible pedestrian routes and high quality public space.

Section 10 - Development and Flood Risk New development should be planned to avoid increased vulnerability to the impacts of climate change. Inappropriate development in areas of flood risk should be avoided by directing it away from areas at higher risk. Where development is necessary it shall be made safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Applications should be supported as appropriate by a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment, a Sequential Test and, if required, the Exception Test.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring Appropriate Assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered or determined.

Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011)

CS02 - Spatial Strategy for the Location of Residential Development Provision will be made for an additional 25 500 dwellings from April 2009 to March 2026 in strategic areas/allocations.

CS08 - Meeting Housing Needs Promotes a mix of housing the provision of 30% affordable on sites of 15 of more dwellings (70% social rented and 30% intermediate housing), 20% life time homes and 2% wheelchair housing.

CS10 - Environment Capital Development should make a clear contribution towards the Council’s aspiration to become Environment Capital of the UK.

CS12 - Infrastructure Permission will only be granted where there is, or will be via mitigation measures, sufficient infrastructure capacity to support the impacts of the development.

CS13 - Development Contributions to Infrastructure Provision Contributions should be secured in accordance with the Planning Obligations Implementation Scheme SPD (POIS).

CS19 - Open Space and Green Infrastructure New residential development should make provision for/improve public green space, sports and play facilities. Loss of open space will only be permitted if no deficiency would result.

CS22 - Flood Risk Development in Flood Zones 2 and 3 will only be permitted if specific criteria are met. Sustainable drainage systems should be used where appropriate.

Peterborough Site Allocations DPD (2012)

SA03 - Urban Area Identifies sites within the Urban Area that are allocated primarily for residential use

Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012)

PP04 - Amenity Provision in New Residential Development Proposals for new residential development should be designed and located to ensure that they provide for the needs of the future residents.

PP14 - Open Space Standards Residential development (within Use Classes C3 and C4) will be required to provide open space in accordance with the minimum standards. The type of on-site provision will depend on the nature and location of the development and the needs of the local area.

PP20 - Development on Land affected by Contamination Development must take into account the potential environmental impacts arising from the development itself and any former use of the site. If it cannot be established that the site can be safely developed with no significant future impacts on users or ground/surface waters, permission will be refused.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 Paragraphs 203-205 of the National Planning Policy Framework: Planning Conditions and Obligations Requests for planning obligations whether CIL is in place or not can only are only lawful where they meet the following tests:- (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development .

In addition obligations should be: (i) relevant to planning; (ii) reasonable in all other respects.

4 Consultations/Representations

Wildlife Officer (19.03.13) No objections in principle. Natural England should be consulted with regard to the potential impact on Orton Pit SSSI/SAC. It is disappointing that the natural seepage area and ditch within the north east of the site are proposed for removal. Would encourage these features to be retained if possible particularly the ditch by incorporating them into the extension of VG9. The proposals for the creation of new habitat described and shown on the illustrative layout plan are broadly acceptable. However consider that there are opportunities to maximise habitat creation within the wider open space. Bird nesting and bat roosting features should also be incorporated.

Natural England (19.06.2013) No objections to the amended scheme of measures to protect Orton Pit subject to the conditions which have been agreed and monitoring/management measures of the new fencing being secured through the S106 Agreement.

GeoPeterborough (Designated Sites) (24.03.13) The application site is located within the Orton Brickpit and Brickworks RIGS (Regionally Important Geological Site) and important for the now buried Peterborough Member of the Lower Oxford Clay and its associated fossil fauna. The Oxford Clay in the area is renowned for its Jurassic fossils including ammonites, fish and reptiles. During the excavation of the attenuation pond opportunity should be made for GeoPeterborough to record and sample. This should be conditioned. There is also the opportunity to incorporate reference to the associated geology in the design and layout through themed play areas and place names.

Anglian Water Services Ltd (22.03.13) No objections. Recommend a condition requiring the submission and approval of a surface water drainage strategy.

EDF Energy No comments received

Education & Childrens Dept - Planning & Development No comments received

Education Department No comments received

Pollution Team (26.03.13) No objections. Accept the conclusions of the Ground Conditions Report and recommends a condition. Also recommends a condition in respect of noise attenuation.

Transport & Engineering Services (20.06.13) No objections in principle subject to conditions. The conclusions of the Stage 1 Safety Audit are noted and the revised design of the Western Peripheral Road roundabout is considered to be acceptable. There are no issues with the principle of a T-junction. Money should be secured via the S106 for a scheme of works to Evergreen Drive if the development is occupied before Stage 2 of the Western Peripheral Road is constructed. The properties would be located more than 400m from a bus stop which is contrary to Council policy and good practice. Little weight can therefore be given to bus travel in the Travel Plan. A Travel Plan should be secured as part of the S106 Agreement.

Section 106 Major Group (18.06.2013) S106 provision should be secured in accordance with POIS. In light of the information provided an exemption from the Neighbourhood Environment fund, Strategic and Neighbourhood Community and Leisure fund and the Neighbourhood Transport and Communications fund is agreed, subject to a contribution being paid towards the Evergreen Drive scheme.

Police Architectural Liaison Officer (19.03.13) No objections to the principle of development but would have concerns if a detailed application were to be made on the basis of the illustrative layout given the number of parking courts indicated. These should be designed out.

Senior Recreation Officer No comments received

Travel Choice (08.03.13) A Travel Plan and monitoring should be secured through the S106 Agreement as should the provision of Household Travel Information Packs.

The Wildlife Trusts (Cambridgeshire) No comments received

Archaeological Officer (13.03.13) No objections. The site is within an area of former clay pits which have been filled. Past extraction is likely to have obliterated potential buried remains. No further assessment is therefore required.

Building Control Surveyor No comments received

Strategic Housing (12.03.13) In accordance with the Hampton S106A applications it has been agreed with the Council given exceptional site specific factors, that no on site affordable housing is required. A large number of affordable houses have already been built in Hampton Vale west and the balance of the affordable housing will be built on Hampton Leys.

Landscape Officer (22.03.13) No objections subject to conditions requiring the submission and approval of a landscaping scheme.

Environment Agency (11.04.13) No objections as the site falls within the area covered by the Hampton Phase 2 Drainage Strategy. Recommend a condition requiring the submission and approval of Site Specific Flood Risk Assessments as development comes forward, and the submission of a detailed scheme of foul and surface water drainage.

The Open Spaces Society No comments received

Peterborough Local Access Forum (29.03.13) The Transport Assessment acknowledged the need for direct pedestrian and cycle access through the site. The illustrative layout also indicates a link to the Green Wheel to the south west which will be an important leisure route and link to the Great Haddon employment area. This link should be constructed at this stage.

Drainage Team (12.04.13) No objections. Request a condition requiring the submission and approval of a detailed drainage scheme prior to the commencement of development.

SAB Trial - Anglian Water (22.03.13) No objections. Recommend a condition requiring the submission and approval of a surface water drainage strategy.

Parish Council (07.03.13) Object to the application as it would place additional pressure upon community facilities and school places in Hampton Vale. The Parish Council was not consulted on the Site Allocations DPD. If the proposal goes ahead the Parish Council would wish to see smaller retirement properties and additional parking provision. The additional play space is welcomed but it appears to be located for use by the new residents rather than the surrounding area. Recommend that it be relocated to allow wider use. Construction access should be from the WPR not through Hampton Vale. Finally the allotments should be constructed prior to work on the site commencing.

Councillor N North No comments received

Councillor S Scott No comments received

Councillor D Seaton No comments received

Local Residents/Interested Parties Initial consultations: 83 Total number of responses: 3 Total number of objections: 3 Total number in support: 0

2 letters of representation has been received. These raises the following issues:- - Consider that the site area is too small for the number of dwellings proposed. They will be too close together and resemble Dickensian back allies as parts of Hampton already do; - The bank at the rear of the site is unstable (2 landslides already); - Led to believe that the area was earmarked for allotment space; - The development should be located at the top of Silver Hill which is a more suitable site.

The third letter referred to is that from the Parish Council the comments of which have been reported above.

5 Assessment of the planning issues

The main issues for consideration are:-

1. The Principle of Development 2. Highway Impacts 3. Ecological Impacts 4. Amenity Impacts including Open Space Provision 5. Landscaping Impacts 6. Flood Risk and Drainage 7. Contamination 8. Environment Capital 9. Other Matters 10. S106

1. The Principle of Development As indicated under part 1 above the application site is allocated for housing (policy SA3.47 refers) in the adopted Site Allocations DPD. This application seeks outline planning permission for up to

55 125 dwellings with associated infrastructure and open space (including 1 ha of playing field). In light of the allocation of the site the principle of development is therefore established, subject to other impacts of the proposal being acceptable.

Hampton Parish Council has objected to the principle of residential development on this site in light of the potential impact on community infrastructure and school places. In view of the formal allocation of the site and subject to the developer entering into a S106 Agreement in accordance with Council policy (see part 10 below), the application could not be resisted on this basis.

The comment from the Parish Council that it was not consulted on the Site Allocations DPD is noted but cannot be reviewed as part of this planning application. The Site Allocations DPD has been through independent examination and found to be sound. As such it is now adopted policy.

The Parish Council has advised that the allotments should be laid out before this development is commenced. This is not considered to be a reasonable requirement as the allotments are not needed to make the current application acceptable in planning terms. A condition to this effect could not, therefore, lawfully be imposed.

One of the representations received has raised concerns about the number of dwellings proposed and stated that these houses would be better located at the top of Silver Hill. As indicated, this is an allocated housing site so the principle of development is established. The proposed housing number (up to 125 dwellings) is less that the allocation (150) so again is acceptable in principle. Although no longer a statutory requirement an indicative layout has been provided which demonstrates that the number of dwellings being applied for could be accommodated on the site.

In order to accord with policy CS8 of the adopted Core Strategy there is an expectation that the site will provide a mix of housing types including affordable housing (30%), life time homes (20%) and wheel chair housing (2%).

Within Hampton Vale west there is already a significant amount of affordable housing, some 42%, which is impacting upon the socio-economic balance of the community. This application presents an opportunity to redress this balance and as such no affordable housing is being sought. The development of this site for market housing is also proposed as part of a wider proposal to bring forward a new secondary school site in Hampton Leys. The developer is providing land for the school in lieu of affordable housing (see planning applications 12/00590/MDOBL, 12/00591/MDOBL, 12/00593/MDOBL and 12/00594/MDOBL). Life time homes and wheel chair housing in line with policy CS8 can be secured via a condition.

The comments from the Parish Council regarding the housing type are noted. However there is no policy basis upon which to seek to limit the type of housing built as subject to a S106 Agreement being entered into the development will meet its infrastructure requirements in accordance with policy CS13 of the adopted Core Strategy.

The principle of residential development on the site is, therefore, considered to be acceptable in accordance with policy SA3.47 of the adopted Site Allocations DPD and policy CS8 of the adopted Core Strategy.

2. Highway Impacts The application seeks approval of access at this outline stage. As set out under section 1 above a three stage approach is proposed. The applicant seeks consent to initially access the site from Hampton Vale via Coriander Drive. A new T-junction with the Western Peripheral Road is then proposed and finally if/when the adjacent development site of Haddon Heights comes forward a new roundabout is proposed. The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment and a Stage 1 Safety Audit has been undertaken in respect of the roundabout.

Having reviewed the submitted information the Local Highway Authority has not raised any objections to the proposal and is of the view that the existing road network has adequate capacity

56 to accommodate the development. In light of this it is not considered that the delivery of the new t- junction could be required until the end of the build out of the development i.e. the completion of the last house. A condition to this effect is recommended.

The roundabout is not required for this development, rather it is likely to be required if Haddon Heights comes forward in the future. As such it is not considered necessary to impose a condition as part of this development setting a trigger point for its delivery. Design work on the roundabout has been done at this stage to ensure that the principle of a roundabout works and sufficient land can be set aside for its future construction. A condition requiring the scheme to accord with the basic design submitted is recommended. The applicant is carrying out some further design work to see if a slightly different design can be agreed at this stage. Any further discussion on this matter will be set out in the Update Report.

The Local Highway Authority has recently carried out some monitoring of Evergreen Drive in Hampton Vale in light of the concerns which have been raised by residents about rat running through it. As a result of this monitoring the Local Highway Authority is of the view that there is an existing issue with rat running.

On the basis of the information submitted with this application the Local Highway Authority is concerned that should the development be built out before stage 2 of the Western Peripheral Road is completed then the current situation would be exacerbated. The Local Highway Authority is currently consulting on a scheme for Evergreen Drive to address the existing situation and it has been agreed with the applicant that this development will make a contribution towards the agreed scheme (note- this application can be required to pay for the scheme in its entirety as it is an existing problem. It can only be required to mitigate the impact which it will have). If stage 2 of the Western Peripheral Road has been built and is ready for use then this contribution will not be required as it is considered that the opening of Stage 2 will address the situation as it will provide an alternative route for traffic.

Junction 2 Having assessed the impact of the development on Junction 2 of the Fletton Parkway the Local Highway Authority has concluded that there would be a discernable impact. The modelling shows that the increased traffic may, at times, take junction 2 over capacity. However the impact lies within acceptable limits allowing for variations in flows and as such the Local Highway Authority is of the view that no junction improvement works are required. It has advised that any further development would require alterations to junction 2.

Sustainable Travel The dwellings within the application site would be located some 700 metres from a bus stop, standard Council policy is 400 metres. Whilst this is not considered to make the proposal unacceptable as the site has been allocated for development and it would not be appropriate to reroute the bus service, it means that bus take up is likely to be reduced. This does not make the development unacceptable in highway terms but means that the Travel Plan will need to focus more on car sharing and cycling. An initial Travel Plan has been submitted with the application. It is recommended that the submission of a revised Travel Plan and associated monitoring fee be secured as part of the S106 Agreement (see section 10 below).

Walking/cycling routes within the site will be included within the detailed layout when this comes forward for consideration. The illustrative layout plan shows a new leisure route connecting into VG9 and the future development of Great Haddon. The Local Access Forum welcomes the principle of this new route but has commented that it should come forward in support of this development should the application site be built out in advance of Great Haddon as this route will link into both the Green Wheel. Whilst the comment is noted the route is not considered necessary to make the development acceptable and its delivery cannot therefore be required as part of this application.

57 Other Hampton Parish Council has commented that sufficient parking needs to be provided. Car parking will be considered at the detailed design stage but it is expected that this will accord with the new parking standards in the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

Having reviewed the above and subject to conditions/ provisions in the S106 the development is considered to accord with policy CS14 of the adopted Core Strategy and policy PP12 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

3. Ecological Impacts Impact upon Orton Pit SSSI/SAC As indicated, the application site is located adjacent to Orton Pit SSSI/SAC a site of international ecological importance. The illustrative layout plan submitted in support of the application shows the alignment of the proposed cat proof fencing to protect the Great Crested Newts and how this would tie into the mitigation measures proposed as part of the Western Peripheral Road and the future development of Great Haddon. A 30 metre buffer zone is also proposed adjacent to the boundary with Orton Pit as part of the open space provision. Following negotiation Natural England has confirmed that the proposal is acceptable to it in principle. A condition requiring the submission and approval of a more detailed scheme via a reserved matter application is recommended. Natural England has also advised that measures for monitoring/management of the fencing should be secured via a condition/the S106 Agreement.

Natural England has not requested that the development should be the subject to a separate Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat and Species Regulations 2010.

Other Ecological Impacts. The application is supported by an Ecological Assessment which concludes that there will be an adverse impact due to the presence of wintering lapwings which utilise the temporary pools of standing water. Several ephemeral pools of standing water and a natural seepage area both of which support Stoneworts are proposed to be lost along with a stretch of ditch which contains common reed.

In mitigation the application proposes to create new habits as set out in the supporting documentation and shown on the illustrative layout plan. The Wildlife Officer has advised that he considers there to be scope for additional mitigation beyond the measures indicated. The provision of bird nesting and bat roosting features would also be appropriate. These comments are noted. As matters relating to layout are reserved at this time it is considered that sufficient mitigation can be secured as part of the detailed landscaping scheme. Bird and bat boxed can be secured as part of the final housing layout.

In view of the measures proposed to Orton Pit and the scope for the inclusion of mitigation measures for other ecological impacts as part of the detailed landscaping design the development is considered to accord with policy CS21 of the adopted Core Strategy and policy PP16 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

4. Amenity Impacts including Open Space Provision Amenity of Existing Properties As indicated the principle of development is established. Layout is reserved for detailed consideration at a later stage, at which point the relationship between existing properties and the new houses will be considered and assessed. There is no reason why an acceptable relationship cannot in principle be secured. As such it is considered that the development is capable of meeting the requirements of policy PP3 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

Amenity of New Residents As indicated the detailed layout will come forward for consideration at a later stage. This detailed layout will be expected to comply with policy in terms of parking, amenity etc. The comments from the Police Architectural Liaison Officer (PALO) regarding the parking courts shown in the

58 illustrative layout are noted. This layout is for information purposes and carries no weight. An informative to the applicant forwarding the comments from the PALO Officer is recommended.

The public comments are noted. As set out above the detailed layout will be assessed at the reserved matters stage and does not impact on the determination of this outline application.

The application site will be located adjacent to the Western Peripheral Road which will be a noise source. The Acoustic Report submitted with the application indicates that noise attenuation measures will be required especially if the houses back onto the road. The conclusions of the Noise Report are noted by the Council’s Pollution Control Team. A condition requiring the submission and approval of a detailed scheme of noise mitigation measures as part of any reserved matters application is recommended.

Subject to the above and consideration of the detailed layout it is considered that the site is capable to providing a sufficient level of amenity for the future occupiers in accordance with policy PP4 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

Open Space Provision The illustrative layout plan shows the provision of new open space including 1 hectare of playing field. The applicant has confirmed that the playing field is also intended to serve the site of Haddon Heights as and when that development comes forward (no planning application has yet been submitted but it is also an allocated site reference SA3.46). In addition to the playing field the application proposes a 30 metre wide buffer adjacent to the boundary of the site with Orton Pit, a new play area and an activity trail which will be located on this site or the adjacent open space.

Policy PP14 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD requires that new housing development be accompanied by a range of open space. In light of the on site provision proposed it is considered that the development is capable of providing sufficient open space in accordance with policy PP14. This will be secured via the S106/conditions.

Hampton Parish Council has commented that the additional play and recreation areas whilst welcome appear to be located primarily for use by the residents of the new houses rather than general use as there is limited access from Hampton Vale especially the affordable housing. It has therefore suggested that the playing field be relocated into the general area of open space.

Whilst these comments are noted this application cannot be required to make up for any deficiencies or perceived deficiencies in the local area. The additional open space is to meet the needs of this development. The location of the open space is not yet finalised as the submitted layout is illustrative only. However, relocation of the playing field could not be insisted upon given the need it would be meeting. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the playing field would be well located to the surrounding area via VG9 if it does remain in the position shown on the illustrative layout.

5. Landscape Impacts The application site does not contain any existing vegetation of any significance. New landscaping will come forward as one of the reserved matters the submission of which will be secured via the conditions. As such it is considered that the development can accord with policy PP16 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

6. Flood Risk and Drainage The application site was covered by the original Phase 2 Drainage Strategy which set out the basic parameters for the drainage of Hampton and the amount of impermeable area which is permitted in each catchment. In light of this the Environment Agency has withdrawn its objection to the scheme. It has recommended a condition requiring the submission of Site Specific Flood Risk Assessments when a detailed applications for the residential development are made demonstrating how the layout complies with the Strategy Drainage Strategy. It has also recommended a condition requiring the submission and approval of a detailed scheme of foul and surface water drainage as

59 has the Council’s Drainage Section. Subject to these conditions the development is considered that the development will comply with policy CS22 of the adopted Core Strategy.

7. Contamination The application site is accompanied by a Ground Condition Report. This concludes that a detailed investigation will be required as part of the detailed design process. The conclusion of the report is accepted by the Council’s Pollution Control Team. Further investigation and mitigation can be secured via a condition. Subject to this, the scheme will comply with policy PP20 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

8. Environment Capital Subject to a condition requiring that the houses be built to an energy efficiency of 10% above the current Building Regulation standards (unless this requires a development of zero carbon) or incorporate other measures which have the same effect, the development will make a contribution towards the Council’s Environment Capital agenda in accordance with policy CS10 of the adopted Core Strategy.

9. Other Matters Archaeology The site has previously been excavated as part of the brick pits and filled. Little archaeological potential therefore remains. As such the Council’s Archaeologist has not raised any objections. No further archaeological investigation is required.

Geological Impacts As set under section 4 GeoPeterborough has advised that the site has geological potential connected with the Oxford Clay which lies under it. It has asked that it be allowed to sample and record the geology when the attenuation pond shown on the Illustrative layout plan is dug out. This comment is noted. The attenuation pond shown is part of the drainage measures associated with the Western Peripheral Road rather than the new housing and as such already has consent in principle. In light if this it would not be appropriate to impose a condition requiring the recording as there is no such requirement on the original planning permission for the road which could still be implemented if this development were not to come forward for any reason. An informative is however considered appropriate.

GeoPeterborough has also commented that there is an opportunity to incorporate reference to geology in the design and layout of the site through themed play areas and road names. Whilst the comment about themed play is noted it cannot be insisted upon under any policy. An informative regarding this and place names is recommended to the applicant.

Bank Stability As indicated under Section 1 above, there is an existing earth bank to the south of the site. One of the letters of public representation received has raised a concern about the stability of this bank as there have been landslides along it. Whilst these comments are noted it is the responsibly of the developer to ensure the bank is safe. A plan requiring the submission of a levels drawing as part of a detailed application is recommended.

Construction Impacts A condition requiring the submission and approval of a Construction Management Plan is recommended in order to control the impacts of the development during the built out of the site. This will cover matters such as haul routes, hours of working and the control of noise. The applicant has indicated that the intention would be to access the site via a haul route along the Western Peripheral Road corridor. However if whether conditions are bad then there will be a need to access the site via Hampton Vale and Coriander Drive.

Fire Hydrants Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service has asked that provision be made for fire hydrants by way of condition or through the S106 Agreement. The provision of fire hydrants is dealt with under

60 other legislation and it is not, therefore, considered necessary to duplicate other legislation as any planning permission which maybe granted.

10. S106 Under the Council’s Planning Obligation Implementation Strategy (POIS) the development gives rises to a S106 requirement. As an outline application the final housing mix and therefore POIS contribution is not yet known. The S106 will, therefore, include a formula allowing the final POIS sum to be calculated on the basis of the dwelling mix. Following negotiations it has been agreed with Officers that the development should be exempt from the Neighbourhood Environment pot, Strategic and Neighbourhood Community and Leisure pots and the Neighbourhood Transport and Communication. This is on the basis of the level of on site provision of open space and community facilities within Hampton which this development will essentially be a part of and on the basis that the applicant is committing the following as part of this outline permission:- • 1 ha of new playing fields • 1 new play area • An activity trail (to be located within the site or the neighbouring open space of VG9 (Robin’s Wood) • A 30 metre buffer to Orton Pit SSSI/Sac • £15 000 towards youth facilities. • A contribution towards a scheme to prevent rat running along Evergreen Drive, if the development goes ahead before stage 2 of the Western Peripheral Road has been constructed. It is estimates that the POIS payment, with the exemptions, will be in the region of £750 000- 790 000.

In addition it is proposed that the S106 will cover the maintenance of the new fencing along the boundary of the site with Orton Pit SSSI/SAC (this may take the form of a financial contribution), a Travel Plan including monitoring and the provision of Household Travel Packs.

The comments from the Parish Council regarding infrastructure provision are noted. However, subject to the payment under POIS the development has to be considered to meet its infrastructure requirements under policy CS13 of the adopted Core Strategy. This development cannot be required to make up deficiencies elsewhere or be asked for additional payments over and above POIS unless it gives rise to a specific need for them.

6 Conclusions

The application site is allocated for development (up to 150 units under site reference SA3.46) in the Site Allocations DPD. As such the principle of development is considered to be acceptable.

The development will not have any unacceptable adverse impact upon the highway network subject to conditions/S106 provision including a Travel Plan. The principle of a three staged approach to access namely access from Coriander Drive, a new T junction onto the Western Peripheral Road and finally a new roundabout is also considered to be acceptable. As such the development accords with policy PP12 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

The proposed alignment of the cat proof fencing and other associated mitigation measures are considered to be sufficient to prevent harm being caused to Orton Pit SSSI/SAC. Other ecological impacts can be mitigated via the detailed landscaping scheme. As such the proposal is considered to accord with policy CS21 of the adopted Core Strategy.

61 It is considered that the detailed layout can be designed to ensure no adverse impact on existing properties and to provide a sufficient level of amenity for the new residents including the provision on site open space. As such the development can accord with policies PP3 and PP4 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

The site is included within the area covered by the original Hampton Drainage Strategy and subject to the conditions will not give rise to an increased risk or flooding/can be adequately drained. As such the proposal is considered to accord with policy CS22 of the adopted Core Strategy.

Subject to conditions site contamination can be addressed and any appropriate mitigation measures secured. The development therefore accords with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Subject to the imposition of a condition the proposal would make a contribution towards the Council’s aspiration to become the Environment Capital of the UK and accord with Policy CS10 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011).

The site will make a contribution towards infrastructure provision through a financial contribution under the Councils Planning Obligation Implementation Strategy (POIS) and the provision of on site infrastructure, to be secured through a S106 Agreement. As such the development accords with the provisions of policy CS13 of the adopted Core Strategy DPD.

7 Recommendation

The case officer recommends that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

C1 Approval of details of the 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

C2 Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 1 above, relating to the 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).

C5 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of a comprehensive contaminated land investigation has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and until the scope of works approved therein have been

62 implemented where possible. The assessment shall include all of the following measures unless the Local Planning Authority dispenses with any such requirements in writing:

a) A Phase I desk study carried out by a competent person to identify and evaluate all potential sources of contamination and the impacts on land and/or controlled waters, relevant to the site. The desk study shall establish a ‘conceptual model’ of the site and identify all plausible pollutant linkages. Furthermore, the assessment shall set objectives for intrusive site investigation works/Quantitative Risk Assessment (or state if none required). Two full copies of the desk study and a non-technical summary shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority without delay upon completion.

b) A site investigation shall be carried out to fully and effectively characterise the nature and extent of any land contamination and/or pollution of controlled waters. It shall specifically include a risk assessment that adopts the Source-Pathway-Receptor principle and takes into account the site’s existing status and proposed new use. Two full copies of the site investigation and findings shall be forwarded to the Local Planning Authority.

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s "Model procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11". No development shall be carried out except in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure potential risks arising from previous site uses have been fully assessed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular paragraphs 120 and 121 and Policy PP20 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012).

C6 Where the studies under C5 identify any unacceptable risk, an appraisal of remedial options and proposal of the preferred option to deal with land contamination and/or pollution of controlled waters affecting the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include any requirements for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

.No works, other than investigative works, shall be carried out on the site prior to receipt and written approval of the preferred remedial option by the Local Planning Authority.

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11’. No development shall be carried out except in accordance with the approved remedial details unless an alternative scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the proposed remediation plan is appropriate and in accordance with the NPPF (2012), particularly paragraphs 120 and 121.

C7 The remediation scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable of works. Within 2 months of the completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a validation report (that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out) must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide verification that the required remediation has been carried out to appropriate standards and in accordance with the NPPF in particular paragraphs 120 and 121.

C8 Notwithstanding conditions 5 and 6 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

63 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 the National Planning Policy Framework in particular paragraphs 120 and 121.

C9 The reserved matters to be submitted under condition 1 shall include a Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) for each of the residential parcels which will demonstrate that the detailed design for the surface water drainage strategy is in accordance with the Hampton Strategic Flood Study, Phase 2 dated June 2002 and the addendum to this report dated November 2004. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved Site Specific FRA. Reason: To ensure that there is no increase in flood risk in accordance with the provisions of policy CS22 of the adopted Core Strategy.

C10 Prior to the commencement of development a detailed scheme of surface water drainage for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage strategy should include the following:- - Full and up to date design details of the proposed drainage system including the detailed specification of any drainage elements - Confirmation of where the drainage system will discharge its water to with the appropriate approval from the body responsible for that receiving water body. - Details of the ownership and responsibility for maintenance of all the drainage elements for the life of the development. If appropriate, details of adoption of any drainage elements. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding on and off site, to improve and protect water quality in accordance with Policy CS22 of the adopted Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

C11 Prior to the commencement of development a scheme, including any phasing, of foul water drainage including on and off site connections shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwellings shall be occupied until the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To prevent flooding, pollution and detriment to public amenity through provision of suitable water infrastructure in accordance with policy CS22 of the adopted Core Strategy and National Planning policy Framework.

C12 Prior to the submission of any reserved matters applications an overarching Landscape Management Strategy, including details of phasing for the strategic landscape areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plans and particulars submitted for each reserved matters application which include public landscaping shall demonstrate compliance with the Strategy and include specific measures for the detailed layout. The Strategy shall include the following details:

Long term design objectives throughout the build out of development; Management responsibilities throughout the build out of the development; Maintenance schedules including replacement planting for any trees/shrubs which fail for the course of the development and 5 years thereafter;

The Landscape Management Strategy shall be implemented in accordance with a timetable contained therein.

Reason: In the interests of the visual appearance of the development and the enhancement of biodiversity in accordance with policies PP16 of the Planning Policies DPD and policy CS21 of the Adopted Core Strategy.

C13 The hard and soft landscaping scheme to be submitted as reserved matters shall include the following details:

64 • Planting plans including trees, species, numbers, size, density of planting and proposed time of planting as well as means of protection and maintenance; • An implementation programme (phased developments); • Hard surfacing materials; • Boundary treatments; • Refuse areas; • Cycle parking provision for any flatted schemes.

The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved reserved matters application prior to first occupation/ use of the element to which it relates. In the case of soft landscaping works these shall be carried out no later than the first planting/seeding season following the occupation/use of the element to which it relates.

If within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree or shrub that tree or shrub or any tree or shrub planted in replacement for it is removed uprooted or destroyed or dies or becomes in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously damaged or defective another tree or shrub of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planned at the same place unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of the visual appearance of the development and the enhancement of biodiversity in accordance with policy PP16 of the Planning Policies DPD and policy CS21 of the Adopted Core Strategy.

C14 Prior to the commencement of development a detailed contoured plan with existing and proposed spot heights along with a cross sections of the banked area on the southern boundary. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved detail. Reason: In order to protect and safeguard the amenities of the adjoining and future occupiers, in accordance with policy CS16 of the adopted Core Strategy DPD.

C15 Prior to the commencement of the development of the residential parcels a detailed contoured plan with existing and proposed spot heights including the finished floor levels of all dwellings and garages. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved detail. Reason: In order to protect and safeguard the amenities of the adjoining and future occupiers, in accordance with policy CS16 of the adopted Core Strategy DPD.

C16 20% of all dwellings shall be constructed as Life Time Homes and 2% as Wheelchair Housing. The plans and particulars of each relevant reserved matters application to be submitted under condition 1 shall demonstrate compliance with these standards. Reason: In order to meet housing need in accordance with Policy CS8 of the Adopted Core Strategy.

C17 Prior to the commencement of any development a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The construction Management Plan shall include (but not exclusively the following):- * Haul Routes to and from the site * Hours of working * Parking, Turning and Loading/Unloading areas for all construction/contractors vehicles * Site compounds/storage areas * Details of wheel cleaning or road cleaning equipment; * A noise management plan including a scheme for the monitoring of construction noise; * A scheme for the control of dust arising from building and site works * Details of remedial measures to be taken if complaints arise during the construction period. The development shall thereafter take place in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan.

65 Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and highway safety in accordance with policy CS16 of the adopted Core Strategy and policies PP3 and PP12 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

C18 Within three months of the commencement of development details of external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include the design of the lighting columns, their locations and LUX levels for both the access roads and individual plots. The lighting scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the site in terms of streetlighting and prior to the first occupation of the plot to which it relates in the case of on plot lighting. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with policy CS16 of the adopted Core Strategy.

C19 The plans and particulars to be submitted as reserved matters under condition 1 shall include a detailed scheme of noise mitigation measures in accordance with the approved Noise Assessment dated February 2013 for the properties adjacent to the Western Peripheral Road. The development shall thereafter be built out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory level of amenity for the future residents in accordance with policy PP4 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

C20 The development shall accord with the access principles shown on drawing number 10908/107/42/24 Rev K hereby approved, namely access from Coriander Drive, the new T- junction and the new roundabout. Reason: In order to ensure that the transport impacts of the development are acceptable and suitable access can to the site can be provide in accordance with the submitted information and policy PP12 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

C21 The plans and particulars to be submitted as reserved matters shall include details of the following, as appropriate:- • Details of the new vehicular roads within the site including new junctions. These details shall include the Western Peripheral Road and its new t-junction/ roundabout along with associated road finishes, signing and lining. • Details of new footpaths and cycleways including how these tie in to the existing foot/cycle ways and bridleways; • Car parking, circulation areas and loading and unloading areas Reason: In the interests of highway safety, to ensure sufficient car parking and to ensure a satisfactory visual appearance of the development in accordance with policy CS16 of the adopted Core Strategy and policies PP12 and PP13 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

C22 No part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until the roads/footways and cycle ways linking that part of the development to the existing public highway have been implemented in accordance with the approved details. Nor shall any dwelling/unit be occupied or brought into use until its access and parking have been laid out in accordance with the approved details. Reason; In the interests of providing a safe means of access to the development which does not prejudice the safety of the users of the existing public highway in accordance with Policy CS14 of the Adopted Core Strategy and polices PP12 and PP13 of the Planning Policies DPD.

C23 The development shall be constructed so that it achieves a Target Emission Rate of at least 10% better than building regulations at that time of building regulation approval is being sought unless alternative measures are put forward which demonstrate and are agreed with the Local Planning Authority to meet the Environment Capital targets and reduce carbon emissions. Reason: To be in accordance with policy CS10 of the adopted Core Strategy DPD.

C24 The “approach" to the principal entrance to the dwellings, being the entrance that would be used by visitors arriving by car, shall be level (not exceeding a gradient of 1 in 15) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to meet the needs for access for all in accordance with policy CS8 and CS16 of the adopted Peterborough Core Strategy.

C25 The plans and particulars to be submitted under condition 1 shall include detailed proposals for the Western Peripheral Road attenuation pond including a detailed drainage design, calculations, volumes, pollution control measures, landscaping and proposals for long term management and maintenance. The Western Peripheral Road shall not thereafter be brought into public use until the attenuation pond has been constructed in accordance with the approved scheme and is ready to received highway drainage. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and convenience and in order to reduce the potential for flood risk in accordance with policy CS22 of the adopted Core Strategy and policy PP12 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

C26 The new T-junction on the Western Peripheral Road shall be constructed and ready for use prior to the occupation of the final house in the development. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and convenience in accordance with policy PP12 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

C27 If the development has not commenced within two years from the date of this permission then the site shall be resurveyed. The results of the survey shall thereafter be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to protect the ecological interests of the site, especially given its position adjacent to Orton Pit in accordance with policy Cs21 of the adopted Core Strategy.

C28 There shall be an open landscaped southern edge to the development of at least 30 metres along the boundary of the site with Orton Pit. This provision should be reflected in the detailed scheme to be submitted under condition 1. Reason: In order to provide sufficient open space for the development in accordance with policy PP14 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

C29 Prior to the commencement of development a reserved matters application(s) setting out a detailed scheme of access management measures, based upon the principles set out on drawing no PST026/010 Rev A shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The reserved matters scheme shall also include monitoring and management measures to support the physical works on site.

The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented in its entirety prior to the first occupation of any dwelling or the first use of the section of the Western Peripheral Road through the site which ever is the sooner.

Reason: In order to prevent unauthorised public access into Orton Pit SSSI/SAC in order to protect the integrity of the site in accordance with policy CS21 of the adopted Core Strategy.

C30 The plans and particulars to be submitted under condition 1 shall include detail of the proposed recreational facilities and playing field including a timetable for their implementation. These facilities shall thereafter be laid out in accordance with the approved detail and timetable. Reason: In order to ensure adjacent on site open space/play provision and its delivery in an appropriate timescale in accordance with polices PP4 and PP14 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

Informatives

67 1. Numbering and Naming Public Health Act 1925 S17-18 The development will result in the creation of new street(s) and/or new dwelling(s) and/or new premises and it will be necessary for the Council, as Street Naming Authority, to allocate appropriate street names and property numbers. Before development is commenced, you should contact the Technical Support Team Manager - Highway Infrastructure Group on (01733) 453461 for details of the procedure to be followed and information required. This procedure is applicable to the sub-division of premises, which will provide multiple occupancy for both residential and commercial buildings.

Please note this is not a function covered by your planning application but is a statutory obligation of the Local Authority, and is not chargeable and must be dealt with as a separate matter.

2. NR&SWA 1991 The development is likely to involve works within the public highway in order to provide services to the site. Such works must be licensed under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. It is essential that, prior to the commencement of such works , adequate time be allowed in the development programme for; the issue of the appropriate licence, approval of temporary traffic management and booking of road space. Applications for NR & SWA licences should be made to Transport & Engineering – Street Works Co-0rdinator on 01733 453467.

3. New Adoptable Highways S38 road adoption agreements The attention of the applicant is drawn to the need to make a formal application to the council for an agreement under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 if it is the intention that any of the highways proposed as part of this development are to be adopted. Prior to the commencement of the construction of these highways, adequate time must be allowed in the development programme for technical vetting, approval of temporary traffic management, booking of road space for any off-site highway and service works and the completion of the Section 38 agreement. Application forms for Section 38 agreements are available from Transport & Engineering - Development Team on 01733 453421.

4. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from the Police Architectural Liaison Officer regarding the use of parking courts. The applicant is advised that the detailed layout should no rely on parking courts and should seek on plot parking in accordance with policy PP13 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

5. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from GeoPeterborough regarding the recording of the geology when the new attenuation pond is dug out and the scope to incorporate reference to the geology in the detailed design and layout. Please contact Jonathan Larwood on 0300 0600326 for further information.

Copy to Councillor Seaton, North and Scott

68 69 This page is intentionally left blank

70 Planning and EP Committee - 9 July 2013 Item Number 5. 4

Application Ref: 13/00432/WCMM

Proposal: Variation of condition C11 of planning permission 12/01544/WCMM dated 25/01/2013 - to amend operating hours

Site: Cooks Hole, Leicester Road, Thornhaugh, Peterborough Applicant: Mr Mick George Mick George Ltd Agent: Referred by: Wansford Parish Council Reason: Unacceptable amenity disturbance to local residents and inadequate noise assessment. Site visit: 31.05.2013

Case officer: Mr A O Jones Telephone No. 01733 454440 E-Mail: [email protected]

Recommendation: GRANT subject to relevant conditions

1 Description of the site and surroundings and Summary of the proposal

Site Description

The application site is broadly rectangular and extends to some 54.4 hectares of which 39.5 hectares is proposed to be worked. The site is located about 1.7 km west of the A1 at Wansford. Thornhaugh village lies about 1 km to the northeast and Wittering 1.7 km to the north. The cluster of residential properties at Home Farm (about 10 residences) lies about 400m to the north and several other isolated farm houses and residences lie within a few hundred metres of the site, notably Oaks Wood Cottage, 300 metres to the north beyond the A47, Nightingale Farm about 325 metres to the South and Sibberton Lodge, about 500 metres to the east of the site beyond the A47.

The northwest site boundary adjoins Thornhaugh I quarry (an active quarry being restored by landfill with access off the A47). The northeast boundary adjoins the A47 Leicester Road and the southern boundary adjoins the active Thornhaugh II quarry and agricultural land comprising Nightingale Farm. The west boundary is defined by a restrictive byway and the edge of Bedford Purlieus National Nature Reserve (which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest).

Thornhaugh Beck rises to the west of Bedford Purlieus, flows eastwards through the site before joining the White Water Brook, a tributary of the River Nene). Although parts of the site have been worked previously for ironstone extraction the land generally slopes down, as to be expected towards the stream valley running west to east through the site.

Central to the site is Cook’s Hole Farmhouse, an abandoned stone farmhouse and associated barn and outbuildings. The farmhouse has recently been grade II listed and so the associated buildings are also listed by way of being curtilage buildings. The property is uninhabitable without extensive restoration works.

The site is traversed by various Public Rights of Way.

The site comprises an area historically worked for Ironstone from the 1950s which benefits from a Renewal of and old Minerals Permission - RMP (i.e. an historic planning permission which has been reviewed and updated with appropriate conditions) and a new permission for an area of previously un-worked mineral. The two permissions (03/01171/RMP and 10/01441/MMFUL) are to

71 all intents and purposes identical and were granted in April 2011. The two permissions have subsequently been superseded by the current operator who wished to work the site according to a different phasing plan - including a re-design of the site layout and re-positioning of the weighbridge - resulting in permission reference 12/01544/WCMM and 12/01545/WCMM taking precedence, and complemented by permission 12/01266/WCMM for the sting of a weighbridge and site office.

Additionally, the site benefits from a further permission for the wheelwash facility and means of access from the A47 through the Thornhaugh I site (permission reference 10/01442/MMFUL).

Proposal

The proposal is to vary condition 11 (of both permission 12/01544/WCMM and 12/01545/WCMM) to amend the hours of operation. The proposal is to extend site operational working hours during weekdays from; 0700 - 1700 hours to; 0600 - 1800 hours with the additional hour in the mornings being for the exiting of Heavy Goods Vehicles only and that no other activities will take place during this period.

The extension of operational hours in the evening would enable the lorries to be loaded ready for exit between 0600 and 0700 in the morning. It is not proposed to restrict what activity can happen on the site during the additional evening hour.

2 Planning History

Reference Proposal Decision Date 12/01544/WCMM Variation of condition C1 of Planning Application 25/01/2013 Permission 03/01171/RMP - Application for Permitted the determination of updated planning conditions 12/01545/WCMM Variation of condition C2 of Planning Application 25/01/2013 Permission 10/01441/MMFUL - Extension Permitted of quarry area for the winning and working of minerals (limestone, sand and ironstone) 12/01266/MMFUL Proposed relocation of site offices and Application 25/01/2013 weighbridge Permitted 10/01442/MMFUL Construction of alternative means of access Application 27/04/2011 and wheelwash facility Permitted 10/01440/MMFUL Installation of a weighbridge, weighbridge Application 27/04/2011 and site offices, mess room, fuel store, Permitted equipment store, processing plant, substation and other ancillary facilities 10/01441/MMFUL Extension of quarry area for the winning Application 27/04/2011 and working of minerals (limestone, sand Permitted and ironstone) 03/01171/RMP Application for the determination of updated Application 27/04/2011 planning conditions Permitted

3 Planning Policy

Decisions must be taken in accordance with the development plan polices below, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

72 National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Section 13 - Unacceptable Adverse Impacts Should be avoided on the natural and historic environment, human health and aviation safety. The cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality must be taken into account.

Section 13 - Noise, Dust and Particle Emissions Including any blasting vibrations must be controlled, mitigated or removed at source. Noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties should be established.

Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Mineral and Waste Core Strategy DPD (2011)

MW34 - Protecting Surrounding Uses Mineral and waste management development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated (with mitigation where necessary) there is no significant harm to the environment, human health or safety, existing or proposed neighbouring land uses, visual intrusion or loss of residential/other amenity.

MW32 - Traffic and Highways Minerals and Waste development will only be permitted where it meets the criteria set out in this policy.

Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012)

4 Consultations/Representations

Pollution Team (18.04.13) Normal working hours are identified as 07:00 - 19:00 (Technical Guidance to the NPPF March 2012). Additionally Code of Practice (for open sites) advises that haulage vehicles will not arrive or leave the site between 19:00 and 07:00. Noise level predictions have been averaged over a 1 hour period, and the ‘noise character' of HGVs entering and leaving the site may result in complaints - and will be different to the character of noise from free flowing traffic along the A47. However, permitting an earlier start than 07:00 may be considered acceptable given the location of the site, though this should be subject to a temporary period to fully evaluate potential impacts.

Transport & Engineering Services (15.04.13) No objections on the basis that there are no additional traffic movements, and that the proposed extended hours are outside the network peak.

Wildlife Officer (23.04.13) No objections.

Landscape Architect (Enterprise) (29.04.13) No affect on landscape matters.

Natural England - Consultation Service (16.04.13) No objections. Proximate SSSI's do not represent a constraint in determining this application.

73 Defence Infrastructure Organisation (MOD - Statutory) (16.04.13) No objections. No safeguarding concerns.

East Northamptonshire Council (23.04.13) No objection to the proposal in principle.

Thornhaugh Parish Council (16.05.13) Object on the grounds of setting a precedent for all quarries in the immediate vicinity and - specifically in the morning - for negative impact on residential sleeping hours when background noise is low.

Ramblers (Central Office) (10.04.13) No objections subject to rights of way not being obstructed or impeded.

Highways Agency - Zones 6, 8 & 13 (22.04.13) No objections on the basis that supporting statements indicate no increase in vehicle movements will result from amending operating hours.

Wansford Parish Council (14.05.13) Object on the grounds of unacceptable amenity disturbance to local residents and inadequate noise assessment (i.e. only a ‘non-technical summary' has been provided and so the findings cannot be verified). However, the proposal may be acceptable if; prior to 07:00 only pre-loaded trucks were to leave site without reversing, and if trucks returning to site after 17:00 were to be parked up without reversing.

Local Residents/Interested Parties

Initial consultations: 18 Total number of responses: 3 Total number of objections: 3 Total number in support: 0

* No objection subject to recommendation for 6 month temporary permission to ascertain nature of impacts. Objections are based on;

* The application will impact on the Thornhaugh I site which has weekday restrictions to operating between 07:00 – 18:00 hours Mondays to Fridays and the proposal would be in conflict with this. * Incremental increases in operating hours would be to the detriment of local residents and would not respect the difference between work time and resident’s home time. * Applicant states that 06:00 – 07:00 is better for lorries to be leaving the site because there is less traffic on the road – the reason there is less traffic is because working prior to 07:00 is not normally accepted as working hours. * There is considerably less background noise before 07:00 and the noise of lorries accelerating away from the site will stand out even more. * 15 HGV movements prior to 07:00 would represent 30% of the anticipated 50 lorry movements (50 per day), representing a significant change to the permitted operation of the site. * Allowing for additional operating hours should impact on the method of working the site – and it is not clear why the consent would still need to be for 30 years if this is the case. * Thornhaugh I has operated successfully within the same consented hours and it’s not clear why Cook’s Hole would require to be treated differently. * The variation of one condition – such as operating hours – will impact on other aspects of the approved operations and it is not appropriate to consider a single variation which will be to the detriment of local amenity without considering the whole application.

74 * The permitted operating hours for Thornhaugh I were subject to significant debate to reach agreement with local residents. The long term nature of the sites requires long term continuity of decision making and to allow a change would be invidious. * There is no advantage to anyone bar the operator from the application which is detrimental to local residents. * The noise assessment refers to Home Farm House – as this is not the nearest dwelling there is an estimated additional 3dB noise level to consider. * A 20% increase to quarry activity time will impact on residents when many would expect to be in bed. * No accident data has been provided to corroborate the ‘safety issues’ raised by the applicant (as one of the reasons for requesting using the access outside of peak network hours). * The site access ‘safety issues’ would support a move to using the Thornhaugh II access. * Changes to the extant permission will encourage the continued use of the Thornhaugh I site access for operations at Cook’s Hole.

5 Assessment of the planning issues

The main considerations are; a) Highway Safety and traffic flows b) Noise impacts on residential occupiers c) Other issues

(a) Highway safety and traffic flows

The recently approved planning permissions 12/01544/WCMM and 12/01545/WCMM benefit from modern, updated and appropriate conditions which accurately reflect the previously approved schemes and discharged conditions. The proposal is only to change the operating hours and does not involve any additional changes to the previously approved scheme; e.g. although there will be up to 15 HGV’s exiting the site between 0600 and 0700 hours there is no overall change to the approved traffic movements (see Environmental Statement – Volume 3 – Appendix H – Transportation; Table H7.1 which states there will be about of 50 HGV arrivals per day (i.e. a total of 100 two-way HGV movements) and thus no further changes to the operation of the development such as the timing of extraction and restoration phasing).

The proposal is Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development and the applicant has stated that the proposal does not require any additional updating of the Environmental Statement than was submitted with the application. Respondents have raised concerns relating to the references to ‘site safety’ in the application; these are conjecture on the part of the applicant that it is safer for HGV’s to join the carriageway when it is less busy and no objections have been raised by the Highways Agency or the Local Highways Authority.

There are no specific conditions attached to the current permissions which restrict the number of lorry movements in and out of the site. There is a condition which requires compliance with the approved Environmental Assessment.

Neither the Local Highway Authority nor the Highways Agency raise any objections to the proposed extension of the operating hours. Given that this is the case and the proposal is not in conflict with policy CS32 (traffic and highways) of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, the proposal is acceptable with regard to impacts upon the highway.

b) Noise impacts on residential occupiers

The proposal is accompanied by a Noise Assessment which states that operations during the amended hours will not impact on the approved noise limits set for the operations – and that the early morning activity (from 0600 – 0700 hours) will be within the noise limits set in the National

75 Planning Policy Framework Technical Guidance.

The Environment and Pollution Control Officer (EPCO) advised that best practice guidance advises that haulage vehicles should not arrive at or leave sites between 1900 and 0700 hours (i.e. overnight). Notwithstanding that this guidance pre-dates the NPPF Technical Guidance by 3 years, proposed operations are calculated as falling within the noise limits within the NPPF for outside normal working hours. The EPCO advises that the character of noise may result in complaint in this instance whereby the disturbance at this hour of the day may be unacceptable. Any disturbance is likely to be tempered by the existing traffic levels along the A47 at this time of day which are approximately 7 vehicles per minute;

Hour beginning 2010 2012 0600 424 437 (extract from ES-Volume 3 Table H41 A47 Base Flows)

Thornhaugh and Wansford Parish Councils have both raised objections and have reservations about the suitability of the proposal, as do 3 individual respondents. The operating hours of Thornhaugh I landfill – which shares the entrance – do not allow for operations between 0600 – 0700 hours and there is a concern that should permission be granted for the Cook’s Hole site then there would be nothing stopping the Thornhaugh I site from also seeking to operate at this time; however that does not form a part of this proposal and should such a proposal arise it would have to be considered on its own merits. It must be noted (and is a material consideration) that the planning permission granted under 12/00463/MMFUL for Thornhaugh 1 landfill site allows for traffic to enter and leave the site up to 1800 in the afternoon/evening.

Parish Council and resident concerns are centred on the negative amenity impacts particularly in the early mornings. Concerns range from the inadequacy of the Noise Assessment to the unacceptable disturbance to residents sleeping time during what is considered to be ‘resident’s home time’. Noise impacts are subjective and as such will affect different people in different ways. The EPCO has stated that noise level predictions being averaged over a one hour period does not give a full understanding of the potential for the character of noise character to be a disturbance, and the character of the noise may give rise to complaint. The applicant has applied for the extended opening hour in the morning to enable lorries to leave the site only. There are no proposals to commence extraction during this hour and this would be conditioned out if this application is approved.

Objections have been received alleging noise nuisance from lorries currently using the entrance outside the permitted hours. The applicant takes a contrary view and the submitted noise report states that the proposal will be able to conform to current noise limit conditions. It was therefore decided by officers to undertake site monitoring to gain a first hand impression of what the area is like in terms of traffic and general noise during the proposed extended hours.

The site was monitored by the Minerals and Waste Planning Officers between 1700 – 1800 hours on 3, 4 and 6 June, and between 0600 – 0700 hours on 4, 5 and 6 June, from the entrance to the Home Farm hamlet. The purpose of this monitoring was to gauge the likely impact of the proposed extension of operating hours at Cook’s Hole taking into account the likely disturbance caused by traffic and any other noise. It must be noted that this monitoring only involved observations of planning officers at these hours and does not include noise monitoring with specialised equipment. There were no unauthorised HGV movements associated with the Cook’s Hole site during the periods of observation. Overall traffic levels on the A47 were noted as being almost continuous (which broadly accords with the findings of the Transport Assessment), with approximately 100 HGV movements along the A47 in either direction in the morning period. There were only 20 – 30 second gaps or periods of relief in traffic noise (from lorries and cars using the A47) during the periods of monitoring. There is no reason to believe that the amount and character of traffic noted at the monitoring visits is out of the ordinary.

With regard to potential noise issues the officer conclusions are as follows; * The A47 is very busy both in the evening between 1700 to 1800 hours and in the morning between 0600 to 0700 hours to a degree that disturbance from vehicles entering or leaving the site is unlikely because all of the potentially affected residences are situated on the other side of the A47 to the site and site entrance * Thornhaugh 1 has permission to operate during 1700 to 1800 from the same entrance * There is a noise limit condition which requires that maximum noise limits at the nearest noise sensitive properties are not exceeded by noise emanating from the site. This condition will remain to be complied with. We cannot control noise emanating from the A47 itself.

However, the points raised by the EPCO are noted and as such it is recommended that should permission be granted it should include a condition which limits the additional 0600 to 0700 hour to a temporary period of a year to enable any noise complaints to be monitored.

Increasing operational hours is likely to require additional external lighting to enable the safe operation of the site during winter working hours in particular. The main site (i.e. that subject to permission 12/01544/WCMM and 12/01545/WCMM) is subject to constraints on the type of lighting which can be used, and the specific permission relating to the site offices and weighbridge has a pre-commencement condition requiring a scheme of lighting to be submitted and approved in writing; such a scheme has not been submitted, and no lighting has been erected in the vicinity of the weighbridge. Should permission for extended hours be granted then in all likelihood external lighting would be required for this area (enforcement action has not been required on the basis that the lack of lighting has not caused a nuisance). Lighting can therefore be dealt with under the existing conditions which would be re-imposed on any permission granted.

Respondents have also questioned whether changes to the extant permission will encourage the continued use of the Thornhaugh I site access for operations at Cook’s Hole, and the damage to community relations through alterations to previous decisions; whilst there is sympathy for these points of view each application must be judged on its merits and these points are not material to the decision.

6 Conclusions

Although the proposal is not necessarily in conflict with the NPPF, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy policy CS34 – Protecting Surrounding Uses requires that permission will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that there will be no significant harm to residential amenity. It is not considered that the additional hour of operation in the evenings and the additional hour in the mornings for lorries to exit the site will result in “significant harm to residential amenity” due the considerable amount of traffic using the A47 during these hours. However, in order to ensure that should complaints be received about any additional impacts of the increased hour in the morning, it is considered appropriate to recommend that the application be granted to extend the hours (as applied for) but add a further condition which would allow the lorries to exit the site during the additional morning hour for a temporary period only. A reasonable period will be for one year. It must be pointed out that the developer will still need to ensure compliance with the noise level condition applicable to the nearest noise sensitive properties (condition 5) with regard to noise emanating from the site.

7 Recommendation

The Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering Services recommends that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

C 1 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details set out in the application Supporting Statement dated 29th September 2010, the letter from URS Scott Wilson dated 11th February 2011 and the Environmental Statement dated October 2012, including the phased programme and timetable specified in the revised Phasing Sequence (Figures 1.1 to 1.8 inclusive in the Environmental Statement Volume 1), Figure 4.9 (Rev B) and Figure 4.12 (Rev A) (in the Environmental Statement Volume 2), the Supporting Statement dated March 2013 and the Noise Assessment dated 01.03.13 except as required elsewhere in this scheme of conditions.

Reason: To clarify what is hereby approved and in accordance with policy CS 21 of the adopted Peterborough Core Strategy (Feb 2011), and policies 1, 6, 24, 25, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD (July 2011).

C 2 The winning and working of minerals shall not take place outside the areas bounded showing the limit of the excavation on Figure 1.8 in the application Environmental Statement Volume 1 (dated October 2012).

Reason: To clarify what is hereby approved and in accordance with policy CS 21 of the adopted Peterborough Core Strategy (Feb 2011), and policies 1, 6, 24, 25, 32, 33, 34 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD (July 2012).

C 3 The development hereby approved (excluding the after-care works required by Condition 22) shall be completed no later than 21st February 2042.

Reason: To comply with the Environment Act 1995 or as subsequently re-enacted or amended.

C 4 No blasting shall take place at the site.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of nearby residents in accordance with policy CS34 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C 5 The development hereby approved shall take place in accordance with the scheme of noise mitigation measures set out in the Supporting Statement (dated September 2010), Appendix A: "Proposed Noise Control Scheme". Except for temporary operations, the rating level of noise emitted from the site shall not exceed the limit specified below when measured at each location listed. Measurements taken to verify compliance shall have regard to the effects of extraneous noise and shall be corrected for such effects. Location (Mondays to Fridays) (Saturdays) Home Farm House 55 dB LAeq,1h 55 dB LAeq,1h Leedsgate Farm 50 dB LAeq,1h 50 dB LAeq,1h Nightingale Farm 50 dB LAeq,1h 46 dB LAeq,1h Sibberton Lodge 51 dB LAeq,1h 51 dB LAeq,1h Oaks Wood Cottage 55 dB LAeq,1h 55 dB LAeq,1h Toll Cottage 55 dB LAeq,1h 55 dB LAeq,1h For temporary operations such as site preparation, soil stripping and replacement, and screen bund formation and removal, the free field noise level due to operations at the

78 nearest point to each dwelling shall not exceed 70 dB LAeq,1hour(free field). Temporary operations shall not take place for more than eight weeks in any calendar year.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of nearby residents in accordance with policy CS34 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C 7 Dust generated by the development hereby approved shall be controlled in accordance with the scheme set out in Appendix B of the application Supporting Statement dated 29th September 2010 subject to the trigger for the remedial actions specified being any signs of visible dust outside the boundary of the site.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of nearby residents and users of the public footpath network in accordance with policy CS34 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C 8 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the Ecological Management Plan Revision 3 (Dated 13 November 2012).

Reason: In order to assure appropriate protection and conservation of protected species and provide appropriate landscape restoration and biodiversity enhancement in accordance with policies CS 10 and CS 21 of the adopted Peterborough Core Strategy (Feb 2011), policies 25, 33, 35 and 38 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C 9 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the scheme for the management of surface water and groundwater (dated July 2011) in Volume 4 of the updated Environmental Statement (dated October 2012), based upon the mitigation measures proposed in the Hydrogeological and Hydrological Impact assessment included at Volume 3 Appendix F of the Environmental Statement.

Reason: In order to maintain the present hydrological conditions in order to preserve the quality of water, flow of water and the natural environment that depends on such hydrology in accordance with policy CS 21 of the adopted Peterborough Core Strategy (Feb 2011) and policies 35 and 39 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C10 Any facilities, above ground, for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals should be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund and the drainage system should be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata.

79 Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge into the bund.

Reason: In order to prevent pollution of the natural environment in accordance with policy CS 21 of the adopted Peterborough Core Strategy and policy 39 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C11 No development (including any servicing, maintenance or testing of plant and movement of lorries), other than that allowed for by condition 24 and pumping operations for the removal of water from the excavations, authorised or required by this permission shall be carried out on the site except between the following times: 0700 - 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays 0700 - 1300 hours Saturdays. There shall be no development on Sundays, Bank Holidays or national holidays. Between 0700 and 0800 on Saturdays operations shall be limited to loading vehicles from stockpiles, traffic movements associated with the collection of mineral and associated environmental control and administrative activities.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of nearby residents in accordance with policy CS34 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C12 Notwithstanding the phasing references, the development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the scheme for tree and hedge protection measures in the Environmental Statement Volume 4 dated October 2012 (drawing ref. D130030-TPM-01 Rev B dated 09/08/2011).

Reason: In order to safeguard the existing trees and hedgerows to be retained in the interests of visual appearance and biodiversity in accordance with policies CS 20 and 21 of the adopted Peterborough Core Strategy and policy CS 35 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C13 Any lighting (external to the buildings) erected within the site shall not exceed the obtrusive light limitations for sky glow, light into windows, source intensity and building luminance specified for environmental zone 2 in the Institution of Lighting Engineers document "Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution" (Revised) (2005). In the event of reasonable complaint as determined by the Mineral Planning Authority, the quarry operator shall instruct a suitably competent professional to monitor and report in writing to the Local Planning Authority on the matters raised in the complaint in accordance with a schedule to be agreed by the Mineral Planning Authority. Should the report demonstrate that the lighting does not comply with the above mentioned Guidance Notes; the offending light source shall be rectified by the applicant/developer within 7 days of receipt of notice from the Local Planning Authority to do so.

Reason: In order to minimise light spillage from the site in the interests of the natural environment and to reduce light pollution to the night sky in accordance with policies CS21 of the adopted Peterborough Core Strategy and policies CS34 and CS35 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

80 The developer shall afford access to the site at all reasonable times to any archaeologist nominated by the Mineral Planning Authority and shall allow that person to observe the soil stripping operations, conduct archaeological investigations and where appropriate excavations, and record and recover items of interest.

Reason: In order to protect and preserve the historic environment in accordance with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy policy CS36.

C15 No vehicular access to the Public Highway shall be used in connection with the development hereby approved other than: the existing track linking Cook’s Hole Farm to the A47, and the link to the entrance serving Thornhaugh I Quarry permitted through planning permission number 10/01442/MMFUL. The existing track linking Cook’s Hole Farm to the A47 shall be used in connection with agricultural, after-care and/or after-use purposes only.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy 32 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C16 Prior to the winning and working of minerals hereby approved, the sub and topsoils present within each phase shown on Figure 1.8 in the updated Environmental Statement (dated October 2012), shall be separately stripped and stored in accordance with the soil handling arrangements specified in section 3 of the Adams Land Management report (dated 29th September 2010) included at appendix K of the Environmental Statement Volume 3 (dated October 2012) and maintained on site until required for restoration works in accordance with Condition 20.

Reason: In the interests of satisfactory restoration of the site in accordance with policy CS 21 of the adopted Peterborough Core Strategy and policies 25, 35 and 38 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C17 Following the completion of mineral extraction within each phase shown on Figure 1.8 in the Environmental Statement Volume 1 (dated October 2012), the resultant void shall be graded to achieve the final levels shown on Figures 4.9 (Rev B) Restoration Masterplan and Figure 4.12 Restoration Sections, within the following 12 month period (minus the depth to be allowed for the replacement of sub and topsoil).

C18 Within 6 months of the completion of the grading works in accordance with Condition 17, within each phase shown on Figure 1.8 in the updated Environmental Statement (dated October 2012) and Figures 4.9 (Rev B) and Figure 4.12 (Rev A), the sub and topsoils present shall be re-spread (separately, evenly and in the correct sequence) to depths to be agreed in writing beforehand by the Mineral Planning Authority.

81 C19 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the Landscaping and Aftercare Scheme (dated November 2011), and accompanying drawing ref. "Figure 1 Restoration Masterplan for Aftercare Schedules" in the Environmental Statement Volume 4 (dated October 2012). The period of aftercare for the site or any part of it shall begin and thereafter be carried out in complete in accordance with the Landscaping and Aftercare Scheme on the date of written certification by the Mineral Planning Authority that the site or, as the case may be, the specified part of it, has been satisfactorily restored.

Reason: In the interests of enhancement to biodiversity and satisfactory restoration of the site in accordance with policy CS 21 of the adopted Peterborough Core Strategy and policies 25, 35 and 38 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C20 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the landscaping scheme for the treatment of frontage of the site with the A47, drawing ref D130030-PL-A47-01 (dated 09/08/2011) in the Environmental Statement Volume 4 (dated October 2012).

Reason: In the interest of the visual appearance of the development in accordance with policy CS 33 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C21 Notwithstanding the references to phasing, the development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the scheme for the maintenance of Safety of PROW users in Volume 4 of the Environmental Statement (dated October 2012), the Footpath Diversion Corridors and Details drawing Ref D130030-FPD-01 (dated 09/08/2011) and Alternative Access Details drawing Ref Figure AA3a.

Reason: In the interests of the safety of the users of the Public Rights of Way that cross and border the site in accordance with policy CS 37 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C22 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the details of the mineral processing plant in Volume 4 of the Environmental Statement (dated October 2012 - "Scheme to discharge planning conditions at Cooks Hole, Thornhaugh" dated 9th July 2012).

Reason: In the interests of visual appearance and residential amenity in accordance with policies CS34 and CS41 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C23 Bunds and mounds of soil stored within the site shall be managed in accordance with the details set out in Appendix K - Adams Land Management Report September 2010. The soil bunds and mounds shall be seeded with the approved native grass mix in accordance with details contained within the Environmental Statement Volume 4 document "Discharge of Conditions 26 & 27" dated 16/09/2011.

Reason: In the interest of the sustainable use of soils in accordance with policy CS 21 of the adopted Peterborough Core Strategy and policy 38 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

82 C24 Notwithstanding condition 11, HGVs may exit the site between the hours of 0600 and 0700 hours Mondays to Fridays only and for a limited period up to and including 9 July 2014. No other activities or operations including any servicing, maintenance or testing of plant other than pumping operations for the removal of water from the excavations, authorised or required by this permission shall take place within the site during this hour (or outside the hours permitted by condition 11). After 9 July 2014, HGVs must exit the site in accordance with the times specified in condition 11.

Reason: To ensure that operations are carried out in a manner which will safeguard the amenity of the area and minimise disturbance to adjacent land users and to enable a sufficient “test” period to enable any noise monitoring to take place, in accordance with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy policy CS34.

Copy to Councillors Holdich and Lamb

83 This page is intentionally left blank

84 85 This page is intentionally left blank

86 Planning and EP Committee - 9 July 2013 Item Number 5.5

Application Ref: 13/00434/WCMM

Proposal: Variation of condition C11 of planning permission 12/01545/WCMM dated 25/01/2013 - to amend operating hours

Case officer: Mr A O Jones Telephone No. 01733 454440 E-Mail: [email protected]

Recommendation: GRANT subject to relevant conditions

1 Description of the site and surroundings and Summary of the proposal

Site Description

This site measures approximately 3.74 hectares and is triangular in shape and located to the north part of Cook’s Hole Quarry, adjacent to the A47. In operational terms the site is part of the whole Cook’s Hole Quarry but was originally permitted under a separate application because this area of the site had not been part of the old mineral workings at the site (1950’s). Now, this site is being worked as part of the overall phasing of the whole of Cook’s Hole Quarry. The description of the site and the issues to be considered are the same as those being considered under application 13/00432/WCMM.

Proposal

The application is to vary condition 11 attached to the permission granted under 12/01545/WCMM to enable operating hours at the site to extend by one hour in the morning (0600 – 0700) and in the evening from 1700 -1800. The applicant proposes the morning hour to enable only lorries to leave the site during this period.

2 Planning History

Reference Proposal Decision Date 12/01545/WCMM Variation of condition C2 of Planning Application 25/01/2013 Permission 10/01441/MMFUL - Extension Permitted of quarry area for the winning and working of minerals (limestone, sand and ironstone)

3 Planning Policy

Decisions must be taken in accordance with the development plan polices below, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Mineral and Waste Core Strategy DPD (2011)

MW32 - Traffic and Highways Minerals and Waste development will only be permitted where it meets the criteria set out in this policy.

Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012)

4 Consultations/Representations

Pollution Team (18.04.13) 2012 Normal working hours are identified as 07:00 - 19:00 (Technical Guidance to the NPPF March). Additionally Code of Practice (for open sites) advises that haulage vehicles will not arrive or leave the site between 19:00 and 07:00. Noise level predictions have been averaged over a 1 hour period, and the ‘noise character' of HGVs entering and leaving the site may result in complaint - and will be different to the character of noise from free flowing traffic along the A47. Permitting an earlier start than 07:00 may be considered acceptable given the location of the site, though this should be subject to a temporary period to fully evaluate potential impacts.

Transport & Engineering Services (15.04.13) No objections on the basis that there are no additional traffic movements, and that the proposed extended hours are outside the network peak.

Wildlife Officer (23.04.13) No objections.

Natural England - Consultation Service (16.04.13) No objections. Proximate SSSI's do not represent a constraint in determining this application.

Defence Infrastructure Organisation (MOD - Statutory) (16.04.13) No objections. No safeguarding concerns.

East Northamptonshire Council (23.04.13)

88 No objection to the proposal in principle.

Landscape Architect (Enterprise) (29.04.13) No affect on landscape matters.

Ramblers (Central Office) (10.04.13) No objections subject to rights of way not being obstructed or impeded.

Highways Agency - Zones 6, 8 & 13 (22.04.13) No objections on the basis that supporting statements indicate no increase in vehicle movements will result from amending operating hours.

Local Residents/Interested Parties

Initial consultations: 18 Total number of responses: 3 Total number of objections: 3 Total number in support: 0

* No objection subject to recommendation for 6 month temporary permission to ascertain nature of impacts. Objections are based on;

89 * The permitted operating hours for Thornhaugh I were subject to significant debate to reach agreement with local residents. The long term nature of the sites requires long term continuity of decision making and to allow a change would be invidious. * There is no advantage to anyone bar the operator from the application which is detrimental to local residents. * The noise assessment refers to Home Farm House – as this is not the nearest dwelling there is an estimated additional 3dB noise level to consider. * A 20% increase to quarry activity time will impact on residents when many would expect to be in bed. * No accident data has been provided to corroborate the ‘safety issues’ raised by the applicant (as one of the reasons for requesting using the access outside of peak network hours). * The site access ‘safety issues’ would support a move to using the Thornhaugh II access. * Changes to the extant permission will encourage the continued use of the Thornhaugh I site access for operations at Cook’s Hole.

5 Assessment of the planning issues

The main considerations are; a) Highway Safety and traffic flows b) Noise impacts on residential occupiers c) Other issues

NOTE: The considerations are the same as those for application 13/00432/WCMM

(a) Highway safety and traffic flows

There are no specific conditions attached to the current permissions which which restrict the number of lorry movements in and out of the site. There is a condition which requires compliance with the approved Environmental Assessment.

b) Noise impacts on residential occupiers

90 The proposal is accompanied by a Noise Assessment which states that operations during the amended hours will not impact on the approved noise limits set for the operations – and that the early morning activity (from 0600 – 0700 hours) will be within the noise limits set in the National Planning Policy Framework Technical Guidance.

Hour beginning 2010 2012 0600 424 437 (extract from ES-Volume 3 Table H41 A47 Base Flows)

Parish Council and resident concerns are centred on the negative amenity impacts particularly in the early mornings. Concerns range from the inadequacy of the Noise Assessment to the unacceptable disturbance to residents sleeping time during what is considered to be ‘resident’s home time’. Noise impacts are subjective and as such will affect different people in different ways. The ECPO has stated that noise level predictions being averaged over a one hour period does not give a full understanding of the potential for the character of noise character to be a disturbance, and the character of the noise may give rise to complaint. The applicant has applied for the extended opening hour in the morning to enable lorries to leave the site only. There are no proposals to commence extraction during this hour and this would be conditioned out if this application is approved.

Objections have been received alleging noise nuisance from lorries currently using the entrance outside the permitted hours. The applicant takes a contrary view and the submitted noise report states that the proposal will be able to conform to current noise limit conditions. It was therefore decided to undertake site monitoring to gain a first hand impression of what the area is like in terms of traffic and general noise during the proposed extended hours.

91 second gaps or periods of relief in traffic noise (from lorries and cars using the A47) during the periods of monitoring. There is no reason to believe that the amount and character of traffic noted at the monitoring visits is out of the ordinary.

6 Conclusions

7 Recommendation

The Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering Services recommends that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

C 1 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details set out in the application Supporting Statement dated 29th September 2010, the letter from URS Scott Wilson dated 11th February 2011 and the Environmental Statement dated October 2012, including the phased programme and timetable specified in the revised Phasing Sequence (Figures 1.1 to 1.8 inclusive in the Environmental Statement Volume 1) and Figure 4.9 (Rev B) and Figure 4.12 (Rev A) (in the Environmental Statement Volume 2), the supporting statement dated March 2013 and the Noise Assessment dated 01.03.13 except as required elsewhere in this scheme of conditions.

C 3 The development hereby approved (excluding the after-care works required by Condition 22) shall be completed no later than 21st February 2042.

Reason: To comply with the Environment Act 1995 or as subsequently re-enacted or amended.

C 4 No blasting shall take place at the site.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of nearby residents in accordance with policy CS34 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Wastre Core Strategy (July 2011).

C 5 The development hereby approved shall take place in accordance with the scheme of noise mitigation measures set out the Supporting Statement (dated September 2010), Appendix A: "Proposed Noise Control Scheme". Except for temporary operations, the rating level of noise emitted from the site shall not exceed the limit specified below when measured at each location listed. Measurements taken to verify compliance shall have regard to the effects of extraneous noise and shall be corrected for such effects.

For temporary operations such as site preparation, soil stripping and replacement, and screen bund formation and removal, the free field noise level due to operations at the nearest point to each dwelling shall not exceed 70 dB LAeq,1hour(free field). Temporary operations shall not take place for more than eight weeks in any calendar year.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of nearby residents in accordance with policy CS34 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C 6 No mobile hydraulic breakers shall be used on site other than the "City Breakers" specified in Volume 4 of the Environmental Statement update dated October 2012. Breakers are only to be used below existing ground level and only between 08:00 to 17:00 Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays and not at all at any other times. Location (Mondays to Fridays) (Saturdays) Home Farm House 55 dB LAeq,1h 55 dB LAeq,1h Leedsgate Farm 50 dB LAeq,1h 50 dB LAeq,1h Nightingale Farm 50 dB LAeq,1h 46 dB LAeq,1h Sibberton Lodge 51 dB LAeq,1h 51 dB LAeq,1h Oaks Wood Cottage 55 dB LAeq,1h 55 dB LAeq,1h Toll Cottage 55 dB LAeq,1h 55 dB LAeq,1h

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of nearby residents in accordance with policy CS34 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C 8 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the Ecological Management Plan Revision 3 (Dated 13 November 2012).

94 C10 Any facilities, above ground, for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals should be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund and the drainage system should be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge into the bund.

C11 No development (including any servicing, maintenance or testing of plant), other than pumping operations for the removal of water from the excavations, authorised or required by this permission shall be carried out on the site except between the following times: 0700 - 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays 0700 - 1300 hours Saturdays. There shall be no development on Sundays, Bank Holidays or national holidays. Between 0700 and 0800 on Saturdays operations shall be limited to loading vehicles from stockpiles, traffic movements associated with the collection of mineral and associated environmental control and administrative activities.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of nearby residents in accordance with policy CS34 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C13 Any lighting (external to the buildings) erected within the site shall not exceed the obtrusive light limitations for sky glow, light into windows, source intensity and building luminance specified for environmental zone 2 in the Institution of Lighting Engineers document “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution (Revised) (2005). In the event of reasonable complaint as determined by the Mineral Planning Authority, the quarry operator shall instruct a suitably competent professional to monitor and report in writing to the Local Planning Authority on the matters raised in the complaint in accordance with a schedule to be agreed by the Mineral Planning Authority. Should the report demonstrate that the lighting does not comply with the above mentioned Guidance Notes; the offending light source shall be rectified by the applicant/developer within 7 days of receipt of notice from the Local Planning Authority to do so.

C14 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation for Archaeological Works (dated August 2011) in the Environmental Statement Volume 4 dated October 2012. The developer shall afford access to the site at all reasonable times to any archaeologist nominated by the Mineral Planning Authority and shall allow that person to observe the soil stripping operations, conduct archaeological investigations and where appropriate excavations, and record and recover items of interest. Reason: In order to protect and preserve the historic environment in accordance with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy policy CS36.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy 32 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C19 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the Landscaping and Aftercare Scheme (dated November 2011), and accompanying drawing ref. "Figure 1 Restoration Masterplan for Aftercare Schedules" in the Environmental Statement Volume 4 (dated October 2012). The period of aftercare for the site or any part of it shall begin and thereafter be carried out in complete in accordance with the Landscaping and Aftercare Scheme on the date of written certification by the Mineral Planning Authority that the site or, as the case may be, the specified part of it, has been satisfactorily restored.

Reason: In the interest of the visual appearance of the development in accordance with policy CS 33 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

Reason: In the interests of visual appearance and residential amenity in accordance with policies CS34 and CS41 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

97 Reason: In the interest of the sustainable use of soils in accordance with policy CS 21 of the adopted Peterborough Core Strategy and policy 38 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011).

C24 Notwithstanding condition 11, HGVs may exit the site between the hours of 0600 and 0700 hours Mondays to Fridays only and for a limited period up to and including 9 July 2014. No other activities or operations including any servicing, maintenance or testing of plant other than pumping operations for the removal of water from the excavations, authorised or required by this permission shall take place within the site during this hour (or outside the hours permitted by condition 11). After 9 July 2014, HGVs must exit the site in accordance with the times specified in condition 11.

Copy to Councillors Holdich and Lamb

98 99 This page is intentionally left blank

100 Planning and EP Committee - 9 July 2013 Item Number 5. 6

Application Ref: 13/00608/FUL

Proposal: Continued use of former barn as 2 bed dwelling - Retrospective

Site: 1A Peterborough Road, Crowland, Peterborough, PE6 0AD Applicant: Mr D Landgrebe

Agent: Mr J S Dadge

Referred by: Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering Services Reason: Due to the planning history of the site Site visit: 17.05.2013

Case officer: Mrs J MacLennan Telephone No. 01733 454438 E-Mail: [email protected]

Recommendation: REFUSE

1 Description of the site and surroundings and Summary of the proposal

The site is located on the eastern side of the A1073 (Peterborough to Spalding Road) approximately 3km north of the village settlement boundary of Eye Green. The site lies to the south of 1 Steamhouse Cottage which is part of a pair of semi detached dwellings. The surrounding character is primarily open agricultural land with sporadic development along Crowland Road comprising primarily agricultural/commercial units. The site is rectangular in shape having a width of 13m and a depth of 31m and is set back from the highway boundary by approximately 6m. The site contains a brick built barn which has been converted to a residential dwelling. A porch/lobby has been added the side of the dwelling and a separate garage has been erected. The land on which the barn is situated is lower than the highway. There is an existing access which is shared with Steamhouse Cottage.

Proposal The application seeks approval for the continued use of a barn to a 2 bed dwelling and erection of garage (retrospectively). The dwelling has a footprint of 14.7m x 4.6m and there have been limited alterations to the openings of the original building. A porch has been added to the north elevation and a detached garage has been erected to the north side of the building. The application is a resubmission of an identical application ref 12/00078/FUL which was refused on 2nd April 2012 and dismissed at appeal on 6th December 2012 (APP/J0540/A/12/2175375). The Inspector’s decision will be referred to in the following report.

The application has been resubmitted as the applicant considers that ‘the goal posts keep moving’ in planning policy terms and in terms of the interpretation of events surrounding the proposal.

101 2 Planning History

Reference Proposal Decision Date 12/00078/FUL Change of use of former barn to a 2 Application 02/04/2012 bedroomed dwelling ( retrospective) Refused 08/00504/FUL Change of use to holiday accommodation Application 28/07/2008 Refused 03/01351/FUL Alterations and change of use of Application 03/11/2003 barn/stables to form 2-bed dwelling Refused 02/00882/OUT Erection of 2-3 bed bungalow with garage Application 01/08/2002 Refused 02/00369/OUT Erection of 2-3 bed bungalow with garage Application 07/05/2002 on land adjacent Refused

3 Planning Policy

Decisions must be taken in accordance with the development plan polices below, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Section 6 - Residential Development in the Open Countryside Housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. New isolated homes in the open countryside should be resisted unless there are special circumstances.

Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011)

CS10 - Environment Capital Development should make a clear contribution towards the Council’s aspiration to become Environment Capital of the UK.

CS13 - Development Contributions to Infrastructure Provision Contributions should be secured in accordance with the Planning Obligations Implementation Scheme SPD (POIS).

CS22 - Flood Risk Development in Flood Zones 2 and 3 will only be permitted if specific criteria are met. Sustainable drainage systems should be used where appropriate.

CS01 - Settlement Hierarchy and the Countryside The location/ scale of new development should accord with the settlement hierarchy. Development in the countryside will be permitted only where key criteria are met.

102 Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012)

PP06A - (a) Conversion of Agricultural Buildings in the Countryside Permission will only be grated if the agricultural use has ceased, there is no reasonable prospect of use for employment purposes; the building would not require significant reconstruction and it is of traditional character and appearance.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 Paragraphs 203-205 of the National Planning Policy Framework: Planning Conditions and Obligations Requests for planning obligations whether CIL is in place or not are only lawful where they meet the following tests:- (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development .

In addition obligations should be: (i) relevant to planning; (ii) reasonable in all other respects.

4 Consultations/Representations

Newborough & Borough Fen Parish Council – No objections

Archaeological Officer - No objections - There are no implications for archaeology.

Transport & Engineering Services – No objections - There is parking provision within the site for 2 vehicles to park and available visibility splays. The Local Highways Authority (LHA) raises no objections subject to conditions.

S106 Planning Obligations Officer – No objections - A S106 contribution using POIS is not required, however a Bereavement Services Contribution of £154.40 and a Waste Management Contribution of £620 are both sought. A 2% Monitoring Fee of £15.49 is also required.

Environment Agency – No objections - No objections subject to the measures to mitigate against flood risk in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment are secured by condition.

Local Residents/Interested Parties

Initial consultations: 2 Total number of responses: 1 Total number of objections: 0 Total number in support: 0

No neighbour representations have been received

5 Assessment of the planning issues a) Background The application site and building were formerly part of the curtilage to 1 Steam House Cottage

103 which was originally part of an agricultural smallholding. However that use ceased when the land and buildings were transferred from Cambridgeshire County Council to a new owner in 1996. In 2002 the application site was severed from the ownership 1 Steam House Cottage.

There is considerable planning history to the site including a number of refusals and appeal dismissals as follows:

02/00369/OUT – Refused - 07.05.2002 - erection of 2-3 bed bungalow with garage refused as development in the open countryside without agricultural justification, impact on the character of the open countryside and the site lies within a flood risk area and the application was not supported with FRA.

02/00882/OUT – Refused - 01.08.2002 erection of 2-3 bed bungalow with garage refused as development in the open countryside with no agricultural justification and harm to the character and appearance of the open countryside.

03/01351/FUL – Refused - 03.11.2003 Alterations and change of use of barn/stables to 2 bed bungalow refused due to impact on the adjoining public highway (A1073) and failure to demonstrate that the development would comply with relevant policy for conversion of agricultural buildings. The application was subject to appeal ref. APP/J0540/A/03/1134259 (decision dated 6th May 2004) where the Inspector concluded that the proposal did not meet criteria (a) of policy H15 of the Peterborough Local Plan (Second Stage Deposit) 2002 in that the application had failed to demonstrate that the building could not be used for employment purposes also supported in PPG7; and the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment contrary to PPG25. The inspector was also of the opinion that prior to the implementation of the A1073 improvement scheme the proposal would constitute a road safety hazard.

Appeal Decision dated 25th September 2007 ref APP/J0540/C/07/2038313 against enforcement notice 07/00026/ENFNOT. The Inspector concluded that the change of use to a dwelling would be harmful to highway safety and conflicts with national planning policy with regard to sustainability. The appeal was dismissed other than an amendment to the wording of the Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the garage, the removal of all kitchen and bathroom fittings and appliances and the removal all internal domestic doors.

08/00504/FUL – Refused - 28.07.2008 Change of use to holiday accommodation – refused due to the additional vehicle movements the site would generate and the number of right turn manoeuvres at the site access would be detrimental to highway safety, the unsustainable location and the conversion would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the open countryside. This application was subject to appeal ref. APP/J0540/A/09/2094049/NWF where the inspector concluded that the site was unsustainable in transport terms and would not accord with paragraph 40 of PPS7 regarding the sustainability of the site.

12/00078/FUL – Refused. 02.04.2012. Change of use of former barn to a 2 bedroomed dwelling (retrospective). The application was refused on grounds of new dwelling in the open countryside contrary to CS1, insufficient information submitted regarding Flood Risk Assessment contrary to policy CS22 and failure to complete a S106 Agreement. An appeal against refusal notice ref. APP/J0540/A/12/2175375 was heard at informal hearing. In the Appeal Decision dated 6th December 2012 the Inspector concluded that the proposal would be contrary to policy CS1 and para 55 of the NPPF as the building at the time of its conversion could not be regarded as redundant. He also concluded that the location was not sustainable.

The above appeal decisions are attached at Appendix A for information. b) The principle of development

Conversion of buildings in the open countryside The description of the proposal is for the continued use of a former barn as a two bedroom

104 dwelling (retrospective). The proposal is considered primarily against policy PP6 of the Adopted Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (previously H19 of the Adopted Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement)). However, having reviewed the case history, the building, the subject of this application has not been used for agricultural purposes since at least 1996 when the land was transferred from Cambridgeshire County Council and the building was used for storage and a workshop in a manner incidental to the use of No 1 Peterborough Road as a dwelling. In the appeal decision against the refusal of planning ref 03/01351/FUL the Inspector makes clear that the proposed dwelling would not have any links with farming or other rural activities.

Furthermore, an appeal against the enforcement notice ref 07/00026/ENFNOT (appeal ref APP/J0540/C/07/2038313) refers to the appellant stating that the site and building were in residential use from 1996, when the agricultural use ceased. The Inspector’s view was that as the building was not in agricultural use prior to its conversion Policy H19, which at that time, had regard for the conversion of agricultural buildings to residential use, did not apply.

In the appeal decision against refusal of the previous planning application (ref. 12/00078/FUL) the Inspector contended that subject to certain criteria of the saved policy H19 of the Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement) 2005 and policy PP5 of the Planning Policies Development Plan Document DPD (submission version), now replaced by PP6 ‘Conversion and Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside’, the conversion of agricultural buildings to residential use in the open countryside is supported. The Inspector referred back to a previous appeal against an enforcement notice (reference APP/J0540/C /07/2038313) which concluded that as the building was not in agricultural use prior to its conversion to a dwelling in 2003, policy H19 of the Local Plan did not apply and agreed with that assessment and therefore also found that policy PP5 of the DPD does not apply.

However as stated in the supporting statement submitted with this revised application, there has been an update in policy introduced by the NPPF notably, para. 55 of The National Planning Policy Framework advises that isolated new homes in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances. Such circumstances include where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement of the immediate setting. There is no requirement that such buildings are, or once were, agricultural buildings.

The development plan is therefore in conflict with para. 55 of the NPPF. As paragraph 215 of the Framework makes clear, where there is more than a limited degree of conflict between the Framework and the approach of the development plan, greater weight should be given to the Framework. In his determination of the appeal for the previous application (ref. 12/00078/FUL), the Inspector considered the degree of conflict to be more than limited and therefore if the building was redundant or disused its conversion to a dwelling, subject to it enhancing its immediate setting and being a sustainable development, would be acceptable in principle.

However, referring back to a previous appeal decision (reference APP/J0540/C /07/2038313) the Inspector found that prior to its conversion the building was in use as a workshop and for storage and indeed not redundant. Therefore the conversion of the building falls outside of the special circumstances set out in paragraph 55 of the Framework. The proposal is therefore contrary to the policy imperative in the Framework to restrict isolated new dwellings in the countryside. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would be contrary to the policy CS1 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 55 of the Framework.

Sustainable development At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states that in order to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and that isolated new dwellings in the open countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances such as the need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside and so on.

105 In terms of its location the appeal site is located on a main road linking Eye and Crowland. The application states that a frequent bus service passes Steam House Cottage and the bus stop is within easy walking distance. It also states that the site is in easy reach of a well established farm shop. However, it was the Inspector’s view that notwithstanding the available bus service the appeal site is dependant on motorised transport to access basic services and facilities is therefore only in a relatively sustainable location. He also concluded that the convenience of private transport would mean that a car is more likely to be used than the bus service. Furthermore, prior to its conversion the building was used for storage and as a workshop ancillary to No 1. This was a more sustainable use than the creation of an isolated new home in the countryside which is likely to generate more journeys than the previous use.

The Inspector acknowledged that the re-use of the existing building rather than the construction of a new dwelling has minimised waste and significantly reduced the emission of carbon dioxide. The development in tidying up the site has also improved the setting of the building. However, these sustainable aspects of the development are insufficient to overcome the isolated location of the dwelling which the Framework seeks to prevent unless there are special circumstances. He agreed with the findings of the two previous Inspectors who considered this matter (appeal references APP/J0540/C/07/2038313, APP/J0540/A/09/2094049) that the conversion is not a sustainable development.

The proposal therefore would not represent a sustainable development and is contrary to the policy objectives of the NPPF.

The application refers to a site at Glass House Farm, Dairy Drove, Thorney where planning permission was granted for conversion of farm buildings into 3 x 4 bedroom properties ref. 10/01494/FUL. The application states that the Local Planning Authority should adopt a consistent approach in relation to applications where there are similar issues. It goes on to state the application is more sustainable than that at Glass House Farm as it is closer to the nearby settlement, has a regular bus service and is not at an isolated location.

It is considered however, that Glass House Farm comprised former agricultural buildings and the proposal therefore could be considered against the relevant planning policy H19 of the Adopted Peterborough Local Plan (First Replacement) 2005. The proposal met with the criteria of this policy which included the farm buildings being suitable for conversion by virtue of the limited scope of repair works; the proposed design being sympathetic to the existing buildings and surrounding character and the proposal not resulting in any highway implications

c) Character and appearance of the open countryside

There have been minor changes to the south elevation of the building and on the northerly approach along the A1073 the building has the appearance of a barn and does not detract from the existing character of the rural setting. However, when viewed from the front of the site the building clearly has a domestic character, which is accentuated by the addition of the garage which could typically be found in any residential location. There is a long history to the site and the proposal to convert the building has consistently been resisted by the Local Planning Authority.

The converted building has been in situ for a number of years and it is considered that the dwelling has little visual impact, taking into account the existing dwellings to the north and the high conifer hedge to the front of the site however it is considered that while the direct impact on the open countryside would be limited this is not a compelling argument to favour the proposal and the same could be said of any dwelling in the open countryside with a similar ancillary building within its curtilage.

If the Local Planning Authority were to approve this application there would be no reasonable grounds for refusing similar applications where ultimately the character and appearance of the open countryside would be eroded.

106

The application refers to the Solar Park proposal which abuts the eastern boundary to the site (ref. 12/01906/R3FUL) and the limited impact upon the character and appearance of the open countryside compared with the Solar Park proposal.

The impact on the character and appearance of the open countryside resulting from the Solar Park proposal is not for discussion here and in any event the impact on the character and appearance on the open countryside is not a reason for refusing the application, as discussed above in this report. d) Flood Risk

The site lies within flood risk zone 2 as indentified on the Environment Agency (EA) flood maps. As this is an existing building and the proposal is for a change of use a sequential approach to site selection to demonstrate that there are no sites available on a site which is at less risk of flooding is not required. A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted in support of the application and the EA has raised no objections to the proposal subject to the measures contained within the Flood Risk Assessment being implemented. These measures include the occupiers signing up to the EA’s Flood Warnings Direct and safe refuge being made available in the loft space leaving it free from obstruction. These details could be secured by condition. Hence the proposal accords with para 104 of the NPPF. e) Residential amenity

The building is situated at a reasonable distance to its neighbour at no. 1 Peterborough Road and as such would not result in any adverse impact on the amenity of the occupiers of this property. Furthermore in terms of layout the use of the building for residential purposes would provide a satisfactory level of amenity for future occupiers. Hence the proposal accords with policies PP3 and PP4 of the Adopted Peterborough Planning Policies DPD. f) Highway implications

The A1073 bypass has now been opened which has significantly reduced the level of traffic using this road and subsequent danger for people accessing and exiting the site. There is an existing shared access with no 1 Peterborough Road. The Local Highway Authority (LHA) has advised that there appears to be ample space within the site frontage for the parking and turning of 2 vehicles and there are appropriate visibility splays. The LHA have recommended that details of the parking and turning provision are secured by condition. The proposal would not result in any adverse highway implications and accords with policy PP12 and PP13 of the Adopted Peterborough Planning Policies DPD and policy CS14 of the Adopted Peterborough Core Strategy DPD. g) S106

A completed S106 agreement was submitted with the previous appeal however, the Inspector found that only contributions in relation to waste management and bereavement services were justified in this instance and a draft heads of terms has been submitted accordingly. This has been agreed with by the S106 Officer and accords with the principles of policy CS13 of the Adopted Peterborough Core Strategy DPD.

The applicant is willing to enter into a S106 agreement with the City Council however; as the application is recommended for refusal there is no merit in initiating the agreement. This will form the second reason for refusal of the scheme as in the event that members agree with the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application and the applicant appeals the decision, the Inspector will be able to consider the requirements of a S106 Agreement as part of the appeal process.

107 h) Archaeology

There are no known archaeological implications. i) Personal circumstances of the applicant

The application states that the applicant is now in poor health and has had major heart surgery and is becoming increasingly anxious about the prospect of having to leave his home where he has lived for 10 years. The Inspector was also mindful of the personal circumstances of the applicant. However, he considered that these factors were not sufficient to outweigh the harm which would be caused by permitting the establishment of a new dwelling contrary to development plan and national policies which seek to protect the countryside from unrestricted development.

There is also the fact that the property has been occupied since 2003 and the City Council has not progressed with enforcement beyond the serving of an enforcement notice.

6 Conclusions

The proposal is unacceptable having been assessed in light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and for the specific reasons given below.

7 Recommendation

The Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering Services recommends that planning permission is REFUSED

R 1 Prior to its conversion to a dwelling the building was part of the residential curtilage of 1 Steam House Cottage and used as a workshop and for storage incidental to the domestic use of the dwelling. The building was not redundant. The site lies in the open countryside and the dwelling is not essential to the effective operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, and so on. The site is not within easy reach of services and facilities and there would be a reliance on motorised transport. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy CS1 of the Adopted Peterborough Core Strategy DPD which state:

Para. 55

‘Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: • the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or • where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and…’

CS1 Decisions on investment in services and facilities and on the location and scale of new development will be taken on the basis of a Peterborough settlement hierarchy. ‘….Development in the countryside (i.e. outside the boundary of all settlements in the hierarchy) will be restricted to that which is demonstrably essential to the effective operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, outdoor recreation and access to natural greenspace, transport or utility services; and to residential development which satisfies the ‘exception’ test set out in policy CS8; and to

108 minerals or waste development in accordance with separate LDDs within the Peterborough LDF.

R 2 The development would give rise to a S106 contribution towards the community and infrastructural needs of the City in accordance with the Planning Obligations and Implementations Scheme. No agreement has been entered into and hence the proposal is contrary to policy CS13 of the Adopted Peterborough Core Strategy DPD which states:

CS13 The City Council will encourage developers to enter into a planning obligation for contributions based on the payment of a standard charge. Subject to arrangements as set out in a separate Planning Obligations Implementation Scheme SPD, contributions received via this standard charge may be assembled into pools at an authority-wide level and to the relevant Neighbourhood Management Area (as described in policy CS6).

Copy to Councillor Harrington

109 This page is intentionally left blank

110 Appendix A

111 Appendix A

112 Appendix A

113 Appendix A

114 Appendix A

115 Appendix A

116 Appendix A

117 Appendix A

118 Appendix A

119 Appendix A

120 Appendix A

121 Appendix A

122 Appendix A

123 Appendix A

124 Appendix A

125 Appendix A

126 Appendix A

127 Appendix A

128 Appendix A

129 Appendix A

130 131 This page is intentionally left blank

132 Planning and EP Committee - 9 July 2013 Item Number 5. 7

Application Ref: 13/00717/FUL

Proposal: Development of site for the sale of cars and light vans

Site: Land To The West Of McDonalds, Crowland Road, Eye, Peterborough Applicant: Mr Zeshan Damani Cathedral Developments Ltd Agent: Mr Michael Cherubin MIAN Design Referred by: Councillor McKean Reason: Concern regarding pedestrian safety Site visit: 21.06.2013

Case officer: Miss L C Lovegrove Telephone No. 01733 454439 E-Mail: [email protected]

Recommendation: GRANT subject to relevant conditions

1 Description of the site and surroundings and Summary of the proposal

Site and Surroundings The application site comprises a parcel of overgrown land adjacent to McDonalds restaurant. The site is bound to the east by the existing restaurant and service station, to the south by the A47 Trunk Road and to the north and west by open agricultural fields. The Green Drain Extension forms the immediate northern and western boundary of the site. Vehicular access is via the McDonalds car park and beyond from the roundabout on Crowland Road. Surrounding uses comprise the service station, restaurant, hotel a small development of employment and industrial buildings known as 'Eye Green Industries'. Clearance works have begun on site and some hardcore has been laid.

The parcel of land is situated within the identified settlement envelope of Eye/Eye Green which is allocated as a Key Service Centre within the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011).

Proposal The application seeks planning permission to change the use of the site for the sale of cars and light vans, up to a maximum of 54 vehicles. Associated with the proposed use, permission is also sought for a portacabin sales office and a vehicle washing/preparation area. Four car parking spaces are proposed to the front of the portacabin for customer parking, with three additional spaces for staff parking.

It should be noted that this application follows three previous applications for the same proposal. The first, application reference 12/00173/FUL was refused under delegated powers for the following reason:

R 1 There is not sufficient room within the curtilage of the site to accommodate the level of turning required for delivery vehicles (i.e. car transporters) to leave the site in forward gear, thus resulting in reversing out onto the public highway which is detrimental to highway safety. This is contrary to Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy DPD 2011.

The two subsequent applications (12/01713/FUL and 13/00418/FUL), were both withdrawn upon the advice of Officers as the above reason for refusal was not adequately addressed.

133 The current application has been supported by tracking diagrams which adequately show that delivery vehicles can be accommodated within the site.

2 Planning History

Reference Proposal Decision Date 03/00599/OUT Erection of veterinary centre with hospital Application 17/11/2003 facilities and parking Permitted 07/00675/OUT Erection of 5 buildings for light industrial Application 23/07/2007 use and office Permitted 08/00960/FUL Erection of four buildings for light industrial Application 14/01/2009 and office use Permitted 12/00173/FUL Change of use of the land for the purposes Application 16/07/2012 of selling used cars and light commercial Refused vans, the installation of a PortaCabin sales office and toilet facilities for staff and customers, car washing and valeting area 12/01713/FUL Change of use of the land for the purposes Application 13/02/2013 of selling used cars and light commercial Withdrawn vans, the installation of a PortaCabin sales office and toilet facilities for staff and customers, car washing and valeting area - Resubmission 13/00418/FUL Change of use of the land for the purposes Application 13/05/2013 of selling used cars and light commercial Withdrawn vans, the installation of a PortaCabin sales office and toilet facilities for staff and customers, car washing and valeting area

3 Planning Policy

Decisions must be taken in accordance with the development plan polices below, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Section 1 - Economic Growth Planning should encourage sustainable growth and significant weight should be given to supporting economic development.

134 Planning permission should be refused for development which would lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance unless this is necessary to achieve public benefits that outweigh the harm/loss. In such cases all reasonable steps should be taken to ensure the new development will proceed after the harm/ loss has occurred.

Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011)

CS17 - The Historic Environment Development should protect, conserve and enhance the historic environment including non scheduled nationally important features and buildings of local importance.

CS22 - Flood Risk Development in Flood Zones 2 and 3 will only be permitted if specific criteria are met. Sustainable drainage systems should be used where appropriate.

Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012)

PP13 - Parking Standards Permission will only be granted if appropriate parking provision for all modes of transport is made in accordance with standards.

135 4 Consultations/Representations

North Level District Internal Drainage Board No objections - The Board's Green Drain Extension drain forms the northern and western boundary of the site, as such the Board's byelaws apply. The relaxation of the byelaw could be supported subject to receipt of a formal application. It is assumed that no increase in surface water run-off from the site will occur however details of the proposed car wash area and the method of surface water disposal is required.

Transport & Engineering Services (25.06.13) No objections – request conditions relating to marking out of internal layout, provision of 5 visitor spaces and 3 staff spaces and retention of the turning area in perpetuity.

Archaeological Officer (24.06.13) No objections - The site has previously been evaluated by means of trial trenching and whilst a number of undated shallow remains, including ditches and postholes, were discovered, there is high possibility that no significant archaeology survives. Therefore, no further work is deemed necessary.

Eye Parish Council No comments received.

Drainage Team (26.06.13) No objections – consent may be required from the North Level District Internal Drainage Board.

Local Residents/Interested Parties

Initial consultations: 12 Total number of responses: 1 Total number of objections: 1 Total number in support: 0

No neighbour representations have been received.

Councillor D McKean - The site proposes 61 bays for car sales but just 4 bays for visitor parking (1 of which is disabled). Given the remote location, where will visitors park when visiting the site? The entrance to the site is directly through the parking area of McDonalds which has a number of parking bays that pedestrians would need to pass in front of traffic to access. This car park is already very busy and as such, there will be a danger to pedestrians. There is poor pedestrian access when walking from Crowland Road to the site.

5 Assessment of the planning issues

The main considerations are: - Principle of development - Parking and highway implications - Design and impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area - Flood risk - Archaeology - Landscape implications

136 a) Principle of development The application site is located within the identified village envelope of Eye/Eye Green which itself is identified as a Key Service Centre. Whilst the site is at the edge of the settlement, it lies within an area of existing commercial and employment uses - notably a restaurant, petrol filling station, hotel and small industrial development. The proposed use, although not a strict employment use in accordance with established use classes, is considered to be employment generating and will contribute towards economic growth in the locality. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed use for car/van sales is compatible with the surrounding character of the area and accordingly, the principle is acceptable in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). b) Parking and highway implications The application site is accessed from Crowland Road, through the car park of the adjacent McDonalds restaurant, with the entrance positioned to the north-eastern most corner of the site. The layout within the site has been altered following refusal of planning application reference 12/00173/FUL to provide adequate space within the curtilage of the site to allow a full car transporter to enter, turn and exit in a forward gear. This will ensure that potential delivery vehicles will not create any danger to highway safety by virtue of reversing out of the site, or parking on the public highway.

With regards to customer and staff parking, the proposal seeks to provide a total of five customer parking bays (1 disabled) and three staff parking bays. Given the scale of the proposed vehicle sales (up to 54 vehicles displayed), 5 visitor parking bays are in accordance with adopted parking standards. In addition, the level of staff parking is sufficient.

It is noted that Councillor McKean has raised concern regarding the potential conflict that may arise as a result of vehicles accessing the site through the McDonalds car park. However, the proposed site layout affords sufficient turning and therefore, all vehicles travelling into and out of the site will be moving in a forward gear. There is sufficient visibility along the access road to prevent any conflict between the site access and car parking area/pedestrians and accordingly, it is not considered that any unacceptable danger will result.

The Local Highway Authority has not raised any objections to the proposal and on the basis of the above, it is considered that the development will not result in any unacceptable impact upon highway safety. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy CS14 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policies PP12 and PP13 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012). c) Design and impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area Associated with the proposed use of the site, the application also seeks planning permission for the erection of a portacabin to provide a sales office and toilet facilities. The proposed site layout, including portacabin, are set back from the public highway, behind an established tree belt. As such, the site is not readily visible from the public realm. It is acknowledged that the development will be hard up against open agricultural fields, with little natural screening at present. In order to soften the impact upon the wider countryside, it is considered appropriate to require additional native hedge planting along the northern and western boundaries. This may be readily secured by way of a condition.

The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has previously raised some concern regarding the proposed security measures at the site, particularly in relation to the proposed 1.5 metre high post and rail fencing. Given the intended use for car/van sales, this boundary treatment is not considered to be sufficient to address the vulnerability of the site to crime. As such, it is considered appropriate to secure a minimum boundary treatment of 2 metre high security fencing by condition. Subject to an appropriately design fence e.g. weld mesh as opposed to steel palisade fencing, it is not considered that this will appear unduly obtrusive or incongruous within its setting.

137 On the basis of the above, it is not considered that the development will result in any unacceptably harmful impact upon the character, appearance or visual amenity of the surrounding area and will not represent an unacceptable crime risk. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policies PP2 and PP3 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012). d) Flood risk As detailed in Section 1 above, the northern and western boundaries of the site are formed by the Green Drain Extension drain. The North Level District Internal Drainage Board (NLDIDB), who are responsible for the maintenance of this drain, has not raised any objections to the proposal. They have indicated that relaxation of a byelaw preventing development in proximity to the drain could be approved, however this is subject to different legislation and processes.

It is not anticipated that surface water run-off from the site will increase as a result of the proposal, given that it is proposed to surface the site using gravel core. However, the proposal does include an area for car washing. The NLDIDB have requested that full details of the proposed car wash in terms of the method of surface water disposal from this activity be provided. This is considered appropriate to prevent any increased surface water flooding arising from the development and may be secured by condition. On this basis, the proposal is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policy CS22 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011). e) Archaeology The application site lies within an area of known archaeological interest. However, in 2010 the site was evaluated and no remains of definite prehistoric or historic date were revealed. The evaluation did identify shallow undated remains including ditches and pits/postholes however no finds were retrieved during the investigation. Accordingly, the City Council's Archaeological Officer has raised no objections to the proposal and has confirmed that no further archaeological investigation is required. On this basis, it is considered that the proposal will not result in any unacceptable harm to heritage assets and is therefore in accordance with 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). f) Landscape implications At present, there are some trees and shrubs within the site. The City Council's Landscape Officer has raised no objections to the loss of these trees as they offer little value to the overall amenity of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposal is set back a sufficient distance from the existing tree belt which lines the southern boundary of the site and therefore, no harm will result to these trees. Accordingly, the proposal is in accordance with Policy PP16 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012).

6 Conclusions

Subject to the imposition of the attached conditions, the proposal is 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 for car/van sales is compatible within its locality and appropriate within its context, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012); - the proposal provides sufficient access, parking and turning within the site and will not result in any unacceptable impact upon highway safety, 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 proposed site layout and portacabin will not result in any unacceptable impact upon the character, appearance or visual amenity of the surrounding area and will not result in an unacceptable crime risk, in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policies PP2 and PP3 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

138 - the proposal will not result in any unacceptable increase in surface water flood risk, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policy CS22 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011); - the proposal will not result in any unacceptable harm to heritage assets within the locality, in accordance with 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); and - the proposal will not result in any unacceptable harm to existing trees surrounding the site, in accordance with Policy PP16 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012).

7 Recommendation

The Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering Services recommends that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

C 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

C 2 The site shall be laid out in accordance with the details shown on drawing number P188-10 Revision D, with the car display bays, staff parking and visitor parking bays clearly marked out. Those areas shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than those shown on the approved drawing.

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 3 The area shown on drawing number 7332-001 Revision A for the turning, loading and unloading of all delivery vehicles within the site shall be kept clear of any obstruction and retained in perpetuity for no purpose other than the turning, loading or unloading of vehicles in connection with the use of the car sales operation.

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 4 Notwithstanding the details hereby approved and prior to implementation of the use hereby permitted, the entire site boundary shall be secured by way of 2 metre high weld-mesh fencing finished in green or black, including the vehicular access gates.

Reason: In the interests of reducing the risk of crime, in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP3 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012).

139 C 5 Notwithstanding the submitted information and within one month of the implementation of the use hereby permitted, a natural hedgerow comprising 50% Blackthorn (Prunus Spinosa), 20% Hawthorn (Crataegus Monogyna), 20% Field Maple (Acer Campestre) and 10% Dog Rose (Rosa Canina) shall be planted along the northern and western boundaries of the site. The hedge shall be planted in two staggered rows, 300mm apart, with plants spaced 400mm apart (no less than 5 plants per linear metre). All plants shall be protected by shrub guards.

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

C 6 Any trees, shrubs or hedges forming part of the approved landscaping scheme 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.

C 7 Prior to implementation of the use hereby approved, full details of the method of disposal of surface water from the car wash area hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved method shall be implemented prior to first use of the car wash area.

Reason: To prevent increased surface water flood risk, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policy CS22 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011).

Copy to Councillor Harrington

140