Agenda item

Report of the Head of Planning ( copy herewith)

Ward:St James

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application number N/2011/0504 elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum and the comments of the Highway Authority including an additional requested condition re the highway layout.  The layout of the car park would be reconsidered by the application of the Highway Authority. He commented that the application was for 14 houses, located on land next to St James Church which is a former school site, fronting onto Greenwood Road. Each property would have its own rear private garden and there would be on-site parking for 16 cars. He commented that there were no planning reasons to prevent the development.

Councillor Wire, as Ward Councillor, referred to a number of concerns raised by local residents, notably that a small part of the area had been earmarked for Community use. He stated that there had already been a loss of heritage to the St James’ area and commented that it would be aesthetically more pleasing if some of the original features were to be maintained and requested that consideration be given to the inclusion of the use of school frontage be a condition placed on the application. He commented that the current site was in a state of disrepair but hoped that consideration be given to the heritage and history of the St James’ area. 

Mr Croucher, on behalf of St James Residents Association, commented that St James had lost a lot of its heritage and would like to see the preservation of as much of the fabric of the building as possible. He also reported that there was an area of curtilage, which was listed as being part of the church, and was owned by the Diocese of Peterborough. He also expressed concern about the parking problems currently experienced and stated that this would be further exacerbated by the new development.

The Head of Planning commented that the building was not listed in its own right nor curtilage listed for the reasons set out in the report and thus an application for Listed Building Consent would not be required.   Therefore this was not a ground for rejecting this application for conversion into flats. He added in respect of the building referred to by Cllr Wire that there had been pre-application decisions about the potential use of this building for community purposes but that it did not form part of the current planning application and was not within the application site.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED: 1. That the application be approved in principle subject to the prior completion of a S106 legal agreement and conditions set out in the report as the proposal would represent the affective reuse of previously developed land and would not unduly impact upon the amenities of surrounding occupiers.  As a result of this, the proposal complies with the requirements of PPS1, PPS3, PPS5, PPS23, PPS25, PPG13 and PPG24 and Local Plan Policies E20, E40 and H6

             The S106 agreement shall secure a payment to fund the provision of primary school education within the vicinity in order to meet the future needs of occupiers of the proposed development.

2.      That in the event that the S106 legal agreement is not secured within three calendar months of the date of this Committee meeting, delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning to refuse or finally dispose of the application on account of the necessary mitigation measures not being secured in order to make the proposed development acceptable.

3.       That delegation be given to the Head of Planning to revise the conditions with regards to the use of bricks from the former site and the erection of a plaque to mark the heritage of the school and to secure further control over the highway layout.