PARISH COUNCIL MEETING
held on Wednesday
25
th August, 2021
in the Village Hall, High St.
Present: Councillors; D Batty, Mrs C Bysshe, Cllr. R W Johnson (Vice Chairman), D Lane, R
Randall, P Skinner, E Spendelow, and Mr JV Haste (Clerk). Also present two members of the
public.
MINUTES OF MEETING
531. This unscheduled meeting had been properly called solely to consider planning applications.
In the absence of the chairman Cllr. Johnson, (vice chairman, presided over this meeting. Cllr.
Johnson welcomed all in attendance and held a minutes silence in memory of Cllr. Christopher
James Wilde who had passed away since our previous meeting
532. Apologies for Absence – Cllrs. Holdich and Kirt sent apologies as they are away from
Peterborough on holiday
533. Members Declarations of Interest – None.
534. Public Participation – The son and daughter in law of the resident of 15 Welmore Road
spoke on behalf of that resident in opposition to the planning application relating to the
neighbouring property at 17 Welmore Road. The grounds for their opposition related to the
combination of the height and proximity to the home of their elderly parent. 17 Welmore Road
is a two storey semi detached and is considerably taller than the adjacent Chalet Bungalow of
15 Welmore Road. The planned extension would be approximately 800 centimetres from the
boundary and could cause a dangerous downdraft in the chimney of the lower chalet
bungalow and in their opinion potential CO2 poisoning.
535. Planning
a. Status of current planning applications – An update report on applications previously
considered by the parish council had been circulated with the agenda and the content was
noted.
b. 21/00864/HHFUL- 17 Welmore Road – Two storey extension to the side of dwelling and
single storey rear extension. – Cllr Johnson reported the observations of the planning
working group. We considered that the plans were unclear and inadequate for the purpose, even
contradictory in that detail on part of the plan was not present on other plans of the same building.
We had the additional benefit of photographs taken of the outbuilding at 17 Welmore road. We
noted that partial demolition of the existing outbuilding had already commenced.
We supported the views and objection made by on behalf of the neighbour. In our opinion the
height of the 2-storey dwelling dwarfs the neighbouring chalet and by virtue of the planned
proximity to the boundary would cause considerable loss of amenity for the neighbouring
resident(s), In addition it would have a negative impact on the street scene. We are of the opinion
that planning permission should be vigorously opposed. We therefore asked that IF the case officer
is minded to approve the application it should then be referred to the Planning and Environmental
Protection Committee of the City Council
c. 21/01065 HHFUL 11a Lincoln Road – Attached double garage to the side elevation. We had
access to the Planning portal and the details submitted by the applicant. Whilst we have no
objection to the Proposed 2-storey garage with storage over, we are nevertheless of the opinion
that any permission granted should contain conditions that the upper floor should only ever be
available for storage and not used for residential or commercial purposes.
d. 21/01144/CTR 10 High Street (G1) Mixed species along side of car park and extending along
same line behind pub outbuildings, crown raise to 4m and prune back to 1.5m with clearance of
buildings, (T1) Fell Sycamore, (T2 &,T3) Fell Cypress with no x1 Whitebeam to be centrally planted
to replace T1, T2 and T3. We noted that no reason had been given for the proposal to fell some
trees. We expressed our concern at the volume of trees being felled in the village and our
preference for reduction in size rather than felling. We also feel that tree replacements should be
one for one basis.
e. 21/01310/FUL – 28 Peakirk Road – Demolition of garage and outbuilding, erection of 1 1/2 storey
chalet bungalow, creation of new vehicular access and alterations to form a new opening on the
rear of 28 Peakirk Road. We considered the submitted plans to be difficult to read, however they
were sufficiently clear to enable us to conclude that this was a prime example of overdevelopment
of a site. WE object to the application as over development of the site, inadequate site access,
detrimental alteration to the street scene and insufficient parking provision all against the planning
policies in the adopted neighbourhood plan.
536. Date of Next Scheduled meeting – 21st September,2021
Meeting closed at 7.55pm
Clerk/Proper Officer
