Post by admin on Dec 11, 2023 10:10:42 GMT
Interesting piece in the ET today (11/12/23). It may be nothing compared to the monstrosity at the EoES that EEAS/AEPG and PCC are presiding over but some similar issues that you could possibly transpose?
Plans to build new homes on vacant land in Peterborough village refused once again
Plans for the parcel of land in Newborough have now been refused twice.
The homes also had a section 106 provision which stated that they had to be sold to qualifying purchasers at 80% of open market value.
In January, the developers were refused permission for four four bedroom homes on the land as planning officers were concerned regarding noise- due to its proximity to Peterborough Tyre and Battery Shop as well as the fact that the development was outside of the defined village envelope.
On this occasion, the development was rejected due to its character.
The decision notice stated: “The proposal by virtue of its scale, design and location would result in adverse harm to the appearance of the site and the edge of the settlement, with the cumulative impact of eight dwellings in this location resulting in unnecessary urbanising and enclosing of this location.
"The proposal is unsympathetic to the local character and surrounding landscape setting, as well as failing to add to the overall quality of the area.”
Further concerns were raised about the fact that insufficient information had been provided as the negative impacts on the countryside resulting from the development and on the possible flood risks.
Planning officers were also concerned about the narrow nature of Soke Road and the potential of cars encroaching onto the verges with the increased use.
see any similarities? Albeit on a much smaller scale.
Plans to build new homes on vacant land in Peterborough village refused once again
Plans for the parcel of land in Newborough have now been refused twice.
The homes also had a section 106 provision which stated that they had to be sold to qualifying purchasers at 80% of open market value.
In January, the developers were refused permission for four four bedroom homes on the land as planning officers were concerned regarding noise- due to its proximity to Peterborough Tyre and Battery Shop as well as the fact that the development was outside of the defined village envelope.
On this occasion, the development was rejected due to its character.
The decision notice stated: “The proposal by virtue of its scale, design and location would result in adverse harm to the appearance of the site and the edge of the settlement, with the cumulative impact of eight dwellings in this location resulting in unnecessary urbanising and enclosing of this location.
"The proposal is unsympathetic to the local character and surrounding landscape setting, as well as failing to add to the overall quality of the area.”
Further concerns were raised about the fact that insufficient information had been provided as the negative impacts on the countryside resulting from the development and on the possible flood risks.
Planning officers were also concerned about the narrow nature of Soke Road and the potential of cars encroaching onto the verges with the increased use.
see any similarities? Albeit on a much smaller scale.