|
|
Post by admin on Jun 6, 2024 23:24:44 GMT
Just a couple of points of interest from there:Mr Butterfield told the meeting of Opportunity Peterborough’s Bondholder meeting - who are they  that the city was massively under-served in terms of health, fitness, leisure and active lifestyle facilities. - evidence for that What is the overlap with Great Haddon (Once finished, Great Haddon is expected to provide 5,350 homes, 9,000 jobs, four schools, three shopping centres and sports facilities), the Nene Park climbing wall and activity centre, other developments in the city both now and in the 12 years when this development comes on line should it ever unfortunately see the light of day in an unchanged format? - anyone any good with an AI comparison tool? - the development, which could take 12 years to complete!
Or any other relevant comments.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 13, 2024 9:35:29 GMT
New £200 million North Westgate plan reopens row over best way forward peterboroughtoday 13/6/24
A developer’s vow to seek the go-ahead for a £200 million plan to transform Peterborough’s North Westgate has reopened a row over the best way to secure the site’s long-awaited redevelopment.
Peter Breach, chairman of Hawksworth Securities, says he hopes to submit a new planning application for a hotel-led development to Peterborough City Council before the autumn.
Mr Breach, who has already had one planning application for the site approved, says his new proposals will take into account the changing requirements of a city centre with a focus on providing accommodation. - Anyone seen the monstrosity in Northminster (and that's before the ex Solstice & Brook Street car park get built on + others elsewhere)? How much & what type of accommodation does the city bloody need?
His previous outline application also for a hotel-led development with offices and apartments was approved by the council in 2018.
But that approval lapsed in 2021 after failing to meet a requirement to submit further details around ‘reserved matters’ within three years of the approval.
It triggered a call from Conservative Cllr Wayne Fitzgerald, who was then leader of the council, that landowners in North Westgate, bounded by Bourges Boulevard, Lincoln Road, Bright Street and Westgate, should be prepared to sell their land or face a council compulsory purchase order.
He said it was the only way the council could end a 30 year long wait for the development.
Following news of the new plans, Cllr Fitzgerald, who is now leader of the council’s Conservative group, said: “I still think the best way to secure the regeneration of North Westgate is for the council to push on and take control of the site.
“Obviously, Mr Breach is welcome to submit a planning application which will be considered on its merits.”
Cllr Nick Thulbourn, who is the Labour-run council’s cabinet member for regeneration, said: “We are looking at all plans for development in the city and the focus is on getting them delivered and finding out where the blockages are.”
Four months ago, the council released a video in which Nick Carter, growth and regeneration director, said North Westgate ‘has risen up in our priority list for a development that we need to get away.’ - interesting. Is the EoES on that priority list?
“So we’re looking at ways of assembling this site ourselves, maybe looking at using the council’s own powers of intervention to ensure this development comes forward in the next 24 months.” - jeez, I hope that the "selfish cohort" is in it for the long haul if common sense doesn't prevail?
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 26, 2024 14:16:03 GMT
General Election 2024: North West Cambridgeshire (Where Peterborough speedway sits) candidates set out their growth vision for the Peterborough and the wider constituency!Next UK General Election Constituencies - North West Cambridgeshire Betting Odds:   So let's focus on the top two? The Reform vote could be anything anywhere so it's a wait and see situation with Farage's boys and girls. The Greens are barking and the LibDems couldn't be arsed to provide their vision!The Peterborough Telegraph has asked the candidates running to be North West Cambridgeshire’s MP how they would like to see the city grow and what developments they would like to help deliver.
The question posed was “From the perspective of growth, what do you think are the most important developments you would like to see completed/brought to Peterborough/ over the next five years?” Neither Conservative, Shailesh Vara (his enthusiasm for Peterborough Speedway was short-lived) or Labour's Sam Carling referenced the EoES, probably because they know they will be out long before any of the alleged benefits appear in a decade if approved. In fact only the Greens mentioned it, but as no hopers that's not too concerning nationally but is a warning at the local level  SV: Houses should be built in the right places. There should be more use of brownfield sites and less destruction of beautiful countryside and greenspaces enjoyed by locals. That means that rural areas around Peterborough and Sibson Airfield should not be included in revised Local Plans. The infrastructure which accompanies new developments needs to improve. Those giving planning permission should ensure that there are proper green spaces, schools, GP surgeries as well as better parking facilities. SC: When done right, development can be sustainable and positive for nature and biodiversity – streets lined with trees and microhabitats are provide excellent ecosystems for both plants and animals. Paying due regard to open spaces and nature in developments also ensures that places are built for people, promoting a thriving culture in new communities. Peterborough needs a stronger, more ambitious Local Plan – the overarching local policy document which new developments must comply with – to achieve truly sustainable developments. The same is true to deliver more affordable housing, and Labour would strengthen planning obligations to ensure new developments provide more affordable homes, with increased protections on newly-built social housing. Nationally, Labour has set out a brownfield-first approach to new housebuilding, prioritising the development of previously used land wherever possible. We’re committed to preserving the green belt, which under the Conservatives is regularly released for development in a haphazard way. We would take a more strategic approach to greenbelt land designation, and release it to build more homes in the right places – prioritising lower-quality “grey belt” land and incorporating new rules to ensure development benefits communities and nature, and is climate-resilient. To be fair to The Greens, as the only ones to mention the EoES, they did say: AEPG’s proposed redevelopment of the Showground has worried many local residents, and I understand these concerns." - but only enough to wave it through and make the best of a bad job!
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 28, 2024 10:00:47 GMT
A couple of points worth noting from a decision by Peterborough City Council’s Environmental Protection and Planning Committee.New adult gaming centre in place of Chinese takeaway approved in Peterborough despite objections of councillor - small beer issue but interesting points:Councillors rejected moral arguments against gambling. North Ward representative Cllr Asim Mahmood spoke passionately against the application. He said: “I do not agree with the recommendation of officers to approve this application. I strongly feel that this development would have an adverse impact on the local area. We have a number of adult gaming centres within the ward and the proximity to the proposal. I don’t see the need of an additional venue. It contradicts the local plan, it would not constitute a positive development and provide sustainable growth to the area.” Ahead of the decision, Cllr Wayne Fitzgerald added: “The business is a lawful business, it is not for us to judge what business they are in. I will be supporting the application. - surprised?I don't like the bloke but to be fair to him the applicant's spokesperson did offer a reasonable explanation on the face of it? Butterfield is similarly laying that sort of groundwork daily to influence decision makers so it was interesting to read this (PT 27/6/24)Cllr Andrew Bond added: “We are here to make a planning decision, whether you agree with this kind of business or not, the planning policies have been sufficiently covered in the documents.Chair Chris Harper further added: “Cllr Mahmood has stood up gallantly, as he should do for his area, but we are here as a planning committee and we make decision based on rules and low. " Under planning, the default is yes unless you see a reason for no. "I can’t see any reason to reject this.” |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 29, 2024 20:34:57 GMT
Not a major development but some interesting points:
Plans to create a new caravan site in Glinton for the use of up to four Traveller families have been recommended for approval.
This is despite the objections of 32 residents as well as ward councillors Neil Boyce and Peter Hiller.
The decision has been recommended for approval for council planning officers but must be passed by the city’s planning committee on Tuesday (July 30) in its meeting at 1:30pm.
Cllrs Boyce and Hiller objected to the proposal, stating: “The proposal would result in an adverse impact on the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties. Similarly, the character and appearance of the open aspect countryside here would indeed be unacceptably and permanently harmed.
"The current adopted local plan determined no additional need for Gypsy and Traveller sites provision in Peterborough.
"We suggest Peterborough's existing council-owned sites do indeed have spaces available currently and that additional, far more suitable sites will almost certainly become available within the next 11 years to satisfy the suggested total number for categories required in the current Adopted local plan for 2016-2036.”
Glinton Parish Council also objected to the grounds of the principle, wildlife, ecology and character impacts of the proposed development.
A total of 32 other objections were received, they cited issued such as that the works had already begun on the site without planning permission and that the land has previously been the subject of planning application but these were refused as the last was ‘not to be used for development.’
Residents further raised concerns about the loss of amenity, noise, risk to wildlife and the intensification of traffic on the roads nearby.
ET 29/7/24
|
|
|
|
Post by Hodgy on Jul 29, 2024 23:32:07 GMT
Not a major development but some interesting points:Plans to create a new caravan site in Glinton for the use of up to four Traveller families have been recommended for approval.This is despite the objections of 32 residents as well as ward councillors Neil Boyce and Peter Hiller. The decision has been recommended for approval for council planning officers but must be passed by the city’s planning committee on Tuesday (July 30) in its meeting at 1:30pm.Cllrs Boyce and Hiller objected to the proposal, stating: “The proposal would result in an adverse impact on the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties. Similarly, the character and appearance of the open aspect countryside here would indeed be unacceptably and permanently harmed. "The current adopted local plan determined no additional need for Gypsy and Traveller sites provision in Peterborough. "We suggest Peterborough's existing council-owned sites do indeed have spaces available currently and that additional, far more suitable sites will almost certainly become available within the next 11 years to satisfy the suggested total number for categories required in the current Adopted local plan for 2016-2036.”Glinton Parish Council also objected to the grounds of the principle, wildlife, ecology and character impacts of the proposed development. A total of 32 other objections were received, they cited issued such as that the works had already begun on the site without planning permission and that the land has previously been the subject of planning application but these were refused as the last was ‘not to be used for development.’ Residents further raised concerns about the loss of amenity, noise, risk to wildlife and the intensification of traffic on the roads nearby. ET 29/7/24 I read this. As someone that used to live in Glinton I can imagine the village is in uproar. Understand as no one wants Travellers on their doorstep. They don’t do themselves any favours. Four traveller families is so open to do as they like - no fixed abode and all have the same surname. Four will be a very small start. Looking at the picture, if I’m correct, it looks like the old Lincoln Road before the McDonald’s roundabout. Which is not actually in Glinton. |
|
|
|
Post by Hodgy on Jul 31, 2024 23:31:35 GMT
Not a major development but some interesting points:Plans to create a new caravan site in Glinton for the use of up to four Traveller families have been recommended for approval.This is despite the objections of 32 residents as well as ward councillors Neil Boyce and Peter Hiller. The decision has been recommended for approval for council planning officers but must be passed by the city’s planning committee on Tuesday (July 30) in its meeting at 1:30pm.Cllrs Boyce and Hiller objected to the proposal, stating: “The proposal would result in an adverse impact on the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties. Similarly, the character and appearance of the open aspect countryside here would indeed be unacceptably and permanently harmed. "The current adopted local plan determined no additional need for Gypsy and Traveller sites provision in Peterborough. "We suggest Peterborough's existing council-owned sites do indeed have spaces available currently and that additional, far more suitable sites will almost certainly become available within the next 11 years to satisfy the suggested total number for categories required in the current Adopted local plan for 2016-2036.”Glinton Parish Council also objected to the grounds of the principle, wildlife, ecology and character impacts of the proposed development. A total of 32 other objections were received, they cited issued such as that the works had already begun on the site without planning permission and that the land has previously been the subject of planning application but these were refused as the last was ‘not to be used for development.’ Residents further raised concerns about the loss of amenity, noise, risk to wildlife and the intensification of traffic on the roads nearby. ET 29/7/24 Just read this has now been rejected 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 1, 2024 12:19:03 GMT
Not a major development but some interesting points:Plans to create a new caravan site in Glinton for the use of up to four Traveller families have been recommended for approval.This is despite the objections of 32 residents as well as ward councillors Neil Boyce and Peter Hiller. The decision has been recommended for approval for council planning officers but must be passed by the city’s planning committee on Tuesday (July 30) in its meeting at 1:30pm.Cllrs Boyce and Hiller objected to the proposal, stating: “The proposal would result in an adverse impact on the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties. Similarly, the character and appearance of the open aspect countryside here would indeed be unacceptably and permanently harmed. "The current adopted local plan determined no additional need for Gypsy and Traveller sites provision in Peterborough. "We suggest Peterborough's existing council-owned sites do indeed have spaces available currently and that additional, far more suitable sites will almost certainly become available within the next 11 years to satisfy the suggested total number for categories required in the current Adopted local plan for 2016-2036.”Glinton Parish Council also objected to the grounds of the principle, wildlife, ecology and character impacts of the proposed development. A total of 32 other objections were received, they cited issued such as that the works had already begun on the site without planning permission and that the land has previously been the subject of planning application but these were refused as the last was ‘not to be used for development.’ Residents further raised concerns about the loss of amenity, noise, risk to wildlife and the intensification of traffic on the roads nearby. ET 29/7/24 Just read this has now been rejected 👍 Yes I did see that. A totally different kettle of fish to a £50m development but some interesting points: " Planning officers had recommended the application for approval ahead of Tuesday’s committee meeting (July 30) but councillors voted unanimously to go against the recommendation and refuse the application." "Speaking against the proposal, Cllr Hiller said: “Imagine the scene early in the morning of a bank holiday Friday, you’re just waking up looking forward to a pleasant and relaxing holiday weekend with family and friends. Suddenly, the peace is shattered by the arrival of cars, vans and caravans and heavy plant machinery just a few feet away from your garden." “Tonnes of hardcore delivered by HGVs and numerous men shouting above the noise they themselves are creating. This carries on day after day. “Residents are real people who expect to be protected by the council it pays taxes to and they’ve been badly let down by this recommendation not cast into the wilderness of anxiety and worry. “They are rightly angry because this application would change their lives forever.” - adjoining residents to the EoES would have years of that. “ Glinton Parish Council is bewildered and saddened that officers recommended the application for approval given the dreadful predicament of our neighbours.” Cllr Scott Warren was among the number of councillors who spoke against the application during the debate. He said: “Against this application we have the out of character nature of the development, the adverse impact, the loss of amenity with the path, the loss of the countryside. Then we heard the real picture of the harm being caused to local residents with police being called. “The most important element I’ve heard comes from residents and with what residents have said, I will vote against this due to the undue harm this will cause and the loss of amenity that children feel unsafe to go near the site.” The applicants did not attend the meeting.  |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 27, 2024 12:23:00 GMT
Plans for Peterborough's landmark Guild House to be converted into 138-apartments set for approvalIn December, plans were put forward to convert the building- sold by previous owners Anglia Ruskin University in summer 2023- into 138 new apartments. The three-storey office complex was first opened in 1962 for Mitchell Construction Co and is locally listed due to the fact it ‘forms an important part of the street scene’ and plays a ‘significant local landmark function.’The statement added that the proposal would: “Ensure the long-term protection of Guild House, a non-designated heritage asset, and the positive contribution that it makes to the Oundle Road street scene. ET 26/8/24
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 27, 2024 12:34:12 GMT
Controversial plans for 256 new homes in Peterborough village to be revisited
Local residents have campaigned against increased growth for the village of Eye.
Controversial plans to build an extension to the village of Eye in Peterborough will be revisited by the city’s planning committee.
Outline planning permission for 256 new homes on land just off Eyebury Road was granted in December but the decision to finally approve the development has been called in by Eye, Thorney and Newborough ward councillor Steve Allen and it must now be passed by the city’s planning committee.
Planning officers have recommended the members grant the application.
Cllr Allen called in the decision over concerns about the design of the cycle and footways, drainage, shortfall of visitor parking, insufficient evidence on existing vegetation and a lack of compliance with the outline condition.
Plans were previously given the go ahead despite LP40 of the Peterborough Local Plan setting out the number of new homes that should be built on the site should be no more than 250.
Plans were initially for 300 homes, this was then reduced to 284, with the most recent further reduction taking that down to 265, still above the figure outlined in the local plan.
The plans were first tabled in 2019 and, during the original consultation, 139 representations were received from the public, 137 of which were objections.
Many residents raised concerns about the extra pressure the development would be put on school and GP services, the danger to the character of the area and the traffic build-up. (sounds familiar)
The new development on current arable land would consist of 256 new homes, 30% of which would be affordable housing and would also include a one hectare parcel of land that would be given over to the neighbouring Eye Primary School to allow it to extend.
A further two rounds of public consultations were held between May 10 to June 3 and July 3 to July 17 and 47 further objections were received from 50 responses.
Eye Parish Council objected due to 26 conditions which it stated would require submissions before the development could start.
These include: upgrading the roads entering and leaving the village- the A1139 and A47, an insufficient number of visitor parking spaces and concerns about drainage.
The meeting of the planning committee will take place on Tuesday (September 3) at 1:30pm.
The application can be viewed on Peterborough City Council’s planning portal using reference 24/00541/REM.
ET Aug 27
|
|
