Controversial Peterborough flat plans rejected after officers recommended approval

A controversial development of flats in Peterborough have been rejected after officers had initially recommended them for approval.

By Ben Jones
Monday, 28th February 2022, 4:58 am
How the development could look.
How the development could look.

The decision to reject the new flats on the former Staniland Court site in Werrington, was made by the city council’s Planning and Environmental Protection Committee on Tuesday (February 22).

In August 2020, an application was made by property developers KREAM and social impact company Funding Affordable Homes to build 67 new flats in the area.

The development was the third in three years proposed for the site; both of the previous two were rejected over fears of increased anti-social behaviour.

Sign up to our daily newsletter

How the development could look.

The third plans were resubmitted in June 2021 and amended to include 59 residential units laid out in two three-storey buildings and one two-storey building. Also, as part of the development, there would have been two retail units, associated landscaping works and a relocation of the existing bus stop to Goodwin Walk. A communal car park of 75 spaces would have been provided.

There were many residents that opposed the plans and they were led by landlord of The Ploughman pub Andrew Simmonds, who called for a more sympathetic development of Werrington centre rather than adding more flats to an already “oversubscribed” area.

Of the 224 responses that the council received from public consultations, there were 200 objections. This includes that of Werrington Neighbourhood Council, who raised objections based on their impact on the character of the area, the possibility of anti-social behaviour, the height of the new buildings and the impact on the existing infrastructure.

The council says that it surveyed over 1000 residents and that 70 percent said they were against the flats being built.

Despite this, council officers recommended that the planning committee approve them.

After a debate, they instead decided to refuse them based on the damage they would do to the character of the area and over concerns about parking. The decision notice said: “The proposed development, by virtue of its design, size and massing, would result in unacceptable harm to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the area.

“The proposed development would provide for only 75no. parking spaces, which falls below the adopted minimum parking standards for the mix of dwelling/unit sizes proposed. Whilst evidence has been submitted by the applicant to justify this reduced parking provision, this is not accepted. As such, the proposal would not provide parking which sufficiently meets the need generated by the development.

“The proposed development would not provide future occupiers with any private or semiprivate outdoor amenity space in which their day-to-day living needs could be met. In addition, public open space is not located in a sufficiently close proximity for this deficiency to be mitigated.”

RELATED: