The Planning and Environmental Protection Committee of Peterborough City Council met on 2 September 2025, and refused an application for a residential caravan site and approved an application for home extensions. The committee unanimously refused planning permission for a change of use of land to a residential caravan site, and voted to grant planning permission for two-storey side and rear extensions to a property, subject to conditions.

The Orchard, Uffington Road, Barnack

The committee refused planning permission for a change of use of land at The Orchard, Uffington Road, Barnack to a residential caravan site for four gypsy/traveller families. Councillors followed the officer's recommendation to refuse the application. The reasons given were:

• Access: The proposed change of use was considered contrary to policy LP10(c) of the Peterborough Local Plan (2019) because the applicant failed to provide a safe and convenient access point. The council said that insufficient information had been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety due to the intensification of the site and the inability to demonstrate appropriate vehicle to vehicle visibility splays.
• Gas Pipeline: The proposed development crosses National Grid's High-Pressure Gas Pipeline – 4 Feeder Peterborough Comp / A1(T). The National Grid maintained a holding objection because they had not received a Quantitative Risk Assessment¹ and therefore there was insufficient information to demonstrate that there would not be an unacceptable risk to future occupiers.

Additional objections to the proposal were received from a group calling themselves the Barnack Working Group, who raised concerns that:

• Extensive hardstanding and entrance alterations had already been carried out on the site.
• There was evidence of trenching and service preparation visible.
• The application documents stated that the site is connected to mains water and mains sewerage, but no such connections exist.

The planning officer, Connor Liken, noted that the development was part retrospective and that planning enforcement were aware. He also noted that the connections could exist.

The committee also considered a large number of objections from local residents, who raised concerns about policy conflicts, environmental impact, character impact, highways and access, and amenity and future occupier amenity/services.

48 Berkeley Road, Netherton

The committee voted to grant planning permission for two-storey side and rear, single-storey rear extensions and part demolition of a garage at 48 Berkeley Road, Netherton. Councillor Mohammed Rangzeb stood down from the committee for this item, due to declaring a prejudicial interest in that he was related to the applicant.

The committee voted to grant the application subject to the following conditions:

• The development must begin within three years.
• The materials used in the construction of the extensions must match those used for the existing building, with fibreglass flat roof for the part single storey rear extension.
• The development must be carried out in accordance with the following plans: Location, Existing and Proposed Block Plan and Proposed Elevation and Floor Plan.
• Before the development is first occupied, the proposed window for the bathroom on the first floor must be fitted with obscure glazing to a minimum of Pilkington Level 3 and be retained as such in perpetuity.

Three objections were received from neighbours, who raised concerns about the scale of the building work, an increase in car parking spaces, overshadowing, the potential for the property to be used as a house in multiple occupation², overlooking, drainage problems, overflowing bins, parking difficulties for emergency services, noise and pollution during the works, and bat roosts in the loft.

The planning officer, Ksenia Kasztalska, addressed these concerns in her report, noting that the extensions would be constructed using matching materials to the existing dwelling, that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of light or outlook to neighbour occupiers, and that the application met the policy required parking levels. She also noted that any matters relating to occupier's waste management or rodents should be reported to the Waste Collection Authority and that construction noise and pollution is addressed in an informative³.

Declarations of Interest

Declarations of interest were made by:

• Councillor Wayne Fitzgerald, Leader of the Conservative Group, knew Sue Dunthorne, one of the registered speakers on the application for 48 Berkeley Road. Councillor Fitzgerald confirmed he had not expressed any views and would therefore proceed to speak and vote on the item with an open mind.
• Councillor Rangzeb declared a prejudicial interest in that he was related to the applicant for 48 Berkeley Road, and stood down when the item was considered.
• Councillor Jason McNally, Armed Forces Champion, knew Mrs Sue Dunthorne, one of the registered speakers on the application for 48 Berkeley Road. Councillor McNally confirmed he had not expressed any views and would therefore proceed to speak and vote on the item with an open mind.