Agenda item

Councillor Ash re-joined the Committee.

The planning application was for proposed additions to an existing ‘play hide’ at 101 Garton End Road, Peterborough. The main consideration was the impact upon the amenities of neighbouring occupants.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The ‘play hide’ had been built with a slide and steps up to an elevated platform, which allowed children to see in to the neighbouring property.

·         This was not considered acceptable and an enforcement notice was made. Subsequently a retrospective application was made, which was refused by Committee.

·         A further application was approved for a ‘play hide’ with use of the upper levels restricted.

·         The current application before the Committee sought to reinstate the upper level of the ‘play hide’.

Councillor Shearman, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The nursery owner had adapted the ‘play hide’ and added a panel so that it was no longer possible to see into the neighbouring gardens.

·         The height of the panel was 120cm. The tallest child using the structure was 107cm.

·         The neighbour who objected to the original application is satisfied with this proposal and no longer objects.

·         The nursery needed to provide sufficient play opportunities for children.

·         The opening hours of the nursery were Monday to Friday for three hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon.

Mohammed Younis, Applicant, and Catrina Story, Early Years, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The screen which was now on site meant that no privacy was lost.

·         The screen was approximately two metres away from the boundary and had mitigated any objections from the neighbours.

·         The children using the ‘play hide’ would be under five years old.

·         The structure provided a learning opportunity for the children.

·         The ‘play hide’ allowed for sensible risk and challenge opportunities as well as imaginative play.

·         The structure would only be used in term time and for the youngest children.

A Member of the Committee suggested that as the ‘play hide’ would not be in use constantly in the day or throughout the year, privacy would not be a problem. It was countered that children could be inquisitive and many people may not be happy with such a situation. It was suggested that the screen reference by the Ward Councillor and speakers would resolved the problems within the application.

The Committee discussed whether the screen was, in fact, included in the application. The Head of Development and Construction clarified that it was not included in the submission, but a condition could be added to ensure this panel be retained.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, against officer recommendation, subject to a condition to retain the screen in perpetuity. The motion was carried eight voting in favour, one voting against.

RESOLVED: (eight voted in favour, one voted against) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to:

·         The submission of an amended plan to show the screening, and

·         A condition requiring the retention of the screening in perpetuity.

Reasons for the decision

The proposal no longer presented an unacceptable level of overlooking.