Agenda item

15/00662/R3FUL - Caretakers House, 9 The Pentlands, Gunthorpe, Peterborough


The planning application was for the change of use of Caretakers House, 9 The Pentlands, Gunthorpe from a caretakers dwelling to a building for the use of a before and after school care centre and holiday play scheme centre. The application included a single storey side extension.


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 highlighted a number of key issues within the report.


Sharon Bishop, Capital Projects and Assets Officer, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Peterborough City Council was required, under statutory guidance, to provide child places for out of hour’s services as far as reasonably possible.

·         The proposal would cater for children up to the age of 17, however the average age was expected to be between 6 and 8 years old.

·         The current take up within Peterborough of such schemes was high, with increased demand.

·         The scheme would support local parents in maintaining work, which, in turn, would support the city’s economic development.

·         The facility would run before school, after school and during school holidays.

·         The parking arrangements would be similar to those currently in place. It was considered that as the peak hours for traffic in relation to the proposal were different from those of the current school, the impact would not be significantly worse.

·         The proposal could cater for up to 44 children, though in practice this number would be less.

·         The applicants understood the concerns of residents, however it was commented that the current sound of the school would carry to those areas.


Linda Parrish-Smith addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         As a resident of one of the properties that backed onto the application site, the area was currently quiet, regardless of the nearby school. The additional noise the proposal would create would be a disadvantage.

·         The proposed change of use had the potential to house up to 44 children. That amount of children playing would be disruptive.

·         The traffic that would result from the development would increase existing problems with parking and residents being blocked into their driveways.

·         The hours of operation were beyond normal school times, which was unfair on residents who live immediately next to the site.

·         It was agreed that the facilities were needed, however there were other sites that would be more appropriate nearer current school amenities. The proposed site was too small and too near residences.


The Committee sympathised with the concerns of local residents. It was considered that the noise created from the proposal would be significantly greater than background noise and would be unacceptable. It was suggested that, although the provision of out of school hour’s child places was important, this did not outweigh the importance of residential amenity.


While the Committee were not accepting of the change of use, the physical design of the application was considered to be acceptable.


A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be refused, for reason 2 as set out in the report. The motion was carried unanimously.


RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is REFUSED for the reasons set out below.


Reasons for the decision


The building would change from a single dwelling to a building that would cater for a large number of children not connected with Gunthorpe Primary school, and would operate outside of core school hours. It would result in harmful levels of noise and disruption over and above the existing situation exacerbated through the coming and going of traffic. This unacceptable impact would be exacerbated as children would likely play immediately outside the building, thereby having a harmful impact on the amenity of adjoining neighbours and was contrary to Policies CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and PP3 of the Peterborough Policies DPD (2012).



Supporting documents: