Councillor North and Councillor Okonkowski re-joined the Committee at this point.
The planning application was for a single story extension at 241 Park Road, Peterborough, to provide additional childcare spaces with restricted hours of operation from 9:30am to 4:30pm. This application was a resubmission.
It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused, for the reasons set out in the report. The Senior Development Management Officer provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report.
Andrew Brown addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· Mr Brown was a resident of the property immediately adjacent to the proposal site.
· It was highlighted that the Committee had refused this application last year and that the reasons for refusal had not been sufficiently addressed in this application.
· The applicants still intended an intensification of use, which would have multiple implications including traffic and amenity space.
· The physical extensions was still considered to be overdevelopment and overbearing. It was believed that this would have a negative impact on residential amenity and could lead to further external lighting.
· There was little room for cars to turn in the site and there had been a growing lunch time peak for collection of children.
· A recent Early Years Report identified that there would be a decrease in funding in the region.
The Senior Development Management Officer advised that the Early Years Report had factored in the provision of this development already. The number of additional children resulting from the application would be 24.
John Dadge, Agent, and Mohammed Yonnis, Applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· Mr Dadge explained that following the refusal by Committee of the previous scheme, the hours of proposed operation had been altered and were no outside of peak times.
· During off peak hours there was little traffic on the surrounding roads.
· In order to achieve the desired Ofsted results, the site would have to operate within the proposed hours of operation, or they would not be compliant.
· It was considered that the proposals would not have any effect on the character of the area, as they would not be visible from the street.
· Mr Dadge suggested that under permitted development, a residential outbuilding could be comparable in height. As such, the same principle should be applied.
The Committee expressed concern over the intensification of use on the site, which would bring the total number of children on site up to 76. The Committee did not doubt that the site was well run, however did not believed that the previous reasons for refusal had been sufficiently addressed.
A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be refused, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried unanimously.
RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is REFUSED for the reasons set out below.
Reasons for the decision
The proposal was unacceptable having been assessed in light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and for the specific reasons set out in the report.