Agenda item

The planning application was for the demolition of the existing temporary mobile unit at Peakirk Cum Glinton Voluntary Aided Primary School, School Lane, Glinton, and to replace it with a new permanent nursery facility.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions 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.

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

·         The previous application on this site had been refused on the grounds of poor design.

·         Discussions had been had with the school, who did not have sufficient funding to place the development in an alternative location, as preferred by Ward Councillors and the Parish Council.

·         The views from the neighbouring residences were not considered acceptable.

·         Councillor Holdich suggested that the Committee defer the application in order for discussions to be had with the project officer in terms of budget, materials and location. It was believed that this would allow for a proposals that could be supported.

·         Councillor Johnson suggested that the new proposal was larger and closer to neighbouring residences than the previously refused scheme.

·         It was noted that the Parish Council would support a design that fit in to the character of the area. It was believed that this design went against the village design statement, and granting permission would set a dangerous precedent.

Leigh Titman, 3 School Lane, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Mr Titman claimed that the proposed development would sit 6 metres away from his house, and 1 metre away from his boundary.

·         It was believed that the height differences between the development site Mr Titman’s land, which was 0.5 metres lower, would affect the acceptable distances.

·         No approach had been made by the applicant to discuss the proposals.

·         It was believed that the design was inappropriate and that permission should not be granted purely because the applicant was a school.

·         It was suggested that a lack of funding did not mean that inappropriate materials should be used.

John Rowlatt and Rob Diamond, Agents, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         In response to previous comments, it was advised that Mr Titman had not been approached in relation to the new designs because of the sensitive nature of the application.

·         The development was of a single storey design. As such, the footprint of the proposal had increased in comparison to the previous application.

·         The lowest possible roof pitch had been used. The materials used, in order to keep in character with the area, meant that there was a limit on how low the pitch of the roof could go.

·         Mr Diamond advised that the facility was necessary for the school, which had to work within their limitations.

·         For efficiency and operational reasons, the location of the development as proposed was considered the most appropriate, rather than the location of the current facility.

The Committee questioned the restrictions in place on materials used for roofs a particular pitches. The Head of Development and Construction explained that there were restrictions on certain materials, however could not advise on specific restrictions. It was further clarified that the proposed roof pitch was considered to be low and the materials appropriate for a conservation area.

In response to a question from the Committee the Head of Development and Construction advised that he had not been able to verify the artistic representations of the proposal submitted by the objection.

The Committee discussed the design of the buildings and the proposed materials. It was suggested that the citing of the proposal was not ideal. The Committee considered that consultation carried out with the Parish Council and neighbouring residents was poor.

Discussion arose in relation to whether the application could be deferred in order to agree appropriate materials for the development. However, the Committee determined that, as the location was also considered unsuitable, this would be inappropriate.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be refused, contrary to officer recommendation for the reasons of the inappropriate materials proposed and the detrimental impact on neighbour amenity. The motion was carried six voting in favour, three voting against and one abstained from voting.

RESOLVED: (six voted in favour, three voted against and one abstained from voting) that planning permission is REFUSED for the reasons set out below.

Reasons for the decision

The development  in terms  of the proposed materials (timber cladding and hung tiles) would  not be  in keeping with the tones set by the  general character  of the buildings within the Conservation Area and therefore the building would not contribute  positively towards  it  and would be harmful (and be harmful to the)  including in the context of  views  of the Parish Church.  The  proposal was therefore  considered to be contrary  to the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990,  NPPF  paras  58, 61 and 131), Peterborough City Council Core Strategy  DPD 2011 Policies CS16 and CS17, Peterborough City Council Planning Policies  DPD 2012 Policy PP2 and PP17 of the Peterborough Design and Development in Selected  Villages  SPD 2011  Policies  BM1 and Glin 1 and Glin 2.

The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the occupier at 3 School Lane as a consequence of the proximity of the development to the shared boundary and its scale and form. The development would have an overbearing relationship with the adjacent property and its enjoyment. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy PP3 of Peterborough City Council Planning Policies DPD 2012 and Peterborough City Council Core Strategy DPD 2011 Policy CS16.