Agenda item

External alterations and single storey extensions to provide new children's changing room facilities and a new children's centre [Micklegate Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a General Regulations (Reg3) application from Mrs Sam Judd, Learning, Culture and Children’s Services, for external alterations and single storey extensions to provide new children’s changing room facilities and a new Children’s Centre.

Officers circulated a list of updates to Members as follows:

Councillor Merrett had submitted comments in support of the provision of the new children’s centre, subject to necessary cycle parking, of which there was none on this side of the school at the moment. Councillor Merrett had advised that this was important for the potential volume of out of school hours activities (given access to the other side of the school is locked off out of hours) and in order to maximise cycling rather than vehicle traffic to the school.

In respect of neighbour objections, officers reported that a letter from an existing objector also commented that it would be irresponsible to grant permission when child safety would be compromised by locating the children’s centre at the school when the existing road conditions (including traffic levels, parking on pavements and zig-zag lines, heavy lorries) were dangerous.

A further objection had also been received from an existing objector requesting that the application be deferred, stating that the applicant had given a false statement and the Development Control Officer had ignored many points of objection and made unsubstantiated claims. The objector asked that a tree survey and bat survey be submitted before the application was accepted for consideration.

Officers reported that a further comment had been received from Highways stating “It is appreciated that whilst any increase in vehicular traffic will compound any traffic problems that may be currently experienced it is considered that a refusal on highway safety grounds could not be substantiated based on an expected maximum of only six additional cars.”

They also advised Members that the following comments had been submitted in respect of protected species and trees.

Bats

• No evidence to say there is a roost present within the building.
• Proposed single storey extensions do not affect any areas of the building that are most likely to house bats – as such no survey required and only basic precautions are necessary at the time of construction.
• Most likely species present is Pipistrelle.
• Unlikely that Noctules are roosting in the area. Tend to roost in trees rather than buildings and none of the trees on site are suitable as bat roosts, only for foraging.

Lighting and Bats

• Lighting can be significant, esp. for Noctules, although Pipistrelle actively hunt around street lights as they attract moths and other prey.
• Noctules are discouraged by lighting but are unlikely to be present, as for foraging this could have an effect but is usually compensated for by using low level lighting, which is what is proposed.

Owls

• With regard to Owls, the presence of Tawny Owl is possible although I do not consider that the Sycamore is a good roosting tree for Owl being too open and unprotected and is certainly unsuitable for nesting. It may be occasionally be used to roost or in passing through.
• Tawny owls are not protected and only the nest sites have any measure of protection, but this is not the case here.
• Likelihood of barn owls is very slim. They require open farmland with extensive areas of rough, tall grassland and hedges. None of this is present in the Knavesmire, even on the race course.
• No owl pellets found under the tree.

Trees

• Two limes are not protected by, or considered worthy of a TPO.
• The application form was incorrect, but the impact on trees and the value of the trees to be removed does not warrant a tree survey.
• The path should have a timber edge and not concrete foundation or kerb.
• The path should not to run in a straight line as shown on plans but should wind around the trees taking the best route.

Officers also circulated a photocopy of an annotated extract (Section 16 – Trees and Hedges) from the original planning application proforma for Members information which had been given to them at the site visit by a member of the public.

Officers advised Members that although the path, gate and store were shown on the drawing and are part of the proposals, in coming to a decision Members would have to consider the fall-back position allowed by local authority permitted development rights which would allow them to be implemented without planning permission.They also advised Members that an additional condition requiring a cycle shelter to be built should be added.

Officers provided information on the approximate numbers of people who were expected to visit the Childrens’ Centre. They explained that the centre would operate a combination of open access sessions and programmes targeted at specific groups. They confirmed that most groups would run between 9.30am and 11.30am and 1.00pm and 3.00pm (therefore outside normal school hours) and the highest number of people was likely to be about 15 adults and 15 children visiting at  different times during an open access session along with 3 members of staff.

Representations were received from a local resident in objection to the application. He stated that he did not want to see Trafalgar Street entrance used as the main entrance as this would encourage users to park on the road and this was a quiet residential area but advised that the existing entrance on Count De Burgh Terrace should be the main entrance. He asked for restrictions to be placed on hours of construction and suggested these should be consistent with restrictions placed on previous applications such as when the Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) was built (8am-6pm). He asked for the same restrictions to be placed on the hours of use of the new buildings.

Members raised concerns over restricting hours of use of the building as this would reduce flexibility of use such as for a breakfast club as these normally operate from 7.30am.

Members recognised the importance of increasing the use of school buildings and noted that most schools were now used for extended periods of time outside normal school hours.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and the additional condition and informative listed below. ¹

Additional Condition 8

The proposed cycle shelter and stands detailed on drawing number 0841 (CC) P05 shall be erected prior to first occupation of the children’s centre and shall thereafter be retained as a cycle shelter for the use of staff and visitors to the children’s centre.

Reason: In order to promote cycling in an area where on-street and off-street parking is limited with the overall aim of reducing pollution, noise and the physical impact of traffic, by restraining growth in the use of motor vehicles in accordance with policy T4 of the Development Control Local Plan.

REASON:                  The proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the report and the additional condition listed above and informative listed below, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to the character and appearance of the locality, highway safety, protected species or residential amenity. As such the proposal complies with Policies GP1, T4, ED1 and C1 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.

METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION OF PATH

It is suggested that the path to the new access gate should not run in a straight line but should wind around the trees taking the best route to avoid removing or damaging trees.  The path shall have a timber edge and should not have a concrete foundation or kerb.