Agenda item

Erection of two storey extension with single storey link to existing building, together with formation of new openings at ground floor providing play area and first floor nursery accommodation [Fishergate Ward] [Site Visit]

[Cllr Shepherd left the room for consideration of this item]

Members considered a general regulations (Reg3) application by Mrs L Calvert for the erection of a two-storey extension with a single-storey link to existing building, together with formation of new openings at ground floor providing play area and first floor nursery accommodation.

In response to Members’ questions, the Officer clarified that the amendments to the development associated with the proposed building had been considered and that the extension proposed in the application would be situated within a car park (not within the playground).

Katie Hatfield, an employee of the Funfishers Out of School Club and Playgroup, spoke to urge Members to approve the application. She highlighted the benefits of the proposed development in relation to providing additional service for pupils and families, for example a better and flexible quality childcare, new kitchen area for lunchtime and breakfast club, increased ability to organise the holiday and revision sessions, increased staff efficiency, ability to prepare children better for the secondary school transition, and a possibility of organising intervention for particular pupils. She emphasised that the club had problems with accommodating children of all ages, some of whom had been put on a waiting list for the use of services.

Cllr D Taylor also spoke in favour of the application, expressing his disappointment with the objections stated in the report due to the fact that the proposed extension did not come close to the school building and, therefore, there was no harm to the appearance and special interest of the listed building itself. He added that he would prefer to see the application being approved subject to conditions rather than the application being refused in its entirety.

Michelle Finn, a parent of a child attending Fishergate School and a school employee, spoke in support of the application and included a support letter signed by 33 parents. She reiterated that the new provision would provide a charity-based working resource with long operating hours that was essential for pupils’ development and success. She highlighted that the development would make a difference to their learning environment (such as more daylight available inside) and expressed her concerns with the fact that the Officers proposed to refuse the application of the school development on grounds of the design’s aesthetics.

Stephanie Leeman, the architect, then spoke in support of the application, emphasising that the school provided additional provision for parents from St George’s Primary School and was involved in a government pilot study on childcare (30 hours free childcare). She added that York was the only Local Authority allowing parents to use the out-of-school clubs for such provision and queried why the public benefit of the development was deemed low in the report, particularly in view of the club being next the school itself. She highlighted that the design (with minor amendments such as the window at the front) was supported by the Conservation Area Advisory Panel and York Civic Trust and that a letter of support from one MP had also been received.

As a response to the speakers’ arguments, the Officer clarified that, while making a recommendation to refuse the application, he was referring to the government and Historic England guidance. He added that the only essential alterations that he had suggested were to the elevation onto the car park and to the roof form. It was confirmed that those suggestions were not difficult or costly to achieve and, if the amendments were incorporated, his recommendation would be to approve the application.

During debate, it was highlighted by some Members that the benefits of the initiative outweighed the harm to the building given that details outlined in the report were not significant due to the fact that the development related to the annex and not to the building itself. Some Members, however, disagreed and noted the importance of impact of the application on the current visual aspects of the listed building.

Cllr Craghill moved and Cllr Dew seconded a motion to approve the application whereas Cllr Flinders moved and Cllr Galvin seconded a motion to refuse the application. On being put to vote, it was

Resolved:                     That the application be refused.

Reason:                        The design, form and mass of the proposed development fail to adopt the architectural detail of the host building, in that development does not reflect any aesthetic or historic values exhibited in Walter Brierley's work. The design of the double ridge with intervening flat roof is uncomfortable and doesn't reflect the elegant roof forms of the school. The proportions and composition of the windows do not reflect those of the listed building. As such it would appear at odds with the architectural character of adjoining listed building and Fishergate School building and would lead to less than substantial harm to the setting of the designated heritage assets. It is not considered that the public benefits of this new building identified would outweigh this harm. Thus, the proposals conflict with the requirements of Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and fail to comply with guidance for heritage assets contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, (paragraphs 132 and 134) and Policy D4(Conservation Areas) and  D5 (Listed Buildings) of the Publication Draft York Local Plan 2018 as well as  Policy HE2 (Development in Historic Locations) and HE3 (Conservation Areas) of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.