Outdoor games area at St Peters School, Clifton, York

What was proposed

The school sought permission for an outdoor multi-use games area with fencing and landscaping on part of its existing playing field.

“Planning permission is sought for the construction of an outdoor Multi-Use Games Area with associated fencing and landscaping on a section of the existing playing field at the south-eastern edge of the site adjacent to North Parade. The historic core of St Peter’s School along with the former Queen Annes School building are Grade II Listed however the proposal sits away from the associated complex adjacent to a series of teaching areas of more recent construction.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The school campus has open rear grounds beside the River Ouse, lies in the Clifton Conservation Area, and has earlier approved sports facilities.

“St Peter’s School comprises a substantial independent school occupying a campus site with open grounds to the rear of the site extending towards the River Ouse.”

Officer report

Main planning issues

The assessment considered the conservation area, highways, residential amenity, drainage, flood risk, archaeology and ecology.

“- Principle of the Development - Impact upon the Character and Appearance of the Clifton Conservation Area - Highways and Access - Residential Amenity and Public Protection - Drainage & Flood Risk - Archaeology - Ecology…”

Officer report

What consultees said

Most consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while Highway Development Control objected over possible competitive use and parking demand.

“Design and Conservation (Countryside and Ecology) 3.3 raise no objection to the proposal subject to any permission being conditioned in the standard manner in respect of BNG and associated biodiversity enhancements.”

“Highway Development Control 3.5 Object to the proposal on the grounds that it could be used for inter school competitive sport with a consequent additional vehicle and cycle parking requirement thereby generated.”

Officer report

What residents said

Fifteen objections raised concerns about heritage, noise, disturbance, traffic, construction, lighting, outside use, drainage and the noise evidence.

“Objection to the lack of submitted information in respect of additional traffic generation bearing in mind the existing problems of parent parking in adjoining residential side streets • Objection to impacts upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties during the construction of the proposal • Objection to the lack of consideration of the need for lighting of the site and associated harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties • Objection to the…”

“Councillors Danny Myers and Margaret Wells 4.3 Object to the proposal on the grounds of impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties through increased noise, disturbance, intensification of use and overbearing impact. Objection is also expressed to potential future floodlighting and the potential for letting to outside bodies.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A North Parade resident objected, while the school’s operations director supported the proposal and answered questions with colleagues.

What members debated

Members discussed the boundary, noise, use, supervision, lighting, community access, planning controls and whether netting was needed.

“The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application. He was asked and explained that: • The boundary between the fence to the North Parade properties boundary was 11m and he showed it on the screen. The Chair clarified that it was not known whether the structures next to the boundary were occupied. The Development Manager added that some of the structures were habitable. • The proposal did not include netting over the MUGA.”

“In answer to Member questions, officers explained that: • The use class was as an educational facility which was the only control as the planning authority. • The hours were based on the noise impact. There was no condition regarding who could use the MUGA and there was nothing in planning conditions saying that the MUGA could not be used for holiday clubs. The hours recommended were because of noise issues and not who would be using it.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members approved additional controls on netting, use, outside letting and landscaping before voting to approve the application.

“Members debated the application. During debate the Chair noted that Sport England were a statutory consultee and had not objected. Cllr Fisher proposed and Cllr Ayre seconded a condition for netting to protect the amenity of residents from ball strike. This was carried with three Members voting in favour, two against, and 6 abstentions.”

“A Member asked if a condition regarding community use could be added. The Development Manager noted the policy and explained the school had no intention to enter into a community use agreement. The Chair proposed that there be no interschool letting and no letting to outside bodies to protect the amenity of residents. This was seconded by Cllr Melly. This was carried with nine Members voting in favour, none against and two abstentions.”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

Permission was approved because the school need outweighed modest conservation harm, with conditions intended to protect neighbouring residential amenity.

“Reason: In terms of the overall planning balance the proposal would address the requirements of Policies HW3 and ED6 of fulfilling unmet sports provision at the school. It would however generate a degree of harm to the significance of the Conservation Area by partially eroding its open character although that degree of harm is felt to be modest and outweighed in the balance by the…”

Minutes