Preschool conversion and extension at School Bungalow, St Thomas Of Canterbury Catholic Primary School, Horseshoe Lane West

What was proposed

The application proposed converting an unused caretaker’s bungalow into a preschool for 31 children, with extensions, a canopy, landscaping and three jobs.

“The application seeks the conversion of an existing dwelling (caretaker’s cottage) within the grounds of [the applicant] of Canterbury Catholic School to a pre-school for up to 31 children between the ages of 2 and 4 years old. The hours of operation would be 07:30-17:30 Monday to Friday, but may also be open outside of term time to enable preschool care to be provided alongside holiday clubs already run at the primary school.”

“The application proposes the conversion of the existing caretaker's accommodation to a preschool for 31 pupils aged 2-4 including the erection of an extension to create new classroom space, an extension to create an entrance lobby, external canopy and associated landscaping following demolition of existing garage.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because additional traffic and insufficiently robust mitigation would create unacceptable risks for highway users and pedestrians.

“In terms of impact on the public highway, the number of additional vehicle movements to the site would 8 at the peak hours of 08:00-09:00 and 16:00-17:00. No additional car parking spaces would be provided on the site. The highway mitigation measures proposed include an update to the existing school travel plan, preparation of an onsite car park management plan, and a trial of the closure of the existing pick-up/drop-off area.”

“The County Highways Authority has objected to the proposed development, indicating that the existing highway safety and congestion issues associated with the school are already of concern and that the proposed mitigation measures are insufficiently robust to prevent the proposed intensification of the site from resulting in an unacceptable detriment to the safe operation of the public highway and to the safety of pedestrians accessing the school.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two objectors, the applicant’s representative and the applicant’s agent addressed the committee.

What members debated

Members supported the officers’ assessment that the identified harms were not outweighed by the proposed measures.

“The Committee discussed the application and supported the officers’ assessment that the harms identified would not be outweighed by the measures proposed to justify the grant of planning permission.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to refuse was proposed, seconded and carried.

“The Chairperson Councillor Vanessa King moved the motion to refuse application 24/P/01853 and Councillor Joanne Shaw seconded the motion which was carried.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application for the reasons set out in the officer recommendation.

“RESOLVED: To refuse application 24/P/01853 for the reasons detailed in the report.”

Minutes