Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of a wooden pergola and wooden children’s climbing frame (part retrospective) and installation of organic pool.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

49.29        This application was for erection of a wooden pergola and wooden children’s climbing frame (part retrospective) and installation of an organic pool.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 17 February 2023.

49.30        The Senior Planning Officer advised that this was a householder application for 1 Wood Stanway Drive in Bishop’s Cleeve which was a detached dwelling located in a cul-de-sac.  The proposal was for the retention of a wooden pergola and a children’s climbing frame in the rear garden and also included the installation of an organic pool.  A Committee determination was required as the Parish Council had objected on the grounds that the play equipment was overbearing and there was a loss of privacy to the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, particularly in Snowshill Drive.  Whilst the objections of the Parish Council and the neighbours were understood, the applicant had revised the plans, lowering the height of the highest platform from 1.5 metres, as had been built, to 1.2 metres and had agreed to add a 2.7 metre high solid wood screening to the panel onto the climbing frame facing Snowshill Drive.  This meant that anyone standing on the platform level would have to be over 1.5 metres tall to look over the screen itself.  The applicant had also planted a row of evergreen pineapple broom trees along the fence boundary; these trees would grow up to a height of four metres, adding more screening.  The reduction of the platform height and installation of the screening panel could be secured by recommended conditions 2 and 3, the latter of which was included in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, and would ensure this was done within 28 days of the date of the planning permission.  Together with the existing pineapple broom trees, this was considered sufficient mitigation from overlooking and, as the pergola and organic pool were considered to be of a suitable size and design, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

49.31        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant advised that she and her husband first built the frame that they called ‘The Pirate Ship’ in 2017 and, during lockdowns through the COVID-19 pandemic it had proved to be an effective way to keep the children entertained and active during a time when many had been frustrated by the restrictions enforced upon them.  As such, it had both practical and sentimental value to them.  It acted as a centrepiece to their garden during gatherings and parties they had hosted and had been enjoyed by many children other than their own; that had continued to be the case since it was rebuilt after moving to a bigger garden.  The Pirate Ship had become essential in the ethos of their children’s outdoor play, engaging their adventurous natures and creativity, and she hoped that could continue.

49.32        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that a split decision be issued with the pergola and organic pool being permitted and the climbing frame refused on the basis of the impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.  The proposer of the motion indicated that, whilst he had no objection to the pergola and the organic pool, his view, having visited the application site, was that the climbing frame would still directly overlook four neighbouring properties and he could not see how the proposed mitigation measures would prevent overlooking of their gardens and invasion of their privacy.  Although the platform would be lower, the screening proposed only covered one side of the structure and he felt the impact on neighbouring properties made that element of the proposal unacceptable.  A Member indicated that the impact on neighbouring properties had been evident from the site visit and she felt it was appropriate that trees had been planted but they were very sparse currently and, although she did not know the rate of growth, she did not think they were likely to provide screening very quickly.  The Senior Planning Officer indicated that he did not have a note regarding the rate of growth, only that they would grow to four metres in height.  The Member stated that she did not believe the trees would provide sufficient screening quickly enough and, if the platform remained, she would like to see it reduced below 1.2 metres.

49.33        A Member indicated that he could not support the motion for a split decision as the applicant had demonstrated a willingness to reduce the height of the platform and had planted trees which would provide screening once they had matured.  He asked whether it was possible to include fence screening until the trees had reached maturity and was advised that the property did not benefit from permitted development rights so any increase in the height of the fencing would need to form part of a planning application or a condition going forward.  The proposer of the motion indicated that, if the applicant came back with a different proposal for the climbing frame, that would be a matter for another discussion and any proposal to reduce the height would make it more acceptable.  As had been seen on the site visit, what was proposed currently would mean that teenage children standing on the platform would be overlooking neighbouring properties.  The seconder of the motion felt that a split decision would enable the applicant to continue with the erection of the pergola and installation of the organic pool and, if they wished to have more play equipment, they could look at other options for that and come back with another application.

49.34        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That a SPLIT DECISION be issued as follows:

1.     That the erection of a wooden pergola and installation of an organic pool be PERMITTED.

2.     That the erection of a wooden children’s climbing frame be REFUSED.