Education centre refused by council
Buckinghamshire Council decided the plans did not meet the required criteria
Plans by a school in Chalfont St Giles to build an environmental education centre have been refused by Buckinghamshire Council.
Aspire Schools had applied for permission to build the centre at its Shortenills site, which provides specialist education for pupils with social, emotional and mental health needs.
The proposal sought a certificate of lawfulness for the construction of an environmental education centre, primarily for use by pupils at the school, with occasional access for parents and members of the public by invitation.
As the application was for a certificate of lawfulness, it aimed to confirm whether the work could be carried out under permitted development rights, making it a legal, rather than planning, exercise.
However, Buckinghamshire Council decided the plans did not meet the required criteria.
The proposed education centre would have included a yurt, a cabin, four raised planter beds and a polytunnel.
It said: “These are intended for use by children attending the school, with occasional access by parents and the public (by invitation only).
“The proposal is considered an extension of the school’s existing lawful educational facilities within the curtilage of the school.
“The environmental education centre and associated supporting operational development have not yet been implemented.
“The cabin and hardstanding for the yurt and polytunnel comprise operational development, which benefits from permitted development entitlement.
“The yurt and polytunnel, which are movable chattels, are linked to the existing lawful use of the land.”
In a report, council officers recommended the application be refused, saying the proposed development did not comply with permitted development rules.
They said: “The proposed polytunnel would measure 13.3 m x 2 m with a height of 2 m. This container is presumably intended to be fairly permanent and not moved around the site regularly.
“With regard to the yurt, this would have an area of 37sqm and a height of 3.1m. It has a door indicating permanence and appears to be sited on some sort of base.
“The size, design and construction of these is capable of being a standalone building giving regards to the Skerrits judgement.
“Looking at the three aspects mentioned above in turn, these structures would likely require some sort of fixture to the ground, even if it is just through the weight of the structure or to connect to services and would be permanent additions regardless of whether they could theoretically be moved.
“Therefore the proposed structures would constitute buildings and would be regarded as operational development. On the basis of what has been submitted, the yurt and polytunnel are considered to be ‘buildings’.”