Housing extension for autistic child in Peterborough approved by council after plea from grandmother
and on Freeview 262 or Freely 565
A family with an autistic child has been granted permission to keep a housing extension built to accommodate his special needs.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe majority of Peterborough City Council’s (PCC) planning committee voted against officers’ recommendation to refuse the retrospective application at a meeting this week.
Council officers had cautioned that the extension leaves “little garden area for future occupiers” of 160 Northfield Road in Millfield.
But the four-year-old's family asked that their circumstances be taken into account.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdAddressing the committee, his grandmother said the room will be “his safe place” where he can have “lights, colours, sounds, aromas and soft toys” to aid his relaxation and development.
She added that he “has the right to a good start and a happy life”, but that the family can’t afford anywhere larger.
The child, who is nonverbal, will soon have a sibling, she told the committee, on top of the five adults who already live together in the three-bedroom house.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdCllr Chris Harper (Peterborough First, Stanground South) was one of three councillors to vote in favour of officers’ recommendations to refuse the application.
He said that although the needs of the child are clear, there’s “no proof” the sensory room couldn’t be accommodated within the house, which had already had two extensions.
Cllr Brian Rush (Peterborough First, Stanground), who also voted in favour of officers’ recommendations, added that “people shouldn’t be able to go out and just build what they like”.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdOfficers had said that, aside from a doctor’s letter, “no further details or justification was provided” by the applicant as to why the room couldn’t be accommodated elsewhere in the house.
Cllr Wayne Fitzgerald (Conservatives, West) said that it’s a “failure of the council’s planning team or the wider council if we’re not advising people of the evidence they need to support their application from our own social care teams”.
Officers responded that the needs of the child weren't in question but rather the placement of the sensory room.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdCllr Fitzgerald said that future occupiers of the house could always knock the extension down if they don’t want it, while Cllr Mohammed Jamil (Labour, Central) said that the “needs of the child prevail”.
In the vote, seven went against officers’ recommendations and three in favour. There was one abstention.
Comment Guidelines
National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.