Issue - meetings

NOTED

1.         An introduction by the Planning officer and clarification that eight letters of objection were received and eleven letters expressing support or no objection.

2.         Receipt of two additional letters of objection, including one from Grange Park Residents' Association, highlighting concerns including congestion, parking and traffic problems, noise and disturbance, inadequate space/overcrowding in the nursery, that Ofsted requirements should be complied with, that trips to the park and play space were not happening, and the use was inappropriate in a residential area.

3.         The deputation of Mr Anthony Boother, neighbouring resident, including the following points:

(i)  He was also speaking on behalf of other affected Uplands Way residents.

(ii)  When the business was started the intention that it would move to larger premises if it proved successful, but it was permitted to take more children and had not moved.

(iii)  An application to increase the number of children attending to 20 was refused in 2005, so it was questioned why this new identical application was recommended for approval though there was no material change.

(iv)  A 33% increase in numbers was significant in terms of the operation and the traffic generation.

(v)  Current traffic problems would be exacerbated and there would be inconvenience and danger at dropping off and picking up times. Photographic evidence from residents was ignored in place of a flawed traffic report.

(vi)  Parking provision at the premises was not currently used in the manner suggested.

(vii)  He understood that correct protocols for consultation with children's services authorities/CACEY had not been followed.

(viii)  It was difficult to see how Ofsted statutory requirements could be complied with due to the available space and toilet facilities.

(ix)  Residents experienced problems on a daily basis, but could not be expected to continually submit formal complaints.

4.         The response of Ms Kelly Coutinho, daughter of the applicant, including the following points:

(i)  She provided a list of objectors to the application and their addresses, and those local residents who had written to advise they had no objection, with an attached illustrative map, and highlighted that many of those objecting lived further away from the nursery.

(ii)  The Council's traffic report had confirmed this was a large road with a low level of traffic use and ample parking, and the traffic concerns had been adequately addressed and were not a reason for refusal.

(iii)  The closest neighbour to the garden (at 69, Langham Gardens), who would be expected to be most exposed to any noise, had no objection and had not realised the nursery was in operation for some weeks after moving to the property.

(iv)  Residents who had complained had properties that backed onto Grange Park Primary School, which had 638 children all of whom played outdoors. At the nursery there were a maximum of five children outside at any one time, and she did not seek to increase that number.

(v)  This application did not represent the escalation of an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 406

NOTED

1.         Attention was drawn to the “Note for Members”, reviewing the case and setting out conditions which could be applied if planning permission was granted.

2.         Amendments and corrections to the existing conditions.

3.         An additional condition on Details of Extract Ventilation (C20).

4.         Additional conditions requested by Environmental Health in relation to noise control and details of the air conditioning plant, appropriate to safeguard neighbours' interests.

5.         The Chairman's reminder that Members had a long discussion when the application was originally presented to Committee on 24 June 2009.

6.         The Planning Officer's confirmation that the report should refer to parking areas in the plural as an area had been secured for additional car parking.

7.         Members' comments including satisfaction that surrounding industries would not be compromised, that an industrial unit would remain on the ground floor and that there would be employment generated by the proposal.

8.         Councillor Simon's request for an additional condition to cover the maximum number of people permitted on the premises at any one time.

9.         The advice of the Head of Development Services in respect of robust reasons for granting planning permission.

10.       The Committee voted unanimously not to support the officers' recommendation that planning permission be refused.

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions set out in “Note for Members”, and the additional conditions below, for the reasons set out below.

Additional conditions:

(i)  Before the use commences the premise shall be acoustically insulated in accordance with a scheme agreed with the local planning authority, to provide a 0 dB increase in the background sound level at the boundary of the nearest residential property when any function is taking place.

Reason:  in order to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.

(ii)  Prior to any use the premise shall be fitted with suitable air conditioning plant to negate the need to open windows and doors during any activity to ensure the background noise level increase is 0 dB at the boundary of the nearest residential property when any function is taking place.

Reason:  in order to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.

(iii)  No more than 250 visitors and 25 staff shall be in attendance at the first floor premises at any one time.

Reason:  in order to ensure the level of activity remains appropriate having regard to on street parking and policy on industrial land and the need to safeguard the free flow and safety of traffic accessing the industrial estate.

Reasons for Decision:

1.  Due to the retention of the ground floor in commercial use, the proposal would not harm the availability of industrial premises having regard to the objectives of Policy (II)E2 of the Unitary Development Plan and policies 3B.1, 3B.4 and 3B.11 of the London Plan.

2.  Due to the parking arrangements proposed by the applicant including the provision of the two parking areas, the proposal would not harm conditions relating to the free flow and safety of traffic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 337