Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Grange

NOTED

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

a.  He lived at number 6 Uplands Way adjoining the nursery.

b.  He was speaking on behalf of the residents of Uplands Way and the immediate area who had registered an objection in respect of the proposal.

c.  This Committee approved a proposal to increase the number of children attending the nursery from 15 to 20 just over a year ago. At that time, there was no suggestion that the storage provision at the premises was inadequate to meet the needs of this number of children.

d.  He felt that the applicant should have revealed the full implications of the application to increase the number of children attending the nursery so that the Committee and nearby residents could have judged the full impact of the proposal on the amenities of the residential area as the Committee may have turned the original application down knowing the full implications.

e.  He concluded that the drip-feeding of planning applications was a calculated move by the applicants to achieve their ambitions by stealth.

f.  He emphasised that the only part of this residential property which was permitted for use of a day nursery was the large ground floor through room for use of the children and a dedicated smaller room for use by staff only, together with shared use of ground floor communal areas. He estimated that the useable space in the larger room was not adequate to meet OFSTED legal space requirements for 20 children.

g.  OFSTED guidance states “Within this space, provision should be made (space or partitioned area) for children who wish to relax, play quietly or sleep, equipped with the appropriate furniture. This may be converted from normal play space providing children can rest and/or sleep safely without disturbance. In addition to the area per child stated in the requirements, there should be space within the premises to store children’s records, toys and personal belongings. There should also be sufficient space to use and store specialist equipment needed for example, by disabled children.” All this needs to be accommodated within the permitted area.

h.  The space required for 20 children and their related storage needs is not available within the permitted area and this must have been known and, indeed, should have been disclosed when permission for more children was sought.

i.  It would appear that there was unauthorised use of the garage at the premises for storage of nursery equipment even before the increase in the number of children permitted from 15 to 20 was approved. He understood that the owners had been instructed by the Planning Department to move the equipment to an authorised space. He felt that the 2 permitted rooms inside the house for nursery use were inadequate to provide the required storage space for existing equipment and together with the additional requirement created by a 33% increase in children, space has needed to be found elsewhere on the premises.

j.  The building of an extension would not be an option as it would visibly increase the proportion of the premises used for commercial purposes, so this proposal for a large shed has been submitted as, he believed, an ‘extension-by-stealth’.

k.  The submitted plans show the floor area of the shed to be 8.5sqm which is proposed increase of approx 12.5% in space occupied by the nursery, a very significant increase in the nursery footprint.

l.  The 26 objectors to the application believe it to be an unacceptable increase in the proportion of the premises used as a nursery or commercial premises rather than aesthetic concerns. There are no letters of support for this scheme.

m.  He concluded that if the shed were being erected for normal domestic use this would not be an issue. He felt that this was a blatant proposal to extend the nursery.

2.  The response of Miss Kelly Coutinho, the applicant’s representative, including the following points:

a.  An application of this nature for residential use would not usually be determined by the Planning Committee.

b.  Consultation letters had been sent to 63 neighbouring properties, only 13 responses had been received. 1 letter raised no objection.

c.  The proposed shed would have no visual impact to the street scene. She provided a list of objectors to the application, and highlighted that 12 of those would have no have no clear view of the proposed shed. The closest neighbour (at 69 Langham Gardens) had raised no objection. 

d.  She felt that there was a feeling of animosity towards the nursery. Residents had complained to OFSTED and the Council on numerous occasions. All complaints had been investigated. Both OFSTED and the Council were satisfied that the nursery was operating well.

e.  This application was not for an extension of the nursery, the internal rooms accommodated 22 children and could house more.

3.  Concern of Members that the applicant’s ‘drip feed’ approach was to achieve an extension to the nursery.

4.  In response to a question about illegal storage, officers advised that they were not aware of any enforcement issues.

5.  Confirmation of the School Organisation and Development Officer that the Early Years Team supported the proposed application and was satisfied that the nursery was operating correctly.

6.  Councillor Savva moved to accept the officers’ recommendation of approval, seconded by Councillor Simon. A vote was taken; 10 votes in favour of accepting the officers’ recommendation of approval, 2 votes against and no abstentions.

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report, for the reasons set out in the report.