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 existing conditions of use of the garden for outdoor play activities would be inadequate. The applicant had assured officers that no additional time in the garden would be requested as the children were taken out for 1 hour daily walks and staffing was adequate to do this.

d.  The applicant should have revealed the full implications of that application so that the Committee could have judged the full impact of the proposal on the amenities of this planning application.

e.  It appeared that the drip-feeding of planning applications in this way was a calculated move by the applicants to achieve their ambitions by stealth.

f.  On 30 November 2009, a member of this Committee led the applicants by suggesting that they should submit an application to increase garden use at a later date effectively endorsing the applicants’ plan not to reveal their full intentions on the future operation of the nursery when submitting an application to increase the number of children. Advising this was inappropriate and we trust that they will not be voting on this proposal.

g.  He was looking forward to the day when he could enjoy his garden on a more regular basis. He felt that this proposal effectively moved the nursery operation into the garden to lessen the pressure on the restricted internal space and would result in a significant increase in disturbance.

h.  The applicants proposed a 2 hour window in the morning and the same in the afternoon at their discretion. For a potential of 4 hours a day his garden would be blighted by the activities of a commercial business being allowed to function in a residential area.

i.  Para 6.11 stated that the garden was of reasonable size that would permit play in areas away from the boundary. He felt that this acknowledged that there would be a considerable degree of doubt that the proposal would not cause undue disturbance to adjoining residents.

j.  He questioned how the increase in noise could be modest when doubling the number of children and the amount of time in the garden. 

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

a.  She provided a list of properties operating commercial businesses in Uplands Way.

b.  The children were of a young age and would be supervised in the garden for structured outdoor activities. The activity use was not akin to a school playground use.

c.  This application represented possibilities to further improve a service and provide flexibility when there was inclement weather. The nursery was operating to a high standard.

d.  The nursery was a well used facility running with a waiting list.

e.  There would be no increase in floor space or use.

f.  The staged planning applications were because the applicant had been unclear about the demand and was due to natural progression of a successful nursery.

g.  A Member of the Planning Committee at a previous meeting had suggested that a further application could be made regarding garden use hours.

3.  Officers’ clarification that the proposal was for use of the garden for a maximum of 2 hours a day, 1 hour between the hours of 10.00-12.00 and 1 hour between the hours of 14.00-16.00.

4.  Suggestion of officers that if Members were so minded, planning permission could be granted on a temporary basis for 9 months to enable officers to reassess the application in September following the summer months.

5.  Discussion of Members in relation to the planning history and the weight given to previous discussions relating to outdoor play. Councillor Simon acknowledged that he had spoken at Planning Committee on 30/11/09 suggesting that such a further application could be made. Councillor Neville had discussed and objected to previous applications relating to this site, but had taken no part in determining those applications nor had made comments in respect of this application. Neither Member felt they had expressed a view that they thought would be considered as having predetermined this application.

6.  Legal advice was provided with regard to public perception of predetermination and declarations of interest.

7.  Officers recognised concerns but that on balance recommended that the application be approved.

8.  Officers confirmed that Environmental Health had received no complaints to date and that the use of the garden was considered appropriate and within the policy guidance.

9.  Members’ further concerns with regards to possible noise and disturbance. Members noted the need for flexibility while balancing interests of children and residents. Members were concerned that the flexible time slot would be difficult to enforce.

10.  Officers confirmed that a condition relating to time could be enforced.

11.  Members discussed the possibility of deferring the application in order for discussion to be had with the applicant on pursuing an alternative timing for use of the garden. A vote was taken on deferral to pursue an alternative timing which was rejected 7 votes to 6 votes.

12.  A vote was taken on the officers’ recommendation. On request, the nameswere recorded as follows:

Votes were recorded for the proposal to agree the recommendation from Councillors Simon, Cicek, Hasan, Keazor, Lemonides, Savva and Constantinides and votes against from Councillors Delman, Hurer, McCannah, Neville, Pearce and Prescott.

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