Agenda item

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

KS:  struggled with this application.  On Planning View, all had been peaceful with delightful little children playing in the garden, but thought that 17 excited, older children would be very noisy.  Didn’t see the whole lower floor of the house, and wondered whether it was big enough to accommodate 17 children.  Noted that there had been no formal complaints about noise levels, commented again on the beautiful setting and that most people were happy to have children there, but thought five more children might be too many in a semi.

RG:  had a memory of a similar application for a nursery which limited the number of children who can play outside at any one time – although this may seem a bit draconian, thought it had been done in the past.

MJC, in response;

-          said the issue of the size of the accommodation for the nursery and number of children was not a planning consideration and was governed by other legislation;  Members needed to consider the impact on amenity and parking issues;

-          regarding noise, said the Environmental Health team had reviewed the issue, and didn’t feel it was necessary to restrict the number of children to 12; in light of the history of no complaints, took the view that an extra five children would be OK;

-          told Members that the applicant had stated that she was happy to restrict the number to 12 children at any one time, with 17 places in total if the Committee would allow.

BF:  noted that nothing was being done to alter the building and yet Members were being asked to make a judgement on the number of children attending the nursery.  Did not feel qualified to make the judgement, even though what Members saw on Planning View looked great.

MS:  thought the proposal would probably work all right, but asked if a time limit of one year could be conditioned, to see if it started going over the top and causing problems.

RG:  would rather do things the other way round, as issues such as term times and birth rates would affect the outcome.  Although it was draconian, suggested a condition allowing only 12 children in the garden at any one time.  The applicant could then ask for this condition to be removed after one year.

SW:  echoed BF’s comments, and thought this proposal had nothing to do with Planning Committee.  Thought it was a matter for Ofsted, and was surprised that they allowed 17 children, but said if social services and Ofsted were happy, there could be no quibble.

PT:  said Ofsted make the final decision, but Planning Committee has to consider the effect on local residents.  Having run a nursery herself, could not see a problem with this proposal.  Said the hours of operation are already in place – 8.00am–5.30pm - and the nursery doesn’t just cater for young children but also 5-8-year-olds after school.  Had no problem with the proposal, and as Environmental Health had no trail of complaints, could see nothing wrong with the application.

MJC, in response:

-          said it was right that the planning authority was considering the application and that planning permission is needed;

-          said Members did not need to consider the space issue but the impact on the amenity of neighbours and parking considerations;

-          regarding the amenity impact and potential noise, said RG’s suggestion was appropriate – Condition 3 suggested that the gardens be used only between 9.30am and 5.30pm, Monday to Friday, and an additional condition could restrict the number of children in the garden to 12.  The applicant had said that this would be acceptable and she could work with this.  If it was not workable, another application could be made after 12 months.

SW:  in so far that most of the children would be under five years old, said there should be no more than three in the care of each member of staff.  However, if the applicant is looking to attract school-age children, it would be the short period at the end of the day when problems with noise may arise.

KS:  generally supported the proposed condition but thought this should be alongside MS’s suggestion of a temporary permission – thought this would be fairer to all parties, and that the nursery would do all it could to accommodate 17 children.

HM:  said a temporary permission might make it difficult for parents to plan and place their children there.

PH:  on planning view, had noted small groups of children with each adult, all working well together.  Said as these were toddlers, not too many were allowed together without adequate supervision.  Any further consideration of this was not the concern of the planning committee.

HM:  asked MS if he would like a condition included stating that there should be no more than 12 children in the garden at any one time.

MS:  confirmed that he did.

Vote taken on officer recommendation to permit, with additional condition

14 in support

1 abstention

PERMIT