Agenda item

 

Application Number:			13/01216/COU
Location:	1A Everest Road, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Change of use from residential (C3) to a nursery (D1)
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Defer
Letters of Rep:		17	Update Report:		Additional representations

 

Councillor Coleman expressed a personal and prejudicial interest in this application, and therefore left the chamber.  Councillor Hall took the chair for this application only.

 

CS told Members that this is an application for a change of use from a residential dwelling to a nursery, and was at committee at the request of Councillor Hall and Councillor Sudbury, due to neighbour concerns about highway safety and loss of neighbouring amenity.  The recommendation is to approve, with a number of conditions attached covering these concerns.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Sam Ashimzai, applicant, in support

Told Members that Cheltenham does not currently have a Montessori-led nursery, there are long waiting lists for nursery places in Cheltenham, and a national push to open more quality nurseries.  To help minimise congestion, a driveway in front of the property will be created to allow an in-out drive-through for parents, along with a 45-minute window to drop off their children.  Concerns over cars parking illegally to use the shop on the corner can be monitored by nursery staff, who may be able to help reduce the problem.  It is also anticipated the some parents with walk, cycle or use public transport.  With opening times from 8.45am-2.00pm, has noted that these times, especially 2.00pm, are very quiet on the roads, and with the additional driveway, anticipates very little disruption to local residents. Said the nursery will have no more that 16 children per day, and according to OFSTED, the space provided will be more than adequate.  The applicants will limit the number of children outside at any time to minimise noise, and will also ensure that staff monitor noise levels outside.  They aim to create a calm environment where children aged 2-5 learn to do things and think for themselves, and concentration for long periods of time is part of the Montessori approach.  This type of nursery is known for being calm and quiet, which will help with keeping noise levels to a minimum.  Said Cheltenham will benefit from a calm, caring, safe nursery, is happy to comply with the suggested conditions to keep disruption to a minimum, and hopes that in time, the nursery will be a positive additional to the Leckhampton community.

 

Councillor Smith, on behalf of neighbours, in objection

Was present at meeting the voice concerns of neighbours, as follows:

(1)      lack of clarity in the paperwork – the application form refers to there being one bedroom, but there is nothing on the drawings to show where;

(2)      the application states that midday meals will be provided but there is no identified food preparation area; ventilation may be required which could affect neighbours’ amenity;

(3)      the sketches are misleading – the garage is shown as flush with the front of the bungalow whereas in fact it is set back;

(4)      there is no reference to trees, although there is an apple tree on the boundary, and hedges which should be retained if the application is permitted, to minimise noise and visual impact;

(5)      referring to Environmental Health comments, suggested that the outside space was not sufficient for six children to undertake outdoor activities at a time – two maybe, but not six.  The amenity of local residents and their enjoyment of their gardens will be affected; there are five properties sharing a boundary with the garden;

(6)      bin storage has not been fully considered.  These need to be lockable, and as they are likely to be used for nappies and food waste, foxes and rats could become a problem;

(7)      keeping the doors and windows closed during noisy activities for 16 children will be impossible to adhere to;

(8)      the comments of the Highways Officer ignore the evidence and the fact that this area is used as a rat run and is very busy during the school run;  the county council recognises the evidence that this is a dangerous junction, and additional work could make it more so;

(9)      the application form refers to space for six cycles to be parked on the site, but there is nothing on the plan to show where.  With four vehicles parked on site, and the proposed in-out drive, it is difficult to see where the cycle parking might be;

(10)  no consideration has been given to the impact of the local shop and on-road parking;

(11)  the traffic assessment was carried out in August, not during a school term.  This is not typical, as school traffic makes a significant difference.  The assessment should be re-done during term-time;

(12)  the report says the proposal will comply with policy CP4 if carefully managed, but this should stand on its own right and not be dependant on the vagaries of the day-to-day management of the nursery.

To sum up, considers that there is a lack in clarity of information to determine this application; the traffic assessment is flawed, having been carried out at the wrong time of year; the restraints on the outside space will spoil neighbours’ enjoyment of their homes and gardens; the suggested conditions from Environmental Health are unworkable; and there isn’t sufficient evidence to suggest that policy CP4 will not be breached.

 

 

Member debate:

PT:  Cllr Smith raised one of her concerns – rubbish bins.  Also, on site visit, the applicant indicated there would be a kitchen area at the top of the room but this is not marked on the drawing.  Has the officer anything to add to make this clearer?

 

BF:  concerned about Environmental Health’s condition for only six children in the garden at a time, with 16 children in a small inside space for several hours and only 1.5 hours of outdoor time in total.  On a hot day, it doesn’t seem feasible to enforce what EH wants – we talk about enforcement again and again but nothing changes.  Considers the chances of this condition being enforceable are nil, and if it is enforced, how can the applicant run a satisfactory business – 12-16 children with 30 minutes a day to play outside is not right.

 

BD:  this is the right thing in the wrong place.  The property is too small, and the garden the size of a postage stamp.  There are issues with parking and with neighbours, and although the area may need another nursery, 16 children in a small space with closed windows is not on.

 

GB:  this is a difficult one – there is a need for more nurseries but is concerned that this isn’t the right place for it.  The plans are inadequate, not properly defined, with nothing to indicate the site’s relationship with neighbouring gardens or the access and egress at the front of the house.  It would be better and easier to consider with decent plans.  The site visit helped but it is impossible to get a true impression of the proposal site and surroundings from the drawings.  Access and egress for 16 children plus staff would be difficult, and the impact on local residents could be excessive.  On balance, feels this proposal should be refused.

 

RG:  concerned about the detail provided.  If there is a food preparation area, vents will be needed to mitigate fumes – or will no food be cooked, as the children will only be there from 9.00am till 2.00pm?  Toilets are shown on the plan, but are these for adults or children?  Do these have to be separate?  Are they special low toilets for children?  Has looked in the report to see if this provision complies with OFSTED requirements, but it isn’t mentioned.  Says a wealth of information is still needed.  The Highways assessment says the impact will not be severe, but what is severe?  It states that parents will have the opportunity to park safely 200m from the site, but on a cold and wet December morning, they will want to park as close as possible, and the result could be chaos.  The application falls here too.  There is not enough information.

 

CS, in response:

-          to PT, said the applicant has provided floor plans and site location plan – the internal arrangements are not subject to planning permission, and the application is for the use itself.  The internal lay-out, kitchen etc, is subject to building regulations, and the applicant will have to conform with OFSTED requirements in order to run his business.   The floor plan provides an idea of the lay-out, but the details are not required for planning permission to be granted;

-          to BF’s comments about the EH conditions for use of outdoor space, officers feel that the conditions are not onerous, based on the supporting information supplied by the applicant;

-          officers have recommended a personal permission tied to the applicant – if he moves on, the building will revert back to a residential use;

-          to GB’s comments that the nursery is in the wrong location, officers consider that this type of use sits comfortably in a residential area, and in view of the small-scale nature of the proposal, do not consider it to be an issue;

-          regarding access and the turning area, the highways officer assessed the application without a turning area, with the conditions of the site at present.  Condition 5 on the green update requires further details, but officers are comfortable that the principle is acceptable.  Two cycle storage places are also conditioned;

-          regarding the bedroom indicated on the application form, the applicant has confirmed that there will be no bedroom – this was a mistake on the form;

-          in response to comments that the highways assessment was carried out during school holidays, said that this has no bearing on the application from an officer point of view.  The merits of the site, distance from the junction, visibility and width of road were considered, and this is a valid basis whatever the time of year.

 

PT:  asked for a response to the question regarding storage of rubbish bins and nappy bins.  Suggests the decision should be deferred to get some questions answered.  Is confused about building regulations and planning – who is responsible for the internal lay-out of the building?  If there is no bedroom, there should at least be a quiet area for children to lie down.  This seems to be a rushed application, not really thought out properly, and would be more comfortable if the report included some OFSTED comments to indicate that it is a reasonable plan.

 

CS, in response:

-          discussion of providing a bed for children to rest is straying outside planning issues, regardless of which Members should remember they will only be at the nursery between 9.00am and 2.00pm;

-          regarding building regulations, the internal lay-out is not subject to planning permission – planners are simply considering the change of use; if flues or vents are needed later on for food preparation etc, a further application may be required, but it doesn’t need to be considered at this time;

-          regarding bin storage, officers are comfortable that this can be achieved within the site, in the garage, but a condition requiring further information can be attached if Members would like.

 

SW:  on planning view, thought that this isn’t a suitable property for a nursery, but most of the objections have been covered in the report. Would have suggested the applicant speak with OFSTED regarding sleeping accommodation, cooking facilities etc, but this is not what Members are considering today.  There is little to argue against this change of use – it is taking up living accommodation but being converted to communal use, for the nursery only.  Most of the concerns are with the nursery use itself, and Members should remember that even if they allow the change of use, OFSTED may say the property is inadequate.

 

CH:  this is a difficult application.  Small local nurseries are to be encouraged, and better than large businesses to which parents have to transport their children across the town.  Questions the highways advice, as a lot depends on whether or not people observe the Highway Code – some nurseries are a nightmare at drop-off time, particularly if it’s raining, when parents take great risks.  In this location, it will be difficult.  The drive-in-out system seems to work at the nursery on Prestbury Road, but there are other examples where it doesn’t work at all.  This depends on how the nursery is run, and it should be remembered that parents don’t usually just drop off their children and go – they are likely to stop, chat and so on, sometimes leaving their cars parked across driveways.  There is not enough detail with this application – cannot vote for it, much as he would like to.  Although it is only small, it could mean an extra 16 cars in the area at busy times, which would be really difficult.  Feels bad but can’t support the proposal because of the traffic implications.

 

PJ:  this is a tough one, and a question of head against heart.  Head says the proposal is straightforward and complies with policy; heart says ‘would I send my children here?’  Agrees with CH about traffic issues – when schools are on holiday, the road network is very different, and would therefore feel better if the highways officer made his inspection during the school term.  Not keen on the deferral option, but won’t support the application as it stands.

 

BF:  returning to his original point, considers the welfare of 16 children more important than highways issues.  Do the conditions regarding outdoor play and closed windows comply with OFSTED requirements – Members should know this before they make their decision.  Will be shocked if OFSTED is OK with this.

 

AC:  is in a quandary.  Wants to support the proposal but not here, on this rat run road which is sometimes very congested.  Worries about introducing an extra 16 cars to a very busy road.  Doesn’t want to say no and not keen on deferral, but wants more information and further highways assessment.

 

PT:  moves to defer, pending more information and better drawings.

 

CS, in response:

-          to highways concerns, highways officers have produced a very detailed response, based on distances, conditions at the site, junctions, worst case scenario etc – it is irrelevant that this was done in August.  Reminded Members that on planning view, there was no problem parking outside at 2.00pm;

-          the key issues with this application are the impact on neighbouring amenity, the loss of residential accommodation, and highways issues;

-          it would be difficult to refuse on highways grounds as the highways officer considers the proposal to be in line with policy;

-          the loss of residential accommodation is dealt with in the report and meets the criteria of policy HS7, as it will be providing a community facility;

-          regarding the impact on neighbouring amenity, Environmental Health have recommended a cautious approach and suggested several conditions but not rejected the proposal.  It is important to remember that this is a small-scale facility for the community;

-          every application needs to be considered on its own merits, and it’s worth remembering the recent application for a nursery at Sandhurst Road – there was similar discussion there regarding OFSTED, but this is not relevant to the planning application.  The nursery will not be able to operate if it doesn’t comply with OFSTED requirements, so lack of information from OFSTED is not a valid refusal reason;

-          if Members vote to defer, they will need to be specific about what further information they require and what benefit the additional information will bring.  There are already conditions regarding access and parking, and a condition for bin storage can be added if necessary.

 

BD:  can’t support deferral – the site won’t get bigger or change position.  This is the wrong thing in the wrong place, and a clear example of why it is important to go on planning view.  The property is tiny, and washing, toilet and garden facilities too small for this use.  Deferral won’t change anything.

 

GB:  is vacillating about this difficult decision.  Not sure what deferral will do, other than put off for a month the evil day when a decision must be made.  Members’ concerns have been dealt with by officers, and as there is no planning reason to refuse, can see no option but to support the officer recommendation to permit.  Considers the amenity of local residents the only issue not fully covered, but there has been no move to refuse – there are no grounds – and therefore feels boxed into a corner to vote for permit.

 

RG:  is asking himself why he should support deferral, as the applicant has rights, and may be working to a timetable.  However, is concerned about a potential traffic problem and not happy with the highways assessment being done out of school time - would like to question the highways officer about this.  Also concerned that bin storage for 16 children’s rubbish, including nappies, will possibly be situated next to a food store.  Needs to know more about parking arrangements – there may be space for four cars at the front, but will parents really park 200m away to drop off their children.  Therefore supports deferment – wants to know more before agreeing to a commercial use at this site.

 

CH:  has same concerns as RG.  There has been a lot of reasoning about why the traffic won’t be a problem and the in-out drop-off, but no indication of how this will look.  A detailed plan is needed, showing how it will work, and the applicant can also fill in some other information that Members are worried about.  Would like the highways officer to be present at the next meeting to answer questions on highways issues, and would like the survey re-done at 8.30-9.00am on a normal school day – holidays make a huge difference to the volume of traffic, though concedes that 2.00pm isn’t the school rush hour.  Asks if there is any leeway in the drop-off time?  It is legitimate to ask for this sort of information before a decision can be made.

 

PH:  asked if the officer has enough information about why Members want to defer.

 

CS, in response:

-          yes – concerns about bins and highways.

 

PH:  as local borough councillor, would also like to ask some questions of the trees officer.

 

 

Vote on PT’s move to defer

10 in support

3 in objection

1 abstention

DEFER

 

BD:  asks that all Members visit the site before the next meeting.

 

PT:  asks that officers ensure that the highways officer is present at the next meeting.