Agenda item

Cllr Coleman left the meeting for this debate; Cllr Hall acted as Chair

CS introduced the application, which was deferred at the September meeting for further detail and further highways comments.  These have now been received.  The officer recommendation remains to permit.

Public Speaking:

Councillor Sudbury, county councillor, in objection

Couldn’t attend the September planning committee, but wrote a letter of objection to this proposal, all of which still stands.  Has sympathy for the applicant and his wish to open a nursery, but thinks this is not the right location for this type of business.  When a school or institution has a particular focus, it will attract people from a wider area, not just the immediate location; this application is for a Montessori nursery, and may be used by parents and children from a wide geographical area, making more traffic movements more likely.  Stands by all her previous objections – this is not the right development for this situation.

Cllr Sudbury then left the meeting for this debate

Mr Sam Hashimzai, applicant, in support

The proposal complies with OFSTED regulations and with legal space requirements of 2.6sq m for a two-year-old and 2.3sq m for a three-year-old – the floor space measures 40sq m.  The outside space is enough for six children at a time, and adequate provision as they will only be at the nursery for five hours - there are some nurseries with no outdoor space at all, and parents can choose whether they feel this provision is adequate.  Children will bring their own packed lunches, and a quiet area will be provided for them to rest or sleep if required – though again, this is unlikely to be required very much during the five-hour day.  This area is within the main room of the building, as it is not good practice to have a separate room.  Members have expressed concern about disposal of nappies; as the children are over two years old and only at nursery for five hours, they shouldn’t generate a lot, but any nappies will be disposed of correctly and kept in a bin in the new garage.  Regarding the tree and hedges, these are to be retained to help with privacy and containing any noise, and the children will be involved in the upkeep of the garden, planting vegetables for example.  The new in-out driveway to the front will alleviate any traffic issues, together with a 45-minutes drop-off window; photos taken at the relevant times show how quiet the road is when parents will be dropping off and picking up.  The nursery will provide a positive start to its children’s education; he and his wife are passionate about it, and have talked about starting a Montessori nursery in Cheltenham for many years – they will put their hearts and souls into making it work.

Councillor Smith, on behalf of neighbours, in objection

Objects to the proposal on the same four bases as last time: lack of clarity (thanked the applicant for updating this and providing better clarity, but this serves to highlight previous concerns); flawed traffic assessment; constraints on outside space; and proposals from Environmental Health which are unworkable for a nursery in a residential area.  There is insufficient evidence to show that policy CP4 will not be breached, and residents remain very concerned.  Children may bring packed lunched but some sort of food preparation area will still be required – even if only to boil a kettle – with appropriate ventilation needed.  The outdoor play area is too small to ensure that the outside amenity of neighbours won’t be disturbed.  The three parking spaces are presumably for staff, not parents.  Residents disagree with the views of the traffic officers, and consider the extra cars will cause additional road danger and congestion in the area.  Regarding the in-out drive, this is a key route to LeckhamptonPrimary School, with mothers, children, toddlers and prams walking past – cars crossing the pavement to the drive will present a danger.  Residents’ perception is very different from the traffic officers, and his own personal experience is more in line with what the residents say than what the traffic officers say.  The double yellow line from the corner to the property is proof that there are safety concerns from the County about this stretch of road – it is a dangerous area, and additional cars and congestion will mean added danger.  It is stated that noise and music will be contained by keeping the windows closed, but this is impractical, and how can it be enforced in practice?  The cycle racks are uncovered hoops – adding a cover will further reduce the outdoor space.  There is still enough evidence to show that the scheme will have a negative impact on neighbouring amenity and be in contravention of policy CP4.

Member debate:

RG:  a neighbour has provided a large number of photos showing parking congestion on Everest Road – Members need to hear MPower’s opinion on these, and if he would like to give any different advice from what is currently in the report.

HM:  would also like to hear highways officer’s opinion on the in-out driveway.  Is concerned about its proximity to Old Bath Road, and whether one side would be best designated as ‘in’ and the other as ‘out’.

MPower, in response:  

-          to answer these two questions first:  lives quite nearby and travels down the road frequently – the neighbour’s photograph don’t appear to be the common state of parking on Everest Road or represent an everyday occurrence, at either peak or non-peak times;

-          regarding the in-out drive, a lot of nurseries around the county use this method for short-term drop-offs, and it works well; it is best not to be prescriptive about which side is in and which is out, as these things have a natural balance and work out for themselves;

-          to appreciate our highway comments on this proposal, it is important to understand both the application and the policy which governs it.  Under the NPPF, applications should not be refused unless they will have a severe cumulative impact, and furthermore this scheme is well below the threshold for any kind of Transport Assessment – set at over 50 beds for an institution, over 80 houses for an estate;

-          of the children attending the nursery, some may be walked, some may share lifts, so the figure of 16 additional cars would be the high end;

-          reminded Members of a recent application for a veterinary practice in Lyefield Road West, Charlton Kings, adjacent to shops, café and chemist, and the problems prophesied by neighbours; these have not materialised, and the perception of a problem usually makes it greater than it actually turns out to be;

-          this application cannot be refused on traffic grounds – it is a sustainable under the terms of the NPPF;

-           to KS’s comments about the application being for a particular type of nursery, this is irrelevant – the proposal cannot be assessed against this – and to Cllr Smith’s comment that yellow lines indicate that this is a dangerous junction, said yellow lines to stop people parking on the radii of a junction are normal, to help visibility;

-          told Members there is no planning policy to back up refusal of this application on highways grounds.

PT:  are there any accident statistics for the area?

MPower, in response: 

-          accidents can occur anywhere, and there are no statistics to suggest that this is a dangerous location.  Recalled a recent highways consultation on road safety in Old Bath Road.  Of the households consulted, eight out of ten residents were against a crossing proposal and all other traffic-calming options, including build-outs, parking restrictions, and a zebra crossing (100 residents objected to this).  There is no record to say that traffic causes any particular problem;

-          does not think the in-out drive will prove a problem for pedestrians or other road-users, taking into account the number of mothers and children walking to school along Everest Road.  The capacity of a road such as Everest Road would be 700 vehicles one way in a peak hour; current flows of 100 make this well within capacity;

-          Everest Road is an unusual Z-shaped road, not used a rat run, and would be described in highways terms as ‘lightly trafficked’ and unclassified.

LG:  applications such as this, and the location of the site, will never attract support from local residents, but Members need to consider whether there is any policy constraint, sustainable at appeal, other than those set out of Page 26 of the report; if there isn’t, to refuse will be pushing the boundaries. The officer report sets out why it cannot be refused on design, for loss of residential accommodation, highway safety, or safe and sustainable living, so unless Members can come up with any other policies to quote as a refusal reason, it is unlikely that it would lose at appeal.  The conditions are very stringent as far as the applicant is concerned, and more than satisfactory to meet the worries and concerns of local residents.

CS, in response:

-          all the relevant local plan policies have been covered by the report, and there are no policy grounds for refusal;

-          regarding conditions, it was stressed last month that the conditions suggested by Environmental Health are tied back in to the applicant’s supporting statement, and are considered reasonable for the running of the business.

BF:  concerned about enforcement of these conditions – there are some strict restraints on operation of the nursery but what can be done once it’s up and running?  These could be very difficult to enforce.  It looks very clear-cut – closed windows to contain noise, limited time in the garden – but sanctions would be minimal, and it will have to be policed by neighbours.  What would the sanctions be if the conditions are breached?

AM:  BF is treading a dangerous path here, assuming that the conditions can’t be enforced.  The decision has to be based on something, so Members must assume that they can be.  Agrees with LG – local people won’t like it but there is no valid reason to refuse.

BD:  it is the right thing in the wrong place – can’t vote for it.  The neighbours will be bothered by additional cars, and it is a tiny building with no garden.  The proposal is totally, utterly wrong.

PJ:  grateful for highways clarity, and can’t work out the pictures provided by the neighbour which bear no relationship to the road as he knows it.  Members’ concerns have to be weighed against policy. Presumes all the conditions recommended by Environmental Health will be enforced.

CS, in response:

-          the majority of the conditions are recommended by Environmental Health, and tied in to supporting evidence from the applicant and what he has said about the running of the business;

-          regarding the enforceability of the conditions, a breach of conditions notice can be served if the applicant does not adhere to them.  This type of notice usually relies on the authority being made aware of the breach by neighbours.

SW:  noted a lot of concerns, but none of these are really within Members’ remit and therefore can’t go along with them.  The highways issue has been covered, and has difficulty sympathising with neighbour concerns about noise – it will be lovely to listen to the sound of children playing during the morning.

PH:  a 45-minutes window for dropping off children was mentioned by the applicant.  Has this been discussed?

CS, in response:

-          the applicant submitted this information in his statement, and it is allowed for in the conditions, although there is no specific condition relation to a 45-minute drop-off window.  Condition 4 sets out hours of operation as 8.45am-2.15pm.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

7 in support

2 in objection

3 abstentions

PERMIT