Agenda item

Demolition of the existing Dutch barn and erection of a replacement building to be used as a Class D1 (nursery), demolition of existing detached stables, alterations to existing buildings and associated parking and landscaping (resubmission).

(Deferred from North Committee dated 27/08/2014)

Demolition of the existing Dutch barn and erection of a replacement building to be used as a Class D1 (nursery), demolition of existing detached stables, alterations to existing buildings and associated parking and landscaping (resubmission).

(Deferred from North Committee dated 27/08/2014)

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.

Members noted that since the deferral the applicant had provided amended plans which more accurately described the proposed uses of the site. A framework travel plan and further measures, which would form part of the travel plan, to ensure staggered pick up and drop off time had also been provided.

Officers maintained the view that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the openness of the Green Belt and would therefore accord with adopted Green Belt Policy.

In relation to traffic impacts, officers considered that adequate parking was provided for the proposed nursery and existing uses and that measures secured by the travel plan would serve to further mitigate any potential impacts on the public highway. Members were also mindful of a proposal allowed at appeal nearby for a nursery with less parking.

The Council’s Conservation Officer was fully satisfied with the proposals in respect to the locally listed buildings on site and it was noted that the application would ensure the provision of further viable uses on the site moving forward, this was considered beneficial in ensuring the future maintenance and management of the locally listed buildings.

In accordance with the Council's constitution a representative of the petitioners objecting and the agent addressed the meeting.

The petitioner objecting to the proposals made the following points:

·         Was representing the Northwood Hills Residents Association.

·         There were still concerns regarding the application.

·         There were not enough parking spaces on site for staff and only one parking space for parents dropping their children.

·         It would not be possible to have staggered pick up and drop off times.

·         There was no zebra crossing in the immediate area.

·         Northwood Hills was not a suitable area for cycling.

·         Pleased to see a fire exit had been added.

·         The impact of UTC had not been taken into account, there would be an additional 350-500 pupils travelling to the area.

·         The Committee needed to understand the problems in Joel Street.

·         A proposed nursery in Eastcote had been refused as it was located on a main distributor road.

·         Children should not have access to the kitchen unless supervised when in use.

A representative of the applicant raised the following points:

·         Members had attended the site visit.

·         The cattery had been inspected every year.

·         There was water/washing provision.

·         The garage had never been used.

A local Ward Councillor raised the following points:

·         The application was a great concern.

·         There was nowhere for parents to park.

·         Joel Street was a busy main road and was not an appropriate place to pick up and drop off children.

·         There were often changes in the traffic pattern in Joel Street.

·         UTC opening would impact the traffic in the area.

·         There would be another nursery in local proximity.

·         The proposals would bring the building into use.

The Chairman reminded the Committee that the planning inspectorate did not support the reasons for refusal in relation the other nursery located in close proximity.  The Chairman also highlighted that issues relating to health and safety of the nursery would be inspected by Ofsted who had their own strict guidelines to adhere to.

Members discussed the site visit, and whilst there was no traffic problems during the site visit it was questioned whether there would be disruption in the morning period. 

Members agreed that an additional condition be added regarding contamination to ensure that the occupants of the development were not subject to any risks from soil contamination which the final wording delegated to the Head of Planning, Sport and Culture.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – The application was approved with four Members in

Favour and 3 against for the reasons set out in the officer’s report and addendum.