Agenda item

Change of use of Aldis Hall (from Class C1 Residential to Class D1 Pre-School Nursery) with associated parking and landscaping and a change of use of Wetherby House (from Class D1 Pre-School Nursery to Class C3 Residential).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED - That the application be refused.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. This was a re-submission following a previous and similar application which was refused at Committee on highways and safety grounds.

Planning permission was sought for the change of use of Aldis Hall (from residential to pre-school nursery) with associated parking and landscaping. Planning permission was also sought for the change of use of Wetherby House (from pre-school nursery to residential).

Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

A petitioner addressed the Committee and objected to the application on the following grounds:

·         The resubmitted application was almost the same as the application originally submitted, which was refused.

·         The main reason for refusal was the impact of traffic this site would have.

·         There was no evidence to support the statement that the majority of parents would arrive by foot or public transport.

·         There were only two access points available for the total site and this would result in the nursery having a narrow access point.

·         The latest site plans showed that access to the recently reduced three parking spaces, right by the entrance, were inhibited by two TPO trees.

·         To include another three spaces at the rear of the building was misleading as parents were unlikely to use these spaces.

·         The 12 spaces indicated by the agent/applicant contradicted the figures indicated on the plan dated 20 October 2017 which only showed 11 places.

·         There was no parking outside the site or across the site.

·         The availability of car parking depended on the time of the day as during peak hours more spaces would be needed.

·         There were five schools within 400 yards of the site and the total number of pupils exceeded 2000. This added to traffic congestion, leading to a negative impact on the environment and local ambience of the area.

The agent for the applicant was in attendance and addressed the Committee with the following comments:

·         The applicant and agent had critically analysed the debate at the previous planning committee meeting and worked with officers to try to resolve any reasonable concerns.

·         The proposal was for a 104 space nursery on a site.

·         Some of the concerns raised by Members were that parents would not use the car park on Green Lane for pick up and drop offs as it was 135 m from the site, parents would park illegally and that staff would park on the street causing highways safety issues.

·         Survey data indicated a surplus of available parking within the vicinity of the site, which was contrary to the reason for refusal.

·         The proposals included a commitment to planning conditions which would secure a travel plan and drop off and pick up management plan.

·         There would be 11 spaces provided on site and there was more than adequate onsite parking to accommodate pick up and drop offs.

·         The proposed nursery would open one hour earlier than a nearby nursery and this would result in less pressure on congestion in the area.

·         Staff would not be permitted to park on site and would be asked to utilise the car park on Green Lane.

·         The proposed development would be the only nursery operating from 7am to 7pm and open 51 weeks a year.

·         There had already been 92 enquiries from members of the public for use of the facility.

·         The applicant was able to operate responsibly and safely, be a good neighbour to local residents and be a valued choice in the range of education providers.

Following questions from Members, the agent confirmed that there was a stretch for 7-10am for drop offs in the morning and 5 - 7pm for pick ups in the evening. The agent explained that the nursery had been designed with a model for parents that worked and spent a long time in the office therefore parents would arrive early to drop their children off and pick up their children later. There was no other nursery close by that provided these hours of operation.

Members noted that there was a previous application similar to this proposal and considered whether the proposal would work better if the car parking spaces were only available for staff members and not pick ups and drop offs.

Members acknowledged that Green Lane was a busy road. Concerns were raised about whether the road would be wide enough to manage two flows of traffic. Officers confirmed that the access road was approximately 5 m wide and there was guidance which suggested that an access road could be 4.6 m. Therefore, the proposed access road was no narrower then access roads already in existence on some housing estates. The fire escape was very narrow approximately 2.8 m. There were some concerns raised about children using this access road and the 5 m width would not be sufficient.

From a public policy perspective, Members accepted that this facility was in demand in the area. However, Members also had regard to the petitioner's comments that there were already a number of nurseries and schools within close proximity of the site. 104 nursery spaces seemed like a high number and would impact the pressure on parking, traffic and congestion on the car park in Green Lane. Members questioned whether there would be sufficient spaces available in the car park and whether a reduction in the number of nursery spaces would reduce the congestion and parking concerns.

Some Members noted that this application was better than the previous application put before the Committee. Some Members considered 5 m for a public access road to be reasonable as this was off the public highway road.

Members questioned the logistics of dropping and picking up children. There were potentially 104 children that would be arriving and young children would be unlikely to walk great distances. There was a potential of 104 vehicles arriving between 7 - 10 am, which was large number. Officers clarified traffic generation figures for the Committee and assured Members that traffic in the area has not been discounted in determining the application. From officers' perspective, the area would become congested and there would be some turning and manoeuvring issues, but the option before the Committee saved some of the vegetation. Officers weighed this against a further application that would potentially reduce all vegetation.

The Head of Planning explained that the planning inspector would most likely find a reason for the application to work.

Members again considered whether it would be more appropriate if the car park was solely used by staff and parents parked in car parks. Members noted that if it was raining and dark, parents would be inclined to drop and go and park on a double yellow line as there was a five minutes grace until parking tickets could be sanctioned. Parents would eventually become aware of the five minutes grace and park on the double yellow lines which would cause traffic issues.

11 car parking spaces with 37 members of staff would still cause the car park in Green Lane to become congested. Members also asked whether one of the places could offer disabled parking and officers confirmed that there would be space to do.

When put to a vote to agree the officer's recommendation, there were two votes for and five votes against.

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that there were risks going down a refusal path as the planning inspector may not agree all the conditions and legal causes.

Members further considered the alternative suggestion that it could be used as a staff only car park.

Members bore in mind that at the last meeting this application was refused on highway safety grounds. Members decided that the additional six spaces provided did not overcome the refusal reason and put the following reasons forward for refusal:

" The proposed use of the premises as a nursery and primary school does not adequately provide on-site pickup and drop off facilities to the detriment of child safety and fails to have regard to existing highway and pedestrian safety concerns. The proposed use would result in an increase in parking stress within the surrounding area which is already subject to considerable pressure. Furthermore, the use of the Green Lane Car Park due to its distance from the proposed nursery would result in cars parking stress on the local highway network and would create an environment that would present considerable hazard to pupils and other pedestrians and will be disruptive to residents of neighbouring dwellings."

The Legal Advisor advised the Committee that there would need to be a strong refusal reason to overturn officers' recommendation. The Committee had heard from the highways officer, agent/applicant and the petitioner. The Legal Advisor summarised that the application had changed in that there was a staggered start time, more car parking spaces and a car park but with information provided by local councillors there was a legitimate reason for refusal.  

When put to a vote, the officer's recommendation was overturned and Members agreed the above refusal reasons. There were six votes in favour, one abstention and one vote against.

RESOLVED - That the application be refused.