Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 13/02741/FUL in respect of the erection of a shed at Orchard Day Nursery.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Anne Harris, Parish Council representative, Ms Marian Spain, objector, Mrs Eva Hughes, supporter, and Mr Andrew Webber, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mrs Anne Harris in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        It was believed that Mr Webber, the owner of the nursery, had purchased the shed in September prior to applying for permission to erect it. Residents considered this to be the most recent action in a series of similar events which had led to a mistrust forming between them and Mr Webber;

·        The shed was planned for laundry and storage of recycling waste and frozen food, and Mrs Harris considered that there might be an environmental health issue related to the proximity of waste and food;

·        Mrs Harris asked, if Members were minded to grant permission for the erection of the shed, whether it could be located behind the main building so as to be out of sight of residents, and whether it could be required to be constructed of a material more sympathetic to the area, such as timber.

Councillor Hunneman asked for confirmation that residents would be able to see the shed in its proposed location as this was not evident from the photographs shown. Mrs Harris responded that she had been assured that neighbouring residents would see the shed from within their homes.

The Chairman asked Officers to verify that the planned use of the shed for food storage and waste was a matter for Environmental Health and not a planning consideration. Derek Carnegie confirmed that this was the case. The Chairman also asked whether a change in the location of the shed would require a second planning application to be submitted. Derek Carnegie confirmed that this would be the case.

Councillor Bairstow asked Mrs Harris if she believed that residents would continue to object if the material used was required to be timber. Mrs Harris replied that she believed residents would still object.

Mrs Marian Spain in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Past activity by the owner in relation to the nursery had given rise to mistrust from residents as to Mr Webber’s intentions. Mrs Spain cited two examples:

·        A new access driveway which had been promised but not built as the owner did not own the land required;

·        A building had been previously erected without planning permission as a storage facility, but was now used as a classroom.

·        Mrs Spain did not believe that the shed would make the nursery a more viable business, as it’s primary purpose was for convenience;

·        Mrs Spain suggested that the proposed uses of the shed were not essential as, for example, laundry could be sent off site;

·        The nursery was not an educational establishment according to definitions within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);

·        The shed would be taller than surrounding fences and would have a substantial visual impact for residents;

·        There was currently a ‘mish-mash’ of buildings on the site and there appeared to be a lack of consideration for their overall appearance;

·        Mrs Spain was grateful for confirmation by the Planning Officer that a maximum of 24 children could be looked after at one time, but she remained concerned over the incremental increases taking place. Mrs Spain considered that the owner should continue to operate within the constraints of the site, or consider moving to a more suitable location.

Councillor Hilary Cole asked whether Mrs Spain considered that the site was overdeveloped. Mrs Spain replied that she did.

Councillor Swift-Hook requested clarification as to whether the nursery was a day care facility or a nursery school with an educational element. Mrs Spain spoke of the NPPF reference to ‘statutory schooling’ which recognised schools admitting children over the age of 5. Derek Carnegie commented that Officers were content that there was an educational element within the nursery.

Mrs Eva Hughes in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        As an employee of the nursery for six years, Mrs Hughes believed the shed to be a necessary addition as the nursery was predominantly housed in a two bedroom bungalow;

·        The shed was to have three purposes, storage for recycling materials, to house a washing machine, and to house an upright freezer.

·        The nursery generated a considerable amount of recycling materials which could not be stored currently as they needed to be kept away from play areas. Recycling was currently stored in the kitchen area to which children did not have access. The nursery staff wished to involve children in the recycling of safe materials, but were unable to do so at present due to storage arrangements. It was not possible to store recycling waste outside due to rodent and bird disturbance.

·        There had not previously been a washing machine on site, however the nursery generated approximately one load of washing each day and the use of a machine on site would allow for a quicker turnaround of items such as bedding, outdoor wear and children’s clothing.

·        Nursery staff currently shopped daily for food for the children. The addition of a freezer would enable more food to be safely stored on site.

Councillor Cole asked how the recycling was dealt with at present. Mrs Hughes replied that some was recycled but that the owner took the majority home. Councillor Cole asked how the nursery intended for recycling waste to be disposed of in the future. Mrs Hughes responded that she expected it to be removed as part of the general waste collections.

Mr Andrew Webber in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        A shed had been identified, but had not yet been purchased. The smallest shed had been selected that was able to address the storage issues at the nursery;

·        There were no intentions to expand the intake of the nursery which currently had 51 registered children, but only 24 were able to be on site at any one time. Mr Webber had signed a legal agreement to this effect;

·        The Council’s Early Years Team were in support of this application, and Mr Webber had worked with them in taking it forward;

·        The nursery employed eight staff;

·        The shed would have no foundations and could be built within a few hours;

·        The minibus would remain parked next to the shed and was taller than the proposed shed;

·        The nursery kitchen operated as the office leaving no space to expand and include a washing machine here;

·        The materials chosen for the shed were metal in order to protect the contents from pests and the weather.

Councillor Cole requested the age range of the children who attended the nursery. Mr Webber responded that all were between 1 and 5 years old.

Councillor Cole commented that the recycling that would be accumulated ought to be disposed of as commercial waste, not within domestic waste collections.

Councillor Jeff Beck questioned whether planning permission had been granted for the lean-to structure on site. Derek Carnegie informed the Committee that a certificate of lawfulness had been granted in place of planning permission, and that enforcement of the lack of planning permission would not be pursued.

Councillor Tuck asked whether the nursery was inspected by Ofsted and whether Ofsted had made any comment on Mr Webber’s intentions. Mr Webber replied that Ofsted were not concerned about issues of this nature, but rather the welfare and the nursery staff’s ability to care for the children.

Councillor Swift-Hook asked whether Mr Webber considered the nursery to be primarily a day care facility, or an educational one. Mr Webber replied that two qualified teachers were employed and were teaching the children the foundation curriculum, and therefore he would consider that the nursery was primarily an educational facility.

Councillor Bairstow asked whether Mr Webber would consider moving the location of the shed. Mr Webber confirmed that he would. Councillor Bairstow further asked how the shed could be built without ground disturbance when water provision and drainage would be required for the intended washing machine. Mr Webber replied that there was a limited amount of digging required to reach a waste pipe and all services were within one metre of the location.

Councillor Virginia von Celsing, as Ward Member, raised the following points:

·        The nursery was originally a small building which was located on a site that had seen a gradual increase in the structures built on it. Councillor von Celsing believed that the log cabin structure had been built without planning permission, which had been applied for retrospectively;

·        Access to the site was via a narrow, weak bridge, and she did not believe that the site was appropriate for a nursery;

·        Councillor von Celsing considered that if the site was no longer suitable for the applicant, then the nursery should be relocated to an alternative site.

Councillor Cole stated her agreement that the continued development of the site gave cause for concern, and whilst in isolation the application for the shed might be supported, Councillor Cole was not able to support a further increase on the site.

Councillor Beck agreed that the gradual expansion of the site had resulted in mis-matched set of buildings with no visual appeal, and proposed that the Officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission be refused for reasons of overdevelopment in an incongruent manner. Councillor Cole seconded the proposal.

Councillor Allen tabled a contrary view, considering that the application on its own merits would provide a useful storage facility for the nursery. Councillor Allen supported the application.

Councillor Bairstow considered that the site served its purpose well, and did not consider that a suggestion for the applicant to relocate the nursery gave adequate understanding to the financial impact of doing so.  Councillor Bairstow recognised that the owner did not appear to have a good relationship with residents; however he suggested that re-siting the shed might be acceptable to neighbours. Councillor Bairstow went on to suggest that should the applicant wish to expand further in the future, then a real consideration should be given to moving elsewhere.

The Chairman asked the Committee to vote on the proposal made by Councillor Beck. At the vote, the proposal was rejected.

The Chairman proposed that the Officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission be accepted. Councillor Allen seconded the proposal.

At the vote, the proposal was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.      The development shall be started within three years from the date of this permission and implemented strictly in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development against Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006 - 2026) should it not be started within a reasonable time.

2.      The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawings titled: Dimensions of Proposed Shed and Roof Plan of Proposed Shed; received on 12December 2013, an amended Block Plan; received on 22 January 2014, the Parking Plan; received on 29 January 2014 and the Arboricultural Method Statement; received on 18 February 2014; unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details assessed against Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006 - 2026).

3.      The materials to be used in this development shall be as specified on the application form and the sample of steel from Capital Coated Steel Ltd, colour: LG S2704 olive green; received on 24 January 2014. No other materials shall be used unless prior agreement in writing has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006 - 2026).

Informatives:

1.      This decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development. In this application whilst there has been a need to balance conflicting considerations, the local planning authority has secured and accepted what is considered to be a development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

2.      The decision to grant planning permission has been taken because the development is in accordance with the development plan and would have no significant impact on the character and appearance of the area or the residential amenities of the occupants of the adjacent dwellings. This informative is only intended as a summary of the reason for the grant of planning permission. For further details on the decision please see the application report which is available from the Planning Service or the Council website

The Chairman advised the Committee that Agenda Items 4(2) and 4(3) would be considered in reverse order as Officers had advised in the update report that should Agenda Item 4(3) be refused by the Committee, then Officers would need to revise their recommendation for Agenda Item 4(2) to one of refusal.  As a consequence it would be sensible to consider Agenda item 4(3) first.