1175
The Committee considered an application for change of use from Class E(g) to Class E(f) pre-school nursery with necessary minor building works including replacement of asbestos roof and replacement windows. New roof and windows to substantial outbuilding.
The application was referred to the Committee because the application had been called in by Cllr Goacher due to concerns of the neighbouring residents of the impacts on parking, blocking of the single lane residential street and impacts to neighbouring amenity.
The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out.
Phil Moreton, Planning Officer, presented the report, showing plans of the existing site and wider context, and explained that the building had an existing use class of E(g). A change of use within the same class could be undertaken without planning permission, so this change of use could take place for the building to the front without planning permission. However, the building to the rear, was currently class B8 storage, and therefore permission was required for the change of use of the outbuilding to class E(f) for a preschool nursery.
Plans of the proposed site showed the proposed parent waiting area, outdoor play space, the provision of cycle parking, bin storage and play storage. The Planning Officer also showed elevations of the proposed building after the change of use with the roof changed to that of tiles similar to the surrounding buildings and internal changes with two preschool rooms proposed. He noted that, as outlined in the application, the outbuilding was likely to be replaced.
The Planning Officer showed details of access and the surrounding area, highlighting that there were double yellow lines to both sides and then permit parking. He emphasised that the proposal was for a zero-parking scheme, clarifying that the adopted parking policy allowed for a zero-parking scheme and as such this was policy compliant. The site was in a sustainably located town centre location with access to multiple modes of transport, including walking and public transport. The Highway Authority was in agreement with this position and have not objected on this basis.
Details for the management of the site would be secured via condition 8, which required a management plan, including details of the proposed management of and the hours of use for the external play area, how neighbouring residents can liaise with the operator and the mechanisms for any complaints and dispute and or conflict resolution.
The national planning policy framework made it clear the purpose of the planning system was to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and identified three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Accordingly, the planning balance weighed in favour of the proposal and the application was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.
Tim Harris, speaking on behalf of St Mary’s Residents Association, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in objection to the application. He highlighted that there had been 52 objections, and asked the Committee to refuse on three grounds: first road safety, as there were no required safeguards or proper assessment; second, there was no proven need, as nearby nurseries had vacancies and demand was falling; and third, harm to amenity, with no noise assessment and impacts on neighbours, including a disabled resident. Overall, his view was that the proposal lacked evidence and would harm residents, so it should be refused.
Dan Stokes, Applicant, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application, He reiterated that the site had previously been used for a long-established electrical business and that the proposed nursery would provide a suitable family-run use, create employment opportunities and meet local childcare demand. He noted that Essex Highways had raised no objection and asked the Committee to approve the application.
Councillor Goacher attended as a Visiting Councillor and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee, informing them that he had serious concerns about parking and traffic, given that the surrounding residential streets were very narrow and there as considerable pressure on parking in that area. He emphasised that parents would probably want to drop very small children off on site, and it was unlikely that they would pay to park in St. Mary's Car Park and then walk the little children down. As a result, significant numbers of vehicles would arrive to drop children off and pick them up. So, in his view the application had a negative effect on the neighbouring amenity because existing pressures on parking would be compounded by the new pressures.
Another concern was that residents had mentioned a perceived lack of consultation by the applicants. Consulting residents was crucial and without that fears were amplified.
However, Councillor Goacher’s main concerns were the traffic, the parking and the fact that the application did not have any parking provision for parents which would be likely to create tensions at pick off and drop off points and parking on yellow lines. On that basis, he advised rejecting the application.
The Chair invited Phil Moreton, Planning Officer, to comment on the points raised by the speakers. He reiterated that it was a zero-parking scheme and local policy allowed for such schemes in location town centre locations such as this. The provision of two or three parking spaces would lead to the loss of the outdoor space for the children and create additional parking concern because parents would be likely to turn up in cars on the basis that they might be able to park. As a result, in this case it was considered better to have no parking at all and for that to be emphasised when parents were considering using the nursery. Furthermore, highway safety had been assessed. The Highway Authority was the statutory body for assessing this and they had not objected on the basis of highway safety.
The Planning Officer confirmed that an equality impact assessment had been undertaken as part of the assessment of the application and condition 8 had been strengthened on the basis of that assessment.
Lucy Mondon, Development Manager, added that Officers appreciated residents’ concerns, but when considering a planning application several key things had to be taken into account. Crucially, in this case a large proportion of the site could be converted to the new use under permitted development. Only the outbuilding would require planning permission because there were prior conditions for it to be used as storage only. In terms of Council policies, policy DM22 stated that when looking at car parking, it is necessary to consider levels of local accessibility in the local area. Our parking standards would be a maximum standard and therefore zero parking would be acceptable. She also reiterated that the Highway Authority had assessed the scheme and found it acceptable.
The Chair thanked Phil Moreton and Lucy Mondon and invited the Committee to ask questions.
Several Members expressed concern regarding traffic and road safety. The roads were narrow, there was a lack of parking, and pick-up and drop-off could lead to 41 parents arriving at the same time. The Planning Officer reiterated that it was a zero-parking scheme and the application had been assessed based on the gated parent area being for walking or cycling only. However, Members responded that this was unrealistic and could have a significant impact on the safety of young children, although there was some appreciation that a zero-parking scheme could be preferable as it would discourage parents from driving.
Considerable concern was expressed at the application’s lack of travel plan, as both a nursery and a place of work, and several Members suggested that the application should not be approved without a Travel Plan. The Development Manager responded that a travel plan was something that could be conditioned, including for members of staff.
Members were concerned about the assumption that parents would use Active Travel and questioned measures to reduce car use. In their view, parents of young children being less likely to walk, cycle or use public transport.
Given concerns raised by local residents, Members felt that a residents’ survey should be undertaken to understand those concerns better, and to enable the Committee to make informed decisions for the betterment of Colchester. Several members congratulated the applicants on looking to establish a family-run sustainable business for the building, but expressed the view that it was the right business model in the wrong place.
Members also raised issues about accessibility and disability requirements for children, and the need for young people with additional needs to be able to access the nursery. The Planning Officer confirmed that the application had not been assessed with disabled parking as it's a no parking scheme, however it was something that could be looked at if the application were deferred.
Questions were also raised about the level of development that might be permitted without planning permission. Lucy Mondon, Development Manager, informed the Committee that planning permission was required for the external alterations, such as the replacement roof and replacement windows. In terms of the use, planning permission was required purely because there's a proposed new-build classroom to the rear of the site, which would be for 12 children and one staff member.
The Development Manager summarised that deferral was possible in order to explore additional information in respect of a travel plan, resident survey and accessibility requirements. She also confirmed that the Council was required to comply with the Equalities Act when considering planning applications.
Following further discussion by Members, a Motion to refuse planning permission was proposed, on the grounds of concerns raised by Councillors regarding the lack of travel plan, measures to reduce car use, residents’ survey, accessibility requirements, traffic and road safety.
As this Motion was contrary to the officer recommendation the Chair invoked the Deferral and Recommendation Overturn Procedure (DROP) to defer the item in order to seek a report from Officers on the issues raised by Councillors and the risks associated with the proposal to refuse the application, to include seeking further advice from Essex Highways.
RESOLVED that the ‘Deferral and Recommendation Overturn’ Procedure be engaged, deferring the item, and that a more detailed report on concerns raised by Councillors and the risks associated with overturning the officer’s recommendation be produced and brought before a future meeting of the Planning Committee.