Agenda item

The Officers advised that the letters of support referred to in the report were not from residents in the immediate vicinity of the site.  It was clarified that “local residents” was used in a generic sense but to clarify Officers reported that 7 letters were from residents within Abingdon, 1 from Shippon, 1 from Marcham and 1 from Wantage.

It was reported that the Officers considered that a child day care nursery in this location was acceptable and would not be out of keeping with or harmful to the locality.  Furthermore, the proposal was not considered to be so unduly harmful to neighbouring amenity to warrant refusal.  It was explained that the proposed on site parking arrangements were considered acceptable and the dropping off and picking up of children was also considered acceptable.

Mr Martin Smith made a statement on behalf of the Town Council objecting to the proposal commenting that he disagreed with the view of the County Engineer and that he was astonished that he had raised no objections commenting that he had obviously had no experience of taking children to a day centre, explaining that parents had to get out of their cars and therefore cars had to be parked.  He commented that the plans referred to visitor parking and not parents and he therefore expressed concern regarding displaced parking; traffic congestion and hazard in the service road; noise and disturbance to neighbours and the proposal being contrary to planning policies DC5 and DC9.

Mr S Pickles made a statement objecting to the proposal raising concerns regarding it detrimental impact; the number of children exceeding guidelines set to protect the amenity of the area; noise; traffic congestion; adverse impact; the proposal being contrary to policy and the need to move a bedroom window.

Mr M Wilkinson had given notice that he wished to make a statement objecting to the application but he declined to do so.

Mr T Peegram made a statement objecting to the proposal raising concern regarding the number of children proposed; inadequate parking; noise; a statement that there was a large amount of background noise in this area being incorrect; disturbance to neighbours; the proposal being out of keeping with this residential area; the service road already being very busy and traffic congestion.

Mr D Padalino made a statement in support of the application advising that the nursery would accommodate local children which were currently attending the Abingdon Northcourt Kindergarten which was closing; many families had built strong relationship with staff at the nursery and by approving this application these relationships would continue; the need to meet guideline requirements regarding staff, quantity of children and their development, size of rooms etc; the concerns raised being irrelevant; the views of the County Engineer in support; the arrival of children being staggered and the number of children being requested being the maximum permitted.

A Adderley made a statement in support of the application commenting that she had a child at the Abingdon Northcourt Kindergarten and that she walked their as would many parents to the new nursery; the proposal would provide much needed nursery accommodation in Abingdon with improved facilities and furthermore, there would be a continuation and extension of care which was important to many families.

One of the local Members raised objection to the proposal and whilst she considered that the nursery was a good nursery and well run, this site was not the right place for new premises.  She noted that the supporters of the application were people from the nursery or staff.  She commented that the property was not set in large grounds and that 49 children was not acceptable.  She commented that with a large number of children in the garden there would be a noise nuisance.  Furthermore, she advised that there would be traffic congestion with the dropping off and picking up of children and that a Green Travel Plan would not prevent this as many parents were working and had to rush off to work.  She commented that collecting children was not a quick process and whilst the service road was better than the main road for dropping off, with the number of movements associated with 49 children she could foresee problems.  She commented that the service road seemed to be used for many purposes and she referred to another use elsewhere in the road.  Finally, she explained that whilst not opposing a nursery, she considered that this was not the right site for a nursery of 49 children being a residential area.

Some Members spoke against the proposal making the following comments: -

·        Unloading children was noisy. 

·        There were concerns regarding the number of children in terms of noise and disturbance it being noted that 24 was generally acceptable and that 49 was double this.

·        The Local Plan text was clear in that 24 children or a number close to that would be acceptable for a large house in large grounds.  49 was more than double the Local Plan Guidance.  The building was close to other buildings and homes and not apart from other dwellings.  The building was not satisfactory for the number of youngsters proposed. 

·        The proposal would adversely impact on the neighbours and was unfair in this residential area.

·        49 children and 16 staff was considered too many.

Some Members spoke in support of the proposal making the following comments: -

·        There would be no noise at night and weekends.

·        A key issue was the service road which was wide enough for parked cars and room to pass.  It was commented that it might be suggested to the County Council that the service road be made one way.

·        The Environmental Health Officer had raised no objection in terms of noise.

·        Ofsted matters were not part of the planning consideration. 

·        Child care was in short supply and this facility would be welcomed.

·        There was a nursery near this site and there had been no problems with that.

·        The employer needed to make it clear to staff that they needed to get to the nursery by other means than a private vehicle. 

·        The Local Plan text on Childcare Provision was only guidance and therefore Members needed to assess the proposal on its merits.  Members were asked to consider the degree of harm.  A nursery elsewhere was referred to where there was a similar number of children and staff and there were no problems.

·        It was considered that there was insufficient harm to warrant refusal of the application.

In response to a question raised regarding whether there would be 49 children present at the same time, the Officers responded that they did not have specific figures but 49 would be the threshold.

One Member commented that 49 was a maximum figure and that in his view it was unlikely that a nursery could be operated at capacity all the time.  He reported that the St Mary’s Nursery in Faringdon Road had permission for 60 children but noted that it was a very large building with a considerable amount of off road parking.  He commented that the significant concern in this case was the number of children proposed noted that generally 24 would be acceptable for a large house with a large garden. He considered that the County Engineer had raised no objection in this case because of the service road suggestion that if the p[remises fronted straight onto the main road, objections would have been raised.  It was noted that the applicant had stated that few staff drove to the nursery although it was noted that parents did.  On balance he supported the proposal.

In response to a question raised the Officers advised that the physical suitability of a building for a nursery was not a planning matter.

It was proposed by the Chair that application ABG/14214/1 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.  However, on being put to the vote, this was lost by 9 votes to 4 with 1 abstention.

It was then proposed by Councillor Paul Burton, seconded by Councillor Terry Cox and by 14 votes to nil

RESOLVED

that consideration of application ABG/14214/1 be deferred to enable Officers to discuss with the applicant an alternative lower number of children which the nursery could accommodate.