Agenda item

Retrospective permission for partial change of use of downstairs of property to childcare in a domestic setting with proposed front driveway (amended 07.06.2021) 

41A Southward, Seaton Sluice, Whitley Bay, Northumberland, NE26 4DQ 

Retrospective permission for partial change of use of downstairs of property to childcare in a domestic setting with proposed front driveway (amended 07.06.21)

41A Southward, Seaton Sluice, Whitley Bay, Northumberland, NE26 4DQ

It was confirmed that Members had no questions on the site visit videos which had been circulated.  G Horsman, Principal Planning officer introduced the application to the Committee with the aid of a power point presentation. 

Members were provided with an update that since the report had been issued, a further 7 letters of support had been received, including a letter from the Head Teacher of Seaton Sluice First School.  In addition to the reasons for supporting the applications, the further 6 letters of support referred to the business providing employment locally, and the Head Teacher of the first school had stated that the business complemented the school by providing local childcare outside of school hours for working parents, a service the school could not provide at present and care being provided by the nursery including children with special educational needs.

A further letter of objection had been received in relation to loss of privacy and inadequate refuse storage.

Further representations had also been received by the applicant and a planning consultant acting on behalf of the applicant in support.

Elaine Burt, applicant, was in attendance and spoke in support of the application:

• Despite being informed on 2 July that her application would be recommended for approval, and the subsequent change in the recommendation to refuse the application, she had registered to speak in support of the application
• She had been providing childcare for the past 14 years to local children and children with special educational needs with no issue until a recent dispute with her neighbour who was her husband’s mother and father
• Four letters of objection had been received to the application and three of those had been from acquaintances of her parents-in-law, none who lived close by
• At time of writing there had been 51 letters of support and a petition in support
• In addition, Seaton Sluice First School had written in support
• There had been overwhelming support not reflected in the report and a serious material consideration had been overlooked
• The request to withdraw the application from the agenda was rejected and the report presented to members was  not a full presentation of the facts of the case
• She was one of only three childcare providers with wrap around care and had continued an open door policy during the pandemic for key workers
• There had been no complaints relating to noise in the 14 years she had been providing childcare
• Recent complaints had been vexatious
• Paragraph 2.4 of the report indicated that the proposal would result in an increased level of noise generated by the high volume of children and parents, there were over 50 letters of support from neighbours with no mention of noise and even the planning officer who had visited the site commented on how quiet the property was
• Paragraph 109 of the NPPF was clear that development should only be prevented if there was an impact on highway safety.  Nothing had been raised in the officer’s report
• There was one allocated parking space and two public parking spaces at the rear of the property, legal consent had been given by NCC for the two public parking spaces
• There had been no complaints regarding parking as the majority of children attended local schools which was within walking distance and most visits were on foot
• Parking standards, failed to take into account site specification and there were two entrances to the street
• Officers decisions were based on perceptions rather than fact
• She summarised that there had been no complaints over the last 14 years; the house first and foremost was their family home which provided childcare to key workers who they had been able to support during the pandemic; to refuse the application would affect the livelihood of many people in Seaton Sluice

In response to questions from Members the following information was provided:-

·       The planning officer’s understanding was that the nursery operated 52 weeks of the year and not just during school term

·       The County Council had car parking standards; car parking was asked for on new developments.  The report related to car parking for staff and the council’s current standards required 3 – 4 as laid down in the Blyth Valley DPD documents and the emerging Northumberland Local Plan.  The new car parking standards in the Council’s new plan could not be afforded significant weight at present.  The new plan sought 1 car parking space per 1 member of staff

·       The refusal reason to the extension was not a matter for this application but related to the next application.  The two refusal reasons were set out in the report

·       Mr Horsman explained that he did not have any details of the size of the Residents Association which had objected

·       The current car parking standards were maximum standards.  It could be permitted in certain circumstances to allow for less.

·       The application had been assessed on its own merits against the above-mentioned car parking standards and it was the view of officers that 3 off-street staff car parking spaces were required.  In the submission from the Estates Team whilst the parking area at the rear could be used, there was no guarantee there would always be space for nursery staff/users as this was a car park for use by the general public.  A number of dwellings did not have off street parking.

·       It was only relatively recently that the premises had accommodated the numbers of children that were there at present.  The business initially started off as a small child minders business and had intensified more recently.  The level of use was relatively recent and the applicant had advised that she had not received any complaints but officers had concerns about the size of the property and its close proximity to neighbouring properties with which it shared boundaries

·       Members were reminded that the application was for retrospective consent and that the application had to be considered on its planning merits with no weight being given to the fact that the use had already commenced

·       The off-street staff parking could be less than 3 spaces but the advice from highways officers, was that the number off street staff car parking spaces should be 3 for this property.

·       Mr Horsman was unaware whether staff walked to the property but advised that if planning permission was granted that would run with the land not the occupier so if the occupier were to change, staff travel plans could change also.

·       A temporary permission was considered by officers but after considering the representations and assessing the application, the view of the officers was that the application went against policy.  A temporary permission was one option that could be pursued, if members felt there was a need to allow for further time for the impact of the business to be assessed.  Officers did not feel the property was suitable for the number of children (22).  The temporary permission would allow the business to look for alternative property but officers did not feel it was the best way forward.

·       In terms of the numbers of children, there were limits placed by Ofsted on the numbers of children that could be accommodated on the premises at any one time (i.e. 22 children).  In terms of the planning process, a condition could also be attached if planning permission was granted to limit the number of children on the premises at any one time to 22.

·       Mr Horsman was unsure regarding the proximity address-wise of those who had  made representations in support of the application as he was standing in for an officer who was self-isolating, however, having read some of the late representations, a number of parents with children in the nursery had written in to support the proposal

·       Mrs Murphy referred to an appeal for a childminding business for 10 children referred to in the report which had been dismissed as the Inspector had considered the impact would lead to noise and disturbance to occupants.  Two of the main issues of the case were set out in paragraphs 7.22 and 7.23 of the report in relation to the garden area and the harmful living conditions to nearby occupiers which officers had taken into account whilst coming to a decision

·       The business made use of the existing refuse collection arrangements

·       It was understood that the property had been extended over the last 2 years which allowed for the accommodation of 22 children

·       Ofsted would have looked at different matters than planning officers, eg internal space and staffing ratios which may dictate numbers accommodated

Councillor Daley moved a motion to approve the permission for the following                  reasons:

1.       The application was aligned to policy DC1 that it was within settlement                 boundaries - the application site was located within settlement boundaries as set out in the report

2.       The application was in accordance with Policy SS3 - helping to build communities, which was listed in the report

3.       The application accorded with Policy C1 of the Blyth Valley Core Strategy which highlighted the dual use for community benefits

4.       The application aligned to the NPPF to provide employment opportunities

5.       The application was also in accordance with DC12 of the Blyth Valley Development Control Policies which stated that development that enhanced the network of community facilities would be permitted within settlements, provided that the development was well located to the community which it would serve

This motion was seconded by Councillor Flux.

Councillor Robinson proposed a further motion for the temporary aspect of the permission to give the applicant time to find a suitable alternative site. 

It was advised that as there was already a motion on the table, the first motion had to be considered.  Councillor Daley asked if the temporary aspect could be added as a  condition on approval of the application.   It was advised that could be added as a condition as well as other mitigations, eg drop off and pick up times and hours of business.

Councillor Daley suggested that if members were minded to support the application with the conditions, that authority to draft necessary conditions could be delegated to the Director of Planning in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee.

In response to Councillor Robinson’s proposal the Solicitor clarified that Councillor Daley had proposed that if members were minded to support the application with conditions, delegated authority could be given to the Director of Planning in consultation with the Chair of Planning and specific conditions to be applied for, eg,  a temporary period of 2 years, the hours of the business and drop off and pick up schedules.

Councillor Robinson then withdrew his motion.

Councillor Flux stated the reason he came to the conclusion was that there had only been only 4 objections to the application with no objections from the Parish Council or The Resident’s Association.  In addition the applicant had originally been told the application would be approved.

In response to queries regarding the motion put forward, the Solicitor clarified the  motion put forward with added conditions to be delegated to the Director of Planning and the Chair.

Upon being put to the vote the results were as follows:-

FOR: 8; AGAINST: 2; ABSTENTION: 1.

It was therefore:-

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission with conditions to be delegated to the Director of Planning in consultation with the Chair of Planning committee with additional specific conditions for temporary period of 2 years, the hours of the business and drop off and pick up schedules.