Agenda item

056279 - A - Full Application - Erection of Single Storey Extension to Provide Children's Nursery Facilities at 10 Aughton Way, Broughton


The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit. The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 


            The officer gave an overview of the application and explained that the proposals were for the extension and alteration of the existing garage to provide accommodation to run a children’s day nursery.  She outlined the reasons for recommending approval, subject to conditions controlling the scale of the development and making it personal to the applicant.


            Mr. S. Sutton spoke against the application on the following grounds: the detrimental impact of increased levels of traffic in a quiet residential area; increased noise levels for residents; limited access to the property; the lack of available parking at the property; concerns around flooding near the property which occurred during prolonged periods of bad weather which could worsen with the proposed extension.         


            Councillor Mullin proposed refusal of the application on the grounds of parking concerns and impact on residential amenity, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  Councillor Mullin reiterated the concerns raised by Mr. S. Sutton and commented that no assurances had been given by the applicant that children would be picked up and returned to their homes at the end of the day. 


Councillor Butlercommented that the property was in an area that was prone to flooding and raised concerns around the proposed parking at the property which he felt was unsuitable.


            Councillor Richard Jones questioned the brief comment made by the Highways Department and raised concerns around the proposed increased number of vehicles which would undermine safety in a cul-de sac.


            Councillor Peers said that he had attended the site visit and shared the concerns of Councillor Mullin.  He questioned whether 5 vehicles would fit onto the proposed parking area and raised concern with the increased number of vehicles for neighbouring residents and the impact on the amenity with the increased noise levels.  He also commented on the report, which outlined that if the use of the extension ceased, the building could be used as a residential annex or other ancillary accommodation, and asked if this would require further planning permission.  


            Councillor Thomas commented on the demand for nursery facilities and spoke in support of the application on the grounds that the proposal was for a small scale extension.  He also said that he did not envisage all parents arriving to pick up their children or drop off their children at the same time.  Councillors Bithell and Roberts also spoke in support of the application and said that there were no planning grounds for refusing the application.


            The officers responded to the concerns raised and explained that the parking standards set out a maximum parking provision and the application met that standard.  Any residential property could run a child-minding business from the property without requiring planning permission provided they care for no more than 6 children without the authority having control over the opening hours and parking provision.  Therefore, the only material change was 2 additional children.


            The Development Manager advised the Committee that the reasons given for refusal on parking concerns and the impact on residential amenity were technical matters.  Officers had explained that the highway/parking reason met the requirements set out in the SPG guidance and there had been no adverse comments from the Public Protection Manager on increased noise levels, and therefore there was no technical evidence on the impact of noise.   


            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse planning permission against officer recommendation, was carried.




That the application be refused on the grounds of insufficient parking and impact on residential amenity.  

Supporting documents: