Loading document...
This application was previously deferred by the Planning Committee to seek further information. The updated information is embodied within this report.
The application site is the curtilage of Beehive Nursery, Hillberry Road, Onchan. The existing building is a large detached property situated to the northern side of Hillberry Road. The detached property Weyham is to the south east of the application site; this is also within the applicant’s ownership as is 6 Briarfield Avenue which is to the north of the application site. There is a footbridge leading from the rear of 6 Briarfield Avenue to the rear of the application site.
The application seeks approval for alterations and the erection of an extension to the rear of the property. The extension would be finished to match the existing building. The extension would provide additional nursery accommodation for a maximum of nine additional children.
The following previous applications are considered specifically material in the assessment of the current application: PA 88/00155/B - Internal alterations and extensions to form additional nursery accommodation The application was originally refused, but later approved on review. The following conditions were attached:
4 This permission is granted on condition that such permission shall be deemed to cancel the approval granted in respect of PA 87/4382 for development of this land.
5 The premises must comply at all times with the requirements of the Nurseries and Child Minders Regulations 1974 which are administered on behalf of the Local Government Board by the Isle of Man Community Physician.
6 The maximum number of children attending the kindergarten at any time must not exceed fifty-five.
7 Adequate fire precautions must be taken to the satisfaction of the Committee and the Chief Fire Officer who must be consulted prior to the commencement of any works.
8 No advertisement matter of any description shall be exhibited at these premises without the prior written permission of the Committee.
PA 97/00135/B - Erection of glazed extension incorporating entrance
The above application was permitted, the following conditions were attached:
1 The building must be used only for the purposes stated in the application
2 The development shall be completed within the period of forty eight months from the date of this approval which shall cease to have effect in default of compliance with this condition except in respect of any development completed within that period.
3 Subject to the last foregoing condition the development having been commenced shall be carried on to completion in a workmanlike and expeditious manner to the satisfaction of the Planning Committee and if not so completed within the said period of forty eight months it shall be a further condition of this approval that the applicant shall submit a new application for consideration by the Committee in respect of the uncompleted development.
PA 99/00022/B - Demolition of two single storey outlets and construction of single storey extension to form kitchen, toilets and laundry
The above application was permitted, however there were concerns regarding the number of children attending the nursery at that time. Residents were concerned that so many children were being accommodated in the facility that it was becoming a nuisance in terms of noise and general activity.
The application site is within a "Predominantly Residential" area identified on the Onchan Local Plan 2000. Although the proposed development does not comply with the land use zoning, it is appropriate to consider some of the points from General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007).
Onchan Commissioners have recommended that the application be refused for the following reason: "That the Commissioners object to the approval of any further enhancement of the Beehive Kindergarten. That the Planning Committee be advised that the operation of the business has been the subject of complaints with regard to noise and car parking and given that this facility has grown significantly since inception, the view of the Commissioners is that it has now reached its capacity on site."
The Department of Social Care would like to receive information and subsequent outcomes regarding the above application.
The owner/occupier of 8 Briarfield Avenue, Onchan has objected to the application, their concerns can be summarised as follows, the extension will lead to more children being admitted, and therefore the staffing numbers will need to be increased. This will lead to more parking problems in Briarfield Avenue. If alterations are being carried out, should provision not be made for the staff to be able to park on the premises?
The owner/occupier of 2 Birch Hill Crescent, Onchan has objected to the application, their concerns can be summarised as concerns over noise pollution and parking within Briarfield Avenue.
The owners/occupiers of 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 13 Briarfield Avenue have objected to the application, their concerns can be summarised as follows, concerns regarding the parking and the impact on highways safety. Residents in the Avenue are unable to operate commercial businesses from their residential property; however the Avenue is providing business parking for the application site. There are also concerns regarding the footbridge which connects the application site to 6 Briarfield Avenue.
The owner/occupier of 13 Briarfield Avenue, Onchan has objected to the application, their concerns can be summarised as follows, parking within the street is difficult as there is regular weekday parking which makes access to the drive difficult. There is a footbridge between 6 Briarfield Avenue and the application site, does this have planning permission? Should the use of 6 Briarfield Avenue not be included in the site?
Highways Division do not oppose as it has no unacceptable traffic management, parking or road safety implications.
The application seeks approval for alterations and the erection of an extension to the rear of the property. General Policy 2 relates to development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning. Although the proposed development is for an extension to a nursery, it is still relevant to consider the potential issues from a residential perspective, and therefore the points from General Policy 2 set out below are still judged to be important considerations. General Policy 2 requires that any development:
"(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
The proposed extension and alterations would be a modest addition to the existing building, and would respect the site in terms of scale, form and design.
The main issues to consider are therefore judged to be as follows:
The application site is within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential". The site has an established use as a nursery, and has been run as such since approximately 1985. Although the use is not in accordance with the land use zoning, the general principle has been considered acceptable in the past.
The proposed alterations and extension would represent a relatively modest addition to the property; the floor area would measure approximately 42sqm. It is considered that the addition of an extension to the rear of the property would not be harmful in terms of the visual impact. It is not judged that it would result in any undue loss of light or loss of privacy to the neighbouring properties.
The main concern raised by local residents is the increase in the number of children attending the nursery which may lead to an increase in noise, vehicle movements and parking within the residential area.
At the previous Planning Committee meeting there was a discussion over the numbers of children currently attending the nursery as the figures provided were confusing.
Having contacted the applicant's agent, they have confirmed that the nursery is licensed to provide day care for a maximum of seventy four children. There are sixty two children in the age group of 2 - 5 year olds, and twelve children under 2 years old. As mentioned above, the proposed development would allow for an additional nine children to attend the nursery.
Whilst the addition of nine children does not seem unreasonable in itself, the incremental increase in numbers does raise concerns. As a result of this application being approved, there would be the potential for eighty-three children to be accommodated.
To summarise the figures:
In terms of noise, it is difficult to determine whether the proposed development would result in an increase in noise. It is fair to assume that going from having no children on the site to having nine children on site, would result in a fairly significant noise increase. However an increase from seventy-four children to eighty-three children is unlikely to result in a discernible rise in noise levels. However, this is always the case with incremental expansion. It may be difficult to know where to draw the line at increased numbers of children as we would need to demonstrate harm. However, some may argue that it may be difficult to know where to draw a line, but a line ought to be drawn somewhere.
In an earlier application (88/00155) there was a condition attached to the approval which restricted the number of children attending the nursery to no more than fifty five. The number of children currently attending the nursery is seventy-four. The Planning Committee felt that there was an element of disingenuousness surrounding this application as the previous condition had not been brought to light by the applicant when submitting this proposal. The applicant has advised that they were under the impression that the additional subsequent planning applications superseded this stipulation (this would not have been the case).
At present there can be no more than seventy four children registered or on site. On a daily basis there are currently seventy four children on site in the am and forty children in the pm. This is because four of the under 2 year olds and thirty of the 2 - 5 years olds only attend the morning sessions.
In terms of staffing numbers, the applicant has advised that there are currently fifteen members of staff at the Beehive site; of which four are family members that live on site, there being a residential element on the first floor. The staff numbers are made up of full time, part time and some voluntary workers. The applicant has advised that whilst additional supervision would be required, it is possible that this will be provided by existing staff moving from part time to full time work. There are a maximum of eight vehicles belonging to Beehive staff, four of these are parked at 6 Briarfield Avenue, and the other four are parked on the street. Given that the applicant does not anticipate that
| Previous approved number of children as per planning permission 88/00155/B - 55 |
| Current number of children, (in accordance with license) - 74 |
| Number that this application would permit - 83 |
staff levels will increase, it is unlikely that vehicular traffic generated by staff would increase by such an extent to cause unacceptable impacts.
Concerns over staffing figures have lead to clarification by the applicant. There are currently four members of staff who provide care for the twelve children who are under 2 years old, eight staff who care for the sixty two children who are 2 - 5 years old, there is also one member of staff who looks after both age groups when needed and is also the nursery manager. There are also two office/admin staff. In addition there is a cook who is not involved in the childcare provision, but is present on the site during the middle of the day. The applicant has confirmed that the office/management staff reside at the site. The extension as previously stated would likely be staffed by existing staff extending their hours. If it was not possible to extend the staffing hours of existing employees, it would mean that there were a maximum of three additional members of staff.
The applicant also confirms that staff travel to the site either by walking, by public transport or by sharing private transport. The current situation has been the case for a number of years. The applicant's agent has confirmed that there is one parking space at 6 Briarfield Avenue, if there are any other cars used by staff these are parked along Briarfield Avenue. Although there are no parking restrictions on Briarfield Avenue, it is a residential cul-de-sac and the residents of that street would have a reasonable expectation that the character of the street be residential and be relatively quiet. Residents have objected to the proposal on the basis of disturbance caused by staff parking. Members of the committee will need to judge whether the potential increase in use of the Avenue for staff parking would be such that it would cause an unacceptable reduction in residential amenity to the extent that it would warrant a refusal. Given that staff have parked there for sometime, it would be difficult to argue that the increased numbers of staff (if any) would cause significant further disturbance.
The Site Plan indicates that 6 Briarfield Avenue is also within the applicant's ownership but was not part of the application site. There was concern raised in the Planning Committee meeting regarding the relationship between the nursery and 6 Briarfield Avenue. The applicant has confirmed that 6 Briarfield Avenue is actually rented out on the understanding that there is access through the grounds of 6 Briarfield Avenue to the footbridge at the back of the application site. This footbridge is used by children who attend the pre school session in order to travel to the school in a safe manner, avoiding the road at the front of the property. It is also used for those children who attend the after school session who are brought from the school through the grounds of 6 Briarfield Avenue and into the application site. This enables the children to be moved safely from the application site, to the school and back again whilst avoiding the main road. This footbridge is stated as being for this purpose only, the drop off and collection of children by parents can only be done at the front.
It is still considered that the additional nine children would be unlikely to result in a discernible increase in noise and disturbance.
The proposed extension and alterations would be to the rear of the property and would not be highly visible within the street scene. It is considered that the proposed extension would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the site or the surrounding area in general.
As mentioned earlier in the report, there have been a number of objections made by the owners/occupiers of the neighbouring properties regarding the parking and vehicular movements in association with the application site.
The applicant has advised that the proposed development would not significantly increase vehicular movements, and that they do not anticipate that there would be an increase in staff using vehicles.
The level of on street parking in Briarfield Avenue is similar to many residential streets. The Highways Division has advised that the existing parking situation is not a ‘parking problem’ as such although it is accepted that the parking of vehicles on the street does change the appearance of the streetsceene. However if it cannot be demonstrated that such parking is causing unacceptable highway impacts, it is not judged to be a sustainable reason to withhold planning permission.
The application site has an existing ‘drop off’ and ‘pick up’ arrangement at the front of the property. This is judged to be preferable as opposed to on site staff parking as it is a safer environment for the children. There is however designated minibus parking which is for the Beehive’s two minibuses.
It is unrealistic to assume that there would not be an increase in vehicular movements due to this proposed development. It is also unrealistic to attempt to control this by condition as enforcement would not be possible.
Overall it is considered that the proposed development would not significantly increase the level of on street parking. It is judged that any additional parking would be within an acceptable range which would not cause undue harm to the amenities of local residents.
The proposed development is considered to be a modest addition to the existing property in terms of scale, form and design.
The existing parking situation is not considered to be unsafe and nor will the extension result in the liklihood of danger to highway users.
Onchan Commissioners feel that the capacity of the site has now been reached. There was also a condition attached to a previous planning application which indicated that the number of children should not exceed fifty five.
It is understandable that Onchan Commissioners are concerned with the nursery expanding due to the size of the site and its impact on the residential area.
The main issue for determination is whether the increase in numbers of children and staff supervision would result in an increase in noise and disturbance. Whilst the proposal indicates there would be an additional 9 children, this is above the existing situation, and the number they are licensed for. In planning terms, the number of 83 presents an additional 28 over the number of previously conditioned maximum of 55.
The level of objection indicates that there is existing disturbance, the question is whether the proposal would cause additional disturbance. This is difficult to judge. On balance the application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval. In reaching this conclusion, it has been noted that the incremental expansion of the nursery cannot continue without, at some point causing unacceptable impacts upon the immediate vicinity. At the level proposed by this application, it is not judged that the extension would cause unacceptable harm to amenity or highway safety.
The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
The owners/occupiers of 8 Briarfield Avenue, Onchan are afforded party status
The owners/occupiers of 2 Briarfield Avenue, Onchan are afforded party status The owners/occupiers of 4 Briarfield Avenue, Onchan are afforded party status The owners/occupiers of 5 Briarfield Avenue are afforded party status The owners/occupiers of 7 Briarfield Avuenue, Onchan are afforded party status The owners/occupiers of 8 Briarfield Avenue, Onchan are afforded party status The owners/occupiers of 9 Briarfield Avenue, Onchan are afforded party status The owners/occupiers of 11 Briarfield Avenue, Onchan are afforded party status The owners/occupiers of 13 Briarfield Avenue, Onchan are afforded party status The owners/occupiers of 2 Birch Hill Crescent, Onchan are afforded party status Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority are not afforded party status Department of Social Care are not afforded party status
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 28.06.2011
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This permission relates to the alterations and erection of extensions as shown in drawings PTA-33-01, PTA-33-09, PTA-33-05, PTA-33-12, PTA-33-11, PTA-33-04 and PTA-33-02 received 15th December 2011 and PTA-33-09 Rev A, PTA-33-02 Rev A, PTA-33-14 and PTA-33-15 received 11th February 2011.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made: Refused Committee Meeting Date: 07/07/11
Signed: L. D. Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
