Issue - meetings

Change of use of pavilion building and Groundsman's cottage to day nursery along with external alterations to the building, a single storey extension, erection of 2.4m palisade fencing, change of use of farmland to a car park associated with the day nursery and creation of new footpath adjacent to existing Bridleway.

A written representation from Philippa Fisher, a local resident in objection to the application, was read by Caroline McCleary, Democratic Services Officer.

Najoua O'Brien, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Assistant Director – Planning and Regeneration informed Members that further to the publication of the report, it had been brought to his attention that a late submission had been circulated to members of the planning committee by the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, which set out what they considered to be the very special circumstances relevant to the proposal which were as follows:

Re- use and regeneration of a vacant semi-derelict site

Re-use of brownfield land

Reduction in the likelihood of antisocial behaviour

Provision of a new facility and business

Employment of local people and the creation of apprenticeships

Increased provision of early years provision

An opportunity to provide outdoor class rooms in a rural setting

An opportunity to create a Covid-19 resilient learning environment

Their existing facility is constrained, shared with other users and temporary – it will close without a suitable alternative

The re-use of the building itself does not require permission

A 2m high fence would not require permission, in any materials.

It was not accepted that these amounted to very special circumstances and the position set out in the report remained unchanged.

He added that the applicant’s agent had referred to factual inaccuracies within the report, namely that the proposed fencing would be a paladin fence and not a palisade fence, paragraph 7.9 is inaccurate, fencing of up to 2m in height does not need permission and the information on trip generation is incorrect.  

The details in the report were checked were in accordance with the details provided by the applicant on the submitted plans and advice provided by the Highways Authority.

In terms of the erection of boundary treatments, a 2m high boundary fence could not be erected adjacent to the bridleway under permitted development – the height would be restricted to 1m.

Having regard to the NPPF and Local Planning Document Policy 12, the reuse of the former building is appropriate development in the Green Belt, as is the proposed extension, which would increase the floor-space by approximately 18%, so significantly less than 50%.  The extensions would be single storey in nature and would appear subservient to the host building. I’m therefore of the opinion that the extensions would not have an undue impact upon openness. 

The proposed use would not be limited to the extended building. It was proposed to extend the curtilage by approximately 730 square metres to create a carpark extension and a new footpath extending some 100m adjacent to the existing bridleway to satisfy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50