Agenda item - BH2018/03912-Gingerbread Day Nursery, Arundel Drive West,Saltdean - Full Planning

Demolition of existing porta cabin and erection of single storey building incorporating front and side boundary fencing with access gate and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

Demolition of existing porta cabin and erection of single storey building incorporating front and side boundary fencing with access gate and associated works.

Officer Presentation

(1)          The Senior Planning Officer, Emily Stanbridge, introduced the report and detailed the application by reference to site plans, drawings and photographs detailing the scheme. The application site sat immediately adjacent to the east of the early 21st century extension to the grade II listed Saltdean Barn (and attached walls), The original part of the barn is of early/mid-19th century date. Both sit within Saltdean Park, an oval-shaped park in the bowl of a valley laid out in the early 1930s at the centre of the new suburban settlement at Saltdean. This parkland siting contributes positively to the building's setting, helping to retain some sense of the barn's original agricultural setting, and enables longer views towards the Barn (and application site) from elevated viewpoints, particularly from Arundel Drive East but also from the coast road looking north with downland as a backdrop.

(2)          It was noted that the main considerations in the determining the application related to the principle of the development, its impact on the character and appearance of adjacent properties and the wider street scene, any potential amenity impact to neighbouring properties and potential transport issues. The existing pre-fabricated portacabin was in a poor state of repair and due to its poor state off repair adversely impacted on the setting of the adjacent listed building. The proposal would result in a slight increase in footprint of the building but was considered acceptable as was the proposed design which was considered more sympathetic in the context of the surrounding buildings, listed barn, boundary wall and park; approval was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers

(3)          Ms Hicks and Mrs Gallagher spoke representing objectors to the scheme including the Saltdean Residents Association setting out their objections to the scheme. They stated that the proposal would further devalue the asset of community value, which would be compromised and would result in further loss of the open-space. The applicants had not consulted locally and the proposals did not answer an identified need as it local consultation indicated that there was no need for additional nursery places. The proposals would also impact adversely on the neighbouring “Boomerang” nursery. Permission had never been sought for the original use.

(4)          Councillor Mears spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor, also setting out her objections to the scheme also referring to her letter which had been included with the committee papers. It was not appropriate in her view to extend within a public park which should remain as a green open space for residents in a built-up area. The scheme took up all of the existing space the applicant had and parking needed to be reviewed as additional drop off and pick-ups would generate more traffic movements. There would be no public benefit to the proposals.

(5)          Mr Childs, the applicant, spoke in support of their application and explained that the proposals were designed to respond to demand identified by parents already using their facility. The existing building had reached the end of its useful life and this gave the opportunity for it to replaced by with a more sympathetic structure which was in keeping with its surroundings. The existing portacabin could be replaced by a more suitable structure.

              Questions of Officers

(6)          Councillor Yates asked for clarification of the timeline relating to the development, given the allegations that the appropriate permissions were not in place. It was explained that the existing use had been in place since 1987 and that the existing fence had been erected in 2015; also since the land the land was a community asset whether the land could be purchased by the local community.

(7)          Councillor Miller requested further clarification on this matter and sought to ascertain the purpose of the fence. It was explained that it had been erected to protect children using the nursery and to ensure that they did not leave the site. Councillor Miller also requested details of the materials proposed and treatments to ensure that they weathered well.

(8)          Mr Gowans referred to the number of objections received and to their assertion that the site had been operating as a nursery without the necessary permissions being in place. He asked whether investigations had been undertaken by the Enforcement Team to address those.

(9)          It was explained that this use was now established and that it would not be possible for the premises to transfer to a retail use without further permissions being applied for. Business issues were not a planning consideration and the Committee were being asked to determine it on its planning merits.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)       Mr Gowans, representing CAG referred to their objections stating that in their view they had not been addressed and remained of the view that the structure would be harmful to the setting of the Grade II listed barn and wall beside and would result in diminution of the existing open space. Whilst the current structures on site were unsightly, those proposed were also considered to be out of keeping.

(11)       Councillor Yates expressed the view that it was clear that the current use was established and that what was proposed would significantly improve the appearance of the on-site structures.

(12)       Councillor Miller expressed the view that whilst there were positives and negatives, the treatment proposed would improve the appearance of the site.

(13)       Councillor Littman concurred with Councillor Miller but considered it regrettable that this use appeared to have been established by stealth.

(14)       Councillor Theobald stated that she was concerned about potential future use for retail and considered that the structure would read as a large wooden shed-like structure which she did not find acceptable.

(15)       Councillor Shanks stated that she considered the scheme was acceptable and represented an improvement to what was there

(16)       Councillor Miller requested that materials be brought back to Members, via Chair’s Briefing for approval and that was agreed.

(17)       A vote was taken and the 9 Members present voted by 7 to 2 that planning permission be granted.

6.4         RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report.

              Note: Having declared a prejudicial interest in the above application Councillor Fishleigh withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of the application or the decision making process.