Agenda item

The report of the Chief Planning Officer requests Members consideration for a detached Classroom Building and New Decking Area to Rear, at Leeds Montessori School and Day Nursery Wetherby Road, Roundhay, Leeds LS8 2LE.

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer requested Members consideration on an application for a detached classroom building and new decking area to rear at Leeds Montessori School and Day Nursery, Wetherby Road, Roundhay, Leeds, LS8 2LE.

The application had been subject to a site visit earlier in the day, with photographs and plans shown throughout the presentation.

It was acknowledged that this proposal would result in an increase in the number of pupils attending the nursery from 79 to 99, and that this was likely to exacerbate the high levels of on street parking and congestion issues that are currently experienced on Wetherby Road during peak hours.

The application had been brought to Plans Panel by a Ward Member who stated that there were complicated parking issues in the area that had been exacerbated by the adjacent Roundhay School and their failure to comply with planning conditions. The Councillor had also highlighted the local interest in increasing the number of nursery places.

Members were provided with clarity on the planning history of Roundhay School. It was noted that an application in relation to parking was still pending consideration.

Members acknowledge that the recommendation to refuse this application was based on its own merits and that the highways issues caused from breach of planning conditions by Roundhay School had not had a bearing on the recommendation.

Members were advised of the following points:

·  Proposal to construct a single storey detached building to provide an additional classroom for around 20 more pupils and included an area of decking;

·  Removal of three of the trees to facilitate the development;

·  The site was within the Roundhay Conservation Area;

·  6 letters of objection had been received and these were outlined at point 6.2 of the submitted report;

·  An objection had been received from Highways on the grounds that the applicant proposes to increase intake of children without providing any additional parking;

·  The development is located within the green belt and is within the urban corridor;

·  The main school building and associated terraced dwellings on either side of the school are Grade II listed including the boundary wall which runs along Wetherby Road;

·  It was the view of officers that there would be no negative impact on the Coach house next door;

·  There would be no significant issues regarding noise from an extra 20 pupils;

·  Officers were of the view that highway safety outweighed the proposals for demand of early year’s learning.

The applicant addressed the Panel informing them of the following points:

·  There is currently a shortage of nursery provision in the area;

·  The school is currently full and has no available space until 2020;

·  There are more residential housing in the area with many of them being family homes;

·  The application to increase is endorsed by the Children and Families Directorate;

·  The Traffic Management Team endorsed the proposal saying that there was enough parking on street.

The Panel were provided with the drop off and pick up times for the nursery and the primary school opposite.

In responding to Members questions the Panel were provided with the following information from the applicant:

·  The nursery opens at 7:30am, the only overlap time of parents dropping off at both the nursey and the school is the morning period;

·  Parents were requested to park sensibly, incentives and promotion of parking initiatives were presented to parents, some parents do use the Roundhay Park car park located nearby and is encouraged;

·  The applicant explained that he had been at the school for 10 years. He said that there had been dramatic changes since the opening of Roundhay Primary School with over 500 children being dropped off;

·  The applicant said that there had not been an issue prior to the opening of the primary school;

·  The nursery provides full day childcare only with most children attending 2-3 days per week;

·  About 2/3 of children attending the nursery arrive by foot but this can vary dependent on the weather;

·  There are currently no disabled children attending the nursery;

·  There is currently no formal travel plan for the nursery.

It was noted by the applicant that recently the primary school had been opening the gates to allow access for dropping off and picking up of children which had been helpful.

A resident from one of the adjoining properties spoke to the Panel and explained his concerns as follows:

·  He was in agreement with the recommendations of the Chief Planning Officer report and the objections put forward by Highways. He said that the traffic problems were an occurrence on a daily basis five days a week both in the morning and evening pick up. He said his driveway was often blocked and when asked to move the drivers became abusive;

·  Lack of privacy, the pathway in front of the properties is private but parents use it as a short cut. The residents have both parents and children walking past their windows peering in. The resident said that this small residential community felt under siege;

·  There is currently no disabled access to the nursery and should it be required the parents and the children would have to walk along the private driveway;

·  The driveway is for use of the residents only and is accessed by an unlocked gate which has a ‘private no parking’ sign. The Panel heard that 60% of the parents used this driveway, especially if they had a pushchair;

·  Parking had been a problem priory to the opening of the school which had exacerbated the situation. During school holidays there is still an issue as the nursery is still open.

During discussions between Members and officers the following points were noted:

·  An application to vary the conditions in relation to parking had been submitted by the school. Members noted that negotiations were needed with the school to address traffic issues. It was also noted that it was unusual for the Council to take enforcement action against its self as the school was run by LCC;

·  That the Traffic Authority were not supportive of the planning application;

·  That the proposal would result in a 99 place nursery with no off-street parking provision;

·  That the parking currently associated with the nursery extended beyond the frontage of the Almshouses;

·  That Wetherby Road was a distributor road as set out in council guidance, and that parking restrictions were being ignored and cars were bumping over kerbs and parking on the pavement;

·  Not all school sites have designated areas for drop off and pick up;

·  Highways and the Traffic Authority need to put the correct road markings along the road to address the parking issues and be able to take action if they are not adhered to;

·  That the Traffic Authority need to balance the needs of all users of the highway including local residents when considering road markings and this had recently been undertaken.

The Panel spoke of their sympathy with the residents of the Almshouses.

At the conclusion of the discussions, Members voted on the recommendation of officers as set out in the submitted report. The recommendation was over turned and Members resolved not to accept the officer recommendation to refuse planning permission.

Members placed greater weight on the benefits that arise from the proposal associated with childcare / education and these were considered to outweigh concerns over highway safety.

Councillor Arif moved a motion to defer and delegate to the Chief Planning Officer the approval of the application. The motion was seconded by Councillor Collins who requested that a condition be included for a green travel plan.

RESOLVED - To defer and delegate approval of the application to officers with imposed conditions to include the requirement of the submission and approval of a green travel plan.

Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16.5, Councillor Wadsworth required it to be recorded that he abstained during the vote.