Agenda item

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN9).

 

The report describes why the children’s centre is applying to renew planning permission, outlines the objection and other responses to the application and sets out relevant planning policies along with the comments and recommendation of the Deputy Director (Growth and Infrastructure) on the proposal.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that Application No. R3.0065/12 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) but to include the following matters:

 

1.                  The development must be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans and drawings submitted with the application.

2.                  Temporary building to be removed by 31 October 2017.

3.                  The building authorised by this planning consent shall not be used outside the following times:

 

08:30 hours.  to 18:00 hours Mondays to Fridays

10:00 hours.  to 12:00 hours Saturdays

 

Except that it may be used on not more than one weekday evening (Monday to Friday) per week between 18:00 hours and 22:00 hours and it may be used on not more than five Saturdays per year for an extended period between 09:00 hours and 15:00 hours.

 

The building shall not be used on Sundays or on Public Holidays.

 

Informatives

 

The children’s centre is advised to carry out investigations into the provision of permanent accommodation.

 

 

 

The Committee considered (PN9) an application by the Bicester Children’s Centre to renew planning permission.

 

Mrs Hanson Bailey referred to continuous problems experienced by residents over many years from car parking, litter, dog fouling, private gardens being used as a short cut and anti social behaviour. The Centre now catered for under 10s during holiday periods which had increased noise levels considerably but having the gate closed and unavailable for access to evening events had, without doubt, offered some respite for residents. This application was not neutral for residents who were suffering increased nuisance and if allowed to go through without conditions attached represented a retrograde step.  Conditions attached to the previous permission had offered some protection and, contrary to what was being said, residents maintained it would be easy to identify who was breaking the conditions.  Residents would remove their objection if previous conditions were imposed but if those conditions were not attached then they could foresee nothing but problems.

 

Responding to Councillor Armitage she confirmed that condition 6 had been observed in the last year.

 

Councillor Stratford supported the residents’ case and in order to offer them some protection called for reinstatement of conditions 4 to 7 from the original planning permission no. R3.0233/09.  Circular 11/95 stipulated that conditions “should be” enforceable and not as restrictive as “must be”.  The continuity offered to residents by these conditions was valuable and he moved that the officer recommendation be approved subject to reinstatement of Conditions 4, 5, 6 and 7. 

 

Mr Lerner emphasised the need to resist raising expectation by imposing conditions which were not enforceable. Criteria set out in Circular 11/95 were quite clear in that regard and if conditions were breached then clear evidence would be needed that that had happened and he considered that that could be difficult in this case. He could not advise the Committee to impose conditions which were not considered enforceable.

 

Councillor Stratford reiterated the view that the level of unenforceability of conditions in this case was open to interpretation.  He felt it would be difficult to reach agreement by talking to all 3 schools on the site as each would be concerned with what happened in their specific area and therefore conditions were needed to offer some protection to residents.

 

Officers raised the option of negotiating a written memorandum of understanding between all parties as a way forward and the Chairman moved an amendment that the application be deferred to enable that option to be explored.

 

Councillor Stratford did not consider this a reasonable option. Residents were merely asking for better management and without conditions he suspected that would not be possible.

 

Mr Hardie advised that the Site Users Group had written to residents setting out proposals to manage the gate.  Mrs Beal confirmed that provision of the service was a statutory duty and the Centre were keen to work with residents and the community.

 

Councillor Owen agreed that although enforcement might be difficult conditions offered a moral force and strength to the application.

 

Councillor Tanner agreed with Councillor Stratford but would prefer to see a permanent building provided.

 

Mrs Beal confirmed there were no imminent plans for a permanent building and no current provision for capital funding. However, Bicester was an expanding community which might, in time, offer some alternative opportunities.

 

Councillor Crabbe pointed out that this was a retrospective application and that if the current application had been submitted in time it might have enabled these issues to be dealt with more expeditiously.

 

In view of comments made the Chairman withdrew his amendment.

 

The original motion was then put to the Committee and –

 

RESOLVED: (by 10 votes to 2) that Application No. R3.0065/12 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) but to include the following matters:

 

1.      The development must be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans and drawings submitted with the application.

2.      Temporary building to be removed by 31 October 2017.

3.      The building authorised by this planning consent should not be used outside the following times:

 

08:30 hours.  to 18:00 hours Mondays to Fridays

10:00 hours.  to 12:00 hours Saturdays

 

Except that it might be used on not more than one weekday evening (Monday to Friday) per week between 18:00 hours and 22:00 hours and it might be used on not more than five Saturdays per year for an extended period between 09:00 hours and 15:00 hours.

The building should not be used on Sundays or on Public Holidays.

4.    That the pedestrian gate to Somerville Drive should not be used for access or egress in connection with the Adult Education Evening Classes.

5.    That car parking by users of the Adult Education Evening Classes should only take place in the parking areas adjacent to the Children's Centre.

6.    That the pedestrian gate to Somerville Drive should not be used for access or egress in connection with the use of the Children's Centre site during weekends (expect for the permitted hours of use under Condition 3) and School Holidays.

7.    That car parking by staff or users should only take place in the designated car parks at Glory Farm School and that no car parking should take place to the west of the vehicular gate across the Service Road.

 

Informatives

 

The children’s centre be advised to carry out investigations into the provision of permanent accommodation.