100-place day nursery at The Crying Tree, Grange Lane, Liverpool

What was proposed

The application proposed converting the former public house into a 100-place nursery with play areas, parking, access works and external alterations.

“This application seeks to use a Grade II listed former public house as a 100-space day nursery with associated parking and external alterations including decking to front, retaining walls and replacement windows. A separate application for Listed Building Consent (22L/1208) has been submitted alongside this planning application, and a separate report is provided.”

“A play area to the rear is proposed on two levels, a paved area at the floor level of the annexe building and a lower forest play area. New steps and a platform lift are proposed between the higher ground floor levels of the existing building and the proposed outside play area. A 1.2m high close boarded timber fence is proposed between the higher play space and the slopes to the lower forest play space.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The Grade II listed building stands on a corner plot in a mainly residential area and has been vacant since 2014.

“The application relates to a part two storey part single storey detached building, which was formerly a bar and grill with sports lounge and function suite, but has been vacant since 2014. There was an ancillary manager/owner flat at 1A Grange Lane in the same property, but the council tax record for this flat has been deleted since 2008. The building is Grade II listed, further details of which are provided in the heritage section of this report.”

“The original building has associated annexes and extensions of varying ages, as well as a car parking area and private rear amenity space. To the south and east of the site are the original stables and barn of the former house, in between which sits a small extension from the 1970s when the site was used as a restaurant. A larger extension encloses the original courtyard between the stables and barn when the site was in use in the late 1980s.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A residential redevelopment was approved in 2017 but not completed, while an application to continue bar and function-room use was refused in 2015.

“This Site 16F/1122 To use existing building as 8 apartments with associated external alterations, erect 5 new dwellings following partial demolition of existing building, convert barn building into 2 dwellings and layout associated parking, bin stores and landscaping. Approved with Conditions on 27/04/2017. Conditions 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21 discharged.”

“14F/1349 To continue to use premises as a public bar/function room opening between 12.00- and 23.00-hours Mon-Fri and Sundays and 12.00 and 01.00 hours on Saturday. Refused 13/02/2015 for the following reason: The intensification of uses at the site and their associated operating hours, which would result in all parts of the premises ceasing operations at the same time, would generate levels of pedestrian and vehicular activity that would cause levels of noise and…”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the nursery acceptable because it would provide early-years facilities, restore the listed building and meet amenity, highway and environmental requirements with conditions.

“The proposal is acceptable in principle. The proposal would contribute towards economic growth and productivity which is afforded ‘significant weight’ in accordance with NPPF paragraph 85. The expansion of early years facilities is afforded ‘great weight’ in accordance with NPPF paragraph 100. The proposal would positively contribute towards the conservation of a designated heritage asset, which NPPF paragraph 212 states should be given ‘great weight’.”

“Subject to the recommended conditions, sufficient outdoor play space would be provided, the day nursery could operate without adverse impact on neighbouring amenity, and the proposed development could be accommodated within the highway network. The proposal is acceptable with regards to flooding and Page 30”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

The applicant presented the proposal, the planning case officer answered parking questions and the highways officer answered questions about travel, traffic and lighting.

Changes discussed

The committee was told that a pedestrian guardrail would be added to the highway condition beside the pedestrian access.

“The Committee were informed that the following is to be added to Condition 3”

Minutes

The committee vote

The application was approved by nine votes to one, with no abstentions.

“That the Applications be approved, subject to a Legal Agreement and Conditions as proposed by the Director of Planning and Building Control.”

“A vote was taken on Application No. 22F/1104. When there appeared –”

Minutes