Children’s day nursery at Land At Buckland Brewer

What was proposed

The application sought a single-storey children’s day nursery for up to 30 children and six staff, with play areas and 12 parking spaces.

“Description of development The planning application seeks full planning permission for a new children's day nursery on a parcel of land associated with Lower Orleigh Lodge, Buckland Brewer.”

“The intention is for the nursery to be a 'Forest School,' and include pre-school provision, including babies. The accompanying information states that it will be registered for children from 9 months to 11 years and will also run a holiday club during school holidays. The building will be used by up to 30 children and 6 members of staff per day.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The rural site is surrounded by fields and lies near Lower Orleigh Lodge and Orleigh Court, a Grade I listed building.

“Site Description The application site is in a rural location approximately 3km south of Bideford, 1km south-west of Littleham and 1.9km northeast of Buckland Brewer and is surrounded by open fields on all sides.”

“The main farm, ‘Orleigh Farm’ (in the same ownership), is sited approximately 960 metres to the east and can be reached by a track from the application site. To the east of the application site is a group of trees. The northern and western boundaries of the application site are Devon banks. The site has a gently sloping northerly aspect.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the site was unsustainable and the development would harm the setting of listed buildings without convincing justification for this location.

“However, given that the site is adjacent to a Grade 1 curtilage listed lodge, which is considered to be important to the setting of the Grade 1 Listed ‘Orleigh Court’, and there is no convincing justification as to why the proposed building must be in this location, the objections from heritage specialists remain and are significant, and the recommendation is to refuse the planning application.”

“The proposed development is considered to cause unnecessary and unjustified harm to the setting of the Grade I Listed Building at Orleigh Court and Grade 1 curtilage listed Lower Orleigh Lodge, as the building, parking area, associated paraphernalia and landscaping will detract from the visual dominance of the lodge and this entrance point to Orleigh Court.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways accepted the access subject to securing visibility land and conditions, while Historic England and the conservation officer maintained strong heritage objections.

“The heritage concerns that Historic England has raised in our previous 2 letters have not been addressed. This is extremely disappointing as we are providing expert advice on the conservation of a grade I listed building, where a part of that listed building's significance stems from its setting. Your Council's own heritage specialist has also raised similar concerns.”

“This proposal introduces a building with associated landscaping into a section of land where the lodge should be the only building. In terms of assessing the setting on a heritage asset the guidance is within Historic England publications. In addition, Historic England has made comments. The document - The Setting of Heritage Assets is the key guidance and has useful comments on designed settings of which this site is an example.”

Officer report

What supporters said

All 36 representations supported the nursery, citing limited local childcare, benefits for families, rural employment, wellbeing and farm diversification.

“- People struggle to find childcare in their areas (Bideford, Stibb Cross, Torrington, Parkham/nearby towns and villages). - Shortage of childcare places locally / lack of options for children under 2 years old. - Waiting list for 1-2 years for childminders. - Increase in housing in Buckland Brewer increases the need. - Smaller nurseries work better than larger ones with 15+ children. - Fresh air and exercise is a benefit to health and wellbeing of the children.”

“- Support for children in the local community. - Helps those who home educate and need occasional childcare. - Rosie is an amazing childminder / hardworking/dedicated - has the appropriate knowledge, experience and background. - Safe and reliable childcare option. - Pragmatic approach to use family skills to support the farm. - Benefits the family business / farm diversification. - Supports the next generation of farmers / the future of agriculture.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish representative, a ward representative and two supporters spoke in favour of the application.

What members debated

Members discussed car dependence, farm diversification, alternative locations, the listed buildings’ setting, the level of harm and community benefits.

“It was asked if the provision designed to cater for village or wider area. It was confirmed car travel would be necessary, the scope of the provision was felt to be the Nursery decision. • The Planning Manager advised that officers had been pragmatic in applying the principle of development under DM15 (farm diversification), despite not complying with ST22 (community facilities in settlements) – the work on this was referenced in the report.”

“In terms of location Members shared their satisfaction that the applicant had considered alternative locations – noting this was a working farm, and the surrounding flood zones. • In support of the application members felt the application fitted the farm diversification scheme and ST 22 and DM15 were noted. • Members referenced NPPF 214 – The Planning Manager advised of the policy tests required for the application and noted NPPF 212 and 213, explaining the reasoning.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillors voted seven in favour and two abstentions on the proposal to approve the application.

“During discussions the Planning Manager sought clarification on the reasons for approval and advised of the legal and policy tests required to lawfully approve the application. The decision-making process was emphasised for members – it was explained members would need to determine if the site was in the setting/curtilage, and if so, justify the proposed location, then assess the level of harm, and then balance on the public benefit.”

Minutes