Nursery and soft play centre at Land To The South Of Stortford Road, Little Canfield

What was proposed

The application proposed a nursery and soft play building with a swimming pool, café and flexible learning spaces, without housing.

“PROPOSAL: Proposed building for nursery (Use Class E(f)) and soft play area (Use Class E(d)) with associated swimming pool, café and versatile learning spaces designed specifically for families and children in the community.”

“This is a full planning application for a proposed building for nursery (Use Class E(f)) and soft play area (Use Class E(d)) with associated swimming pool, café and versatile learning spaces designed specifically for families and children in the community. The application does not propose housing or affordable housing.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was an undeveloped arable field between the B1256 and Flitch Way, near commercial buildings, listed buildings, agricultural land and a watercourse.

“The application site comprises open, undeveloped land used as arable field between the B1256 to the north and Flitch Way (bridleway/ designated wildlife site) to the south, located to the west of Great Dunmow. The site is greenfield and has a gradual slope downwards from east to west, draining onto an unnamed watercourse adjacent to its western boundary. This slope is evident from High Cross Lane at the eastern end of the field to which the application site is part.”

“The site is immediately east of the Bluegates Farm commercial site (use classes E, B8). Across the road to the north-west are residential properties, including the Grade II listed Strood Hall fronting the road and its outbuildings (some of which are curtilage listed) and nos. 1-3 Strood Court to the back with a few more houses further west. Agricultural fields are across the road to the north behind the roadside hedges.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications included proposals for a council depot, employment land and a soft play and swimming pool building, with some applications refused or withdrawn.

“Reference Proposal Decision UTT/24/0771/PA Construction of building to house soft play/swimming pool for hire/nanny nursery/learning children’s and mothers’ areas. Creation of dog walking/exercise area. Closed (21.06.2024). UTT/19/1166/OP 1. Detailed proposal for Construction of a new Council Depot comprising vehicle workshop, office building, external storage, grounds maintenance storage, parking, landscaping, vehicular access and all supporting infrastructure. 2.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the location suitable, the countryside harm limited, technical matters acceptable and the public benefits greater than the adverse impacts.

“Although the proposal, by reason of its location, would cause some unavoidable countryside harm, this would be limited due to the limited contribution of the site to the rural character and appearance of the area and the appropriate design, scale and layout details of the proposal that respond to the rural character of the area and the Uttlesford District-Wide Design Code (2024).”

“Consequently, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, and as there are no other material considerations indicating otherwise pursuant to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the adverse impacts of the proposals would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed…”

Officer report

What consultees said

The main statutory consultees raised no objections, subject to conditions from the Highway Authority and Local Flood Authority.

“No objections subject to conditions (see full response in Appendix 1).”

“No objections subject to conditions (see full response in Appendix 2).”

Officer report

What people said

Supporters cited inclusive community, educational and health benefits, while objectors raised countryside, agricultural land, traffic, access, drainage and Flitch Way concerns.

“Support o Purpose-built facility for children (including with disabilities). o Beneficial and inclusive development. o Much needed specialist facility. o Dedicated hydrotherapy/swimming pool. o Serves the wider community. o Growing need for inclusive infrastructure. o Health, recreational and educational benefits. o Community integration and social benefits. o Next to Bluegates industrial park. o Similar design to Bluegates.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A Little Canfield parish councillor spoke against the application and the agent spoke in support.

What members discussed

Members debated sustainability, car use, public transport, building height, demand, highway conditions, Flitch Way landscaping, parking and controlling the proposed uses.

“In response to questions from Members, officers: • Clarified use classes E(f) and E(d) definitions. • Said there had been no vehicle movement analysis carried out. • Outlined reasons for previous refusals of applications (2018 and 2019) that were significantly different schemes to this one. • Said that condition 10 provided protection for the Flitch Way through additional landscaping and plantings to the rear of the building and no openings to Flitch Way.”

“Members discussed: • Concerns that the location might be wrong and unsustainable. The Principal Planning Officer stated that paragraph 89 of the NPPF said that this did not have to be sustainable and commercial development in rural areas is supported by national policy. Some Members considered the location to be ideal.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee authorised permission subject to the report’s conditions and required the uses to remain unchanged under permitted development rights.

“Councillor Emanuel (from the Chair) proposed approval of the application, together with ensuring the uses would remain unchanged under Permitted Development Rights.”

“RESOLVED that the Strategic Director of Planning be authorised to grant permission for the development subject to the conditions set out in section 17 of the report, together with ensuring that the uses would remain unchanged under Permitted Development Rights.”

Minutes