Appeal rejected for day nursery
A council ruling blocking plans for a children’s day nursery has been upheld for a second time by a Government planning inspector.
The move is the latest in a planning saga stretching back to 2019 when an application was first lodged with Sunderland City Council to convert a former residential care home in the Hendon ward.
Proposals for the building, onthejunctionofRyhopeRoad and Villette Road, included a nurserybusinesslookingafter dozens of children.
AtaplanninghearinginOctober 2019, councillors voted against the advice of their own planning officers to refuse the plans – citing potential traffic, noise and parking issues.
Although an appeal was lodged with the Planning Inspectorate contesting the planning decision, this was dismissed by Governmentappointed planning inspector David Cross in 2020.
A second attempt to secure planning permission for the change of use included a revised application with a new noise survey and plans for a traffic regulation order (TRO).
Despitearecommendation to approve from council planningofficers,thecouncil’sarea Planning and Highways Committee voted unanimously to rejecttheresubmittedplansin February 2021.
Some councillors were concerned about introducing parkingandtravelrestrictions tofacilitateaplanningapplication,ratherthanaddressingan existing problem.
In the latest twist in the planning saga, an appeal against the second planning bid for Rowlandson House has been dismissed by a separate planning inspector appointed by the Secretary of State.
In a decision report published on August 26 2021, planning inspector A M Nilsson upheld the council’s decisiontorefusethechangeofuse.
Issues outlined in the report included the living conditions of occupants of nearby residential properties about noise,disturbanceandparking andtheissueofhighwaysafety.
Although the planning inspectorwassatisfiedthatthere was now “robust evidence” from the appellant related to noise and disturbance issues andthathighwaysafetywasacceptable,concernswereraised about parking in a rear lane.
This included unrestricted parking during pick-up and drop-off times which, the planning inspector said, “would have the potential to restrict access to nearby residential properties, causing disturbance and harm to living conditions.”
The planning inspector also noted that a traffic regulationorderwasneededtomake the plans acceptable, but that bringing it forward involved a separatelegalprocessfromthe planning permission – which could not be pre-determined.
Intheabsenceofan“appropriate mechanism to implement the TRO,” the planning inspector was unable to support the planning appeal and dismissed it.
The report’s conclusion adds: “Although I have found that the proposed developmentwouldnotharmhighway safety, in view of the lack of an appropriate mechanism to secure the delivery and implementation of the TRO, which I have found to be necessary, I am unable to conclude that there would not be unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupants of nearby residential properties.”
While an application for costs against Sunderland City Council has been made by the appellant, the inspector’s report states this is “the subject of a separate decision.”