Portsmouth Dream Catchers nursery plan in Cosham splits opinion - and has left neighbours 'in tears'

Sixteen objections have been lodged against the change of use of the Court Lane bungalow by Dream Catchers, which has been operating without the correct planning permission since January, warning it causes ‘persistent’ noise and traffic issues.

NOW READ: CCTV released after Portsmouth burglary

However, 16 letters of support for the business have also been submitted, welcoming the ‘vital service’ it provides for working parents and claiming these issues are minimal compared to the nearby Court Lane school.

The application for the change of use of the building from a house to a mixed housing and a childcare facility was submitted in April by nursery owner Leah Benford who said she was initially unaware this was needed.

She said the 7.30am to 4pm weekday opening hours meant collections and drop-offs were ‘staggered’, minimising traffic, but accepted it does ‘contribute some noise’. However, she described the sound of children playing as ‘good noise’.

Outside these hours, the bungalow is used by one of its three members of staff as their single occupant home.

‘In the year we have been childminding from here, we have never had any concerns raised to us about noise or parking,’ she said. ‘We have, on numerous occasions, checked in with neighbours who have never raised any concerns.’

She added: ‘The alternative would be renting this to a family where noise could be much louder.’

The nursery has 28 children on its roll, with an average of 10 to 12 attending each day, she said. It is registered with Ofsted with a maximum capacity of 25 and was originally based at Brightstars Dance Academy in Bedhampton before moving after that venue became unavailable.

According to an Ofsted complaint document, it was briefly ‘offering unregistered childcare’ from its previous base until the relocation. No action was taken against the business.

Supporters said there was a need for more childcare in the area and said they found objections ‘bewildering’.

‘The work they do contributes positively to the opportunity, health and wellbeing of users from the community,’ councillor Terry Norton said. ‘The service allows parents to access employment which I support. The setting is, in my opinion, intimate.

‘I have limited concern regarding noise as the location is close to schools. I remain confident that staff will work with and not against neighbours in addressing potential noise complaints.’

However, his Conservative Party and ward councillor colleague Simon Bosher has spearheaded opposition to the application, which will be considered by the council’s planning committee on Wednesday (November 9) due to his call-in.

‘Since the opening I have had several neighbours attend my monthly ward surgery complaining about the persistent noise,’ he said. ‘Sadly several of the elderly neighbours have been in tears.’

He said concerns centred around ‘excessive noise’ from the building and its garden, ‘a failure of the operators to engage with the immediate neighbours’ and parking issues.

‘This property was not designed for, nor is it suitable for a childcare business,’ he added. ‘It is too close to residential neighbouring properties and it is also surrounded on three sides by very close neighbours whose quality of life is being severally impacted.’

Council environmental health officer Carolyn Tanner said one noise complaint had been made about the business in August but said in the absence of any more the department had no objection to the proposal.

The council said the complaint was investigated and that ‘no noise nuisance has been proven’.

But an objection has been made by transport planning officer Katie Foley who said there was ‘insufficient space’ on the road to accommodate pick-ups and drop-offs.

‘I would have to raise a highway objection on the grounds given the potential for conflict [and] parking demand between the proposed use and school, and consequent likelihood of errant parking behaviours which may obstruct accesses and crossing points,’ she said.

A report published ahead of the meeting of the planning committee recommends permission be granted for the building to be used by the nursery.

‘With the use occurring during the working day and with evenings, weekends and public holidays being free, the noise is not considered unacceptable,’ it says. However, it does recommend a condition be attached to planning permission preventing it from being used for any other type of business.

The planning officer visited the site in September to assess morning traffic and said ‘there are no highways reasons to refuse planning permission’ with the impact from the nursery being ‘minimal’.