Site for new school buildings to extend existing school facilities and new access.

Site for new school buildings to extend existing school facilities and new access.

The Southern Team Leader reported the following:

• The Traffic Manger confirms that the retention of the bus shelter in its current position would be acceptable in highway visibility terms.
• Letter from Little Dewchurch Primary School – concern as to impact on local primary/village schools
• Letter from Software AG – supports proposal
• Response from MADE (Design Review West Midlands) – The Design Panel make a number of suggestions/comments on the design and layout but concludes that the scheme this will dramatically improve school provision in Much Dewchurch and they were excited by the scheme which is exemplary
• Letter from Agent giving detailed response to letter of objection from C.G. Powell
• Copy of letter to Members from P.M. McMurtrie

The Chairman asked for clarification in respect of a personal interest. He confirmed that his children had attended the school 35 years ago but was advised by the Legal practice Manager that in his view, he did not need to declare a personal or prejudicial interest.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr. Evans, representing Much Dewchurch parish council, and Mrs. Brown, representing the members of C.A.S.E., spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Baird, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

Councillor M.J. Fishley, the local ward member, felt that the application was a very contentious issue in the village of Much Dewhurch. She felt that the proposed application could result in a flagship school for the county but felt on balance that Much Dewchurch was not the right location for it.

Councillor J.J. Jarvis, felt that this application was almost identical to the application refused by the Sub-Committee in January, 2007. He noted that children would have to walk some distance from the car park to the school entrance and supported the views of the local ward member. He felt that the grounds for refusal should remain the same as detailed in the previous refusal.

Members discussed the application thoroughly and had a number of concerns relating to traffic, landscape, and the impact on the local community.

RESOLVED

That:   (i)    The Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reasons for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

A)  The form, extent and scale of the development, together with associated activity and movement would not be appropriate to the scale of Much Dewchurch or reflect its character

B)The nature of the proposed Academy is such that it is not necessary for it to be located in Much Dewchurch.

C)The proposed development does not provide satisfactory measures so as to ensure that the increased vehicle and pedestrian activity would be safe and convenient and not exacerbate the current operational difficulties arising from the existing school

(ii)   If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:            Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that he would not refer the decision to the Head of Planning Services.]