An extension, part single storey and part double storey to existing school building, with associated landscaping and appearance of existing school.

The application was approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Bailey, the Head teacher for the school, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor GJ Powell, the Cabinet Member for Education and Infrastructure, addressed the Committee in support of the application in accordance with paragraph 5.13.7 of the Council’s Constitution. He commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The local authority was committed to providing the best education and care to young people throughout the county.

·         Blackmarston School had grown and was still over crowded despite the addition of temporary classrooms.

·         The proposed extension would be adequate in addressing the long term growth of the school.

·         A new school, as referred to in the previous meeting, would cost in excess of £20m instead of the £4.6m required for the extension to the existing school.

·         The updated report detailed the reasons why the proposed sites at Aylestone and Whitecross would not be suitable as well as including an update from Sport England regarding their objection.

·         The proposed site was affordable and future proof and should be approved.

Councillor Powell left the Council Chamber immediately after speaking and took no further part in the debate.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor ACR Chappell, one of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The case officer was praised for a thorough report and a recommendation based on her interpretation of the key policies.

·         There was a need for a special school and it had to be the best facility available.

·         A full investigation had been requested to address concerns throughout the application process.

·         Sport England’s comments had to be taken into account.

·         Public money had to be spent correctly and transparently.

·         Meetings of school governors should be more transparent and quarterly reports should be submitted to the Council.

Councillor R Preece, another of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         There was clearly no alternative plan, a fact that was confirmed through the additional information submitted following the previous deferral.

·         The Council could not afford a new school so the proposed extension to the existing school was in the best interest of all parties.

·         There were currently 70 children in a school designed for 40.

·         There had been four objection letters received from three neighbouring dwellings, there concerns were valid and needed to be addressed.

·         Any screening should be commenced at the earliest opportunity to mitigate the impact on the neighbouring residents.

Councillor P Rone, the other local ward member, also commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The choice of which school to send their child to was an important decision to any parent.

·         No parent would want to send their child to a school which was above capacity and bursting at the seams.

·         The concerns of the three neighbouring residents were valid but were outweighed by the needs of the school.

The Committee noted that the application had been previously deferred pending further discussions with the applicant and Sport England. The updated report addressed the issues in respect of alternative sites and the sustained objection from Sport England to the possible loss of playing field which would occur if the proposed extension was re-oriented.

Members discussed the cost implications in relocating the school to a new location at either Whitecross or Aylestone. A Resolution to Grant Planning permission was moved and seconded on the basis that there were no other suitable and available sites;  the proposed redevelopment of the current site was viable, affordable and achievable; there was an overriding need for the development; that  the mitigation measures would reduce the impact on the neighbouring residents so that the impact would not then be significant; and the development would not prejudice amenity of the adjoining land. Therefore the development would be in accordance with Policies DR2 and CF5.

The Committee discussed the policy issues in respect of the application and came to the conclusion that the following Unitary Development Plan policies supported the proposal.

·         DR2 – As there was no better use for the land.

·         S11 – As the proposal would result in a community facility.

·         S1 – As the development was sustainable and met the growing need.

·         DR1 – In respect of land use and activity.

It was noted that there would be an impact on the three nearby dwellings who had objected to the application although it was considered that the impact could be mitigated through mature screening and landscaping. Further to this it was proposed and seconded that the three local residents who were most affected and who had objected to the application be consulted in respect of conditions to address their concerns. This consultation was to take place in conjunction with the Chairman and Local Ward Members.

Members discussed the possible increase of traffic on the site and felt that it would be negligible. It was further noted that traffic movements could be greatly increased if the school was relocated and the existing school used for a different purpose. Members also discussed the removal of the Portacabins currently on the site

In response to a question from the Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory), the mover of the motion to approve the application contrary to the recommendation contained within the report stated that the application would not result in a significant impact and was in accordance with  policies DR2 and CF5 and that any possible impact could be mitigated. It was also confirmed that the reasons for granting the application were need; the fact that there were no viable alternatives; the development was sustainable and that the proposal would result in a much needed community facility. In response to a further question the Member who had moved the recommendation confirmed that the wording of the decision notice be delegated to officers in consultation with the Chairman and Local Ward Members, and that the wording of the conditions also be delegated in the same manner but with the additional input from the three neighbouring residents who had objected to the application in relation to the specific design of the landscaping and mitigation package..

Councillors Preece, Rone and Chappell were given the opportunity to close the debate. They reiterated their opening remarks and made the following additional comments:

·         The decision to defer the application previously was correct as it resulted in a full report coming before the Committee.

·         The Council had a responsibility to vulnerable young people throughout the County.

·         The decision to include neighbouring residents in consultations in respect of the conditions was correct and welcomed.

·         Any screening should be done early in the process to ensure maximum benefit to neighbouring residents.

RESOLVED:

That officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to issue planning permission and to finalise the wording of the decision Notice in consultation with the Ward Councillors and the Chair of Planning Committee subject to:

1.         Any conditions considered necessary by officers including the removal of portacabins currently on the site (screening and landscaping conditions to be discharged in consultation with the three neighbouring residents who had objected to the application).