Proposed demolition of existing Infant and Junior Schools and construction of a new primary school.

The determination of the application was deferred pending further discussions with the applicant.

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, Mr Downey, representing some of the residents of Hereford Road, spoke in objection to the application.

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

·         The site visit had been beneficial to members in addressing concerns on the site.

·         The school was important for Leominster and had the full support of the local residents in principal, however there were a number of concerns that needed to be addressed.

·         The school will only accommodate the current number of pupils in the primary and junior schools, where would additional pupils be accommodated when numbers increase.

·         The government advice was set out in paragraph 2.2 and required the Council to be proactive in respect of planning for possible pupil numbers.

·         Flat roofs had caused problems in the past, could the committee be assured that the proposed roof would be fit for purpose with a long life expectancy.

·         The coloured tiles proposed for the main entrance needed to blend in and had to be considered carefully.

·         The area was prone to flooding and the flood issues did not seem to have been considered fully by the land drainage engineer.

·         Parking would continue to be an issue on Hereford Road, needed to look into additional parking. Existing School land at George Street could be considered for additional parking. This could be covered by a Section 106 agreement.

Councillor PJ McCaull, the other local ward member added that:

·         The schools clearly needed to be replaced and they had been allowed to depreciate during the 4-5 years that the application had been in discussion.

·         There will be double the amount of children using the one vehicular entrance to the school from Hereford Road.

·         Vital to retain some of the land for additional parking.

·         There was a significant amount of groundwork required to make the site suitable for development.

·         The proposed application was seriously lacking in sustainable features.

·         The design of the proposed school was of concern with reference made to the impressive design of the nearby Mortimer College.

·         There was a concern in respect of run-off water which needed to be addressed in order to alleviate any flooding concerns in the area. The small pool which had been proposed was not going to be able to take all of the water.

·         The applicants should consider a large underground water storage tank which could then be reused on the site.

·         The report mentioned that the roof was suitable for solar panels, these should be installed during the build.

·         The current proposals did not account for increased pupil numbers as a result of residential developments proposed for Leominster.

The Democratic Services Officer read out a letter received from Councillor FM Norman, who was unable to attend the meeting, voicing her concerns in respect of the application and requesting that it be refused.

Members noted that they had a duty to determine the application before them and that it was not their responsibility to act as the applicant in amending major factors of the application. They did however have a number of concerns which they felt should be addressed before they could determine the application.

The primary concerns were in respect of the proposed access to the school and the impact that a single access would have on the residents of Hereford Road. Members noted that a Travel Plan had not been submitted with the application and they were of the opinion that this was a matter that needed to be addressed prior to a permission being granted. In addition to the access issues Members had concerns regarding parking provision. It was considered that land at George Street, which would become vacant when the existing school was demolished, should be allocated for extra parking provision. It was noted that this could be achieved through a Section 106 Agreement.

The concerns in respect of the site as a whole were also discussed. The Committee noted that there would be a considerable amount of groundwork required before the site would be fit for development. The nature of the land, regarded as Grade 1 Agricultural Land by a number of sources, also gave the Committee concern. One Member questioned whether the site was in the correct location and whether it would be more suitably located nearer to the residential areas of Leominster.

The issue of surface water was also considered. Members noted that the previous 12 months had seen a number of areas throughout the County flood which had never been susceptible to flooding previously. The Committee requested that the applicant consider this fully when making provision for surface water run-off.

A further area which the Committee considered at length related to the lack of sustainable energy sources throughout the site. The Committee noted that the flat roof had been described as suitable for photovoltaic solar panels but were concerned that these had not been proposed to be installed during the construction phase. They also noted their concern in respect of the proposed ‘windcatchers’ which were considered to not be effective. The applicant was requested to consider fully any appropriate renewable energy sources which could be effectively incorporated into the development. Members were of the opinion that the Council should be leading the way in respect of sustainable developments.

A motion to refuse the application was seconded, however, following further discussion the mover and seconder of the motion withdrew it in favour of deferring determination of the application for further discussions with the applicant.

One Member of the Committee noted the concerns of the Committee but drew their attention to the current infant and junior school, which in his opinion, were in desperate need of replacing. He was concerned that any delay could jeopardise the project and requested that it be approved.

Members continued to debate the application and continued to express their concerns in respect of any future expansion of the school. They noted that Government guidance required local authorities to plan for the future when determining school sizes. They requested clarification as to whether the school would be able to expand with future increased pupil rolls.

After noting the concerns of the Committee, the Development Manager (Northern Localities) advised that a deferral of the determination of the application would send a clear message to the applicant. In response to questions asked during the debate he advised that the school did have provision to be expanded should there be a future need; that there would be a school travel plan to encourage cycling and walking; that the land identified at George Street could be investigated for access and parking; and that technical developments meant that flat roofs were no longer problematic.

In response to a further question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that both the existing infant and junior schools were located in the area of the town that the proposed school would be in and that housing in Leominster was spread throughout the town.

Councillors RC Hunt and PJ McCaull were given the opportunity to close the debate. They reiterated their opening remarks and thanked the Committee for debating the application thoroughly.

RESOLVED:

THAT the determination of the application be deferred pending further discussions with the applicant.