Change of use to small school for pupils 11-16 years.

Change of use to small school for pupils 11-16 years.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Mower spoke against the application and Mr. Starkey spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Mrs. P.A. Andrews, a Local Member, noted that consideration of this application had been deferred at the last meeting to enable further discussions to take place with local residents.  Councillor Andrews noted that, whilst meetings had taken place, there did not appear to be a meeting of minds and that local residents remained very concerned about the impact of this application on the locality.  Councillor Mrs. Andrews felt that the proposed use was inappropriate in this location, particularly given highway safety concerns, fears about the potential for increased tensions and disturbances in the area, and the lack of recreation space for the pupils.  For these reasons, she proposed that the application be refused as she felt it conflicted with policy H12 (Established Residential Areas – Character and Amenity) of the Hereford Local Plan. 

Councillor Ms. A.M. Toon, a Local Member, also spoke about the misgivings of local residents.

The Legal Practice Manager clarified that fear or apprehension of wrongdoing was not a material planning consideration but impact on residential amenity was a potential reason for refusal.

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas questioned the suitability of the site for this use and felt that it would not offer the opportunities for development that the pupils deserved.

Councillor A.C.R. Chappell felt that there were no planning grounds to warrant refusal, noted the good reputation of Clifford House and expressed his regret that some representations had been negative about the vulnerable people that would benefit from this proposal.  He did not accept that public order would be significantly affected by the proposal, particularly given the applicant’s assertions about the teaching ratio and transportation arrangements.  Councillor Chappell noted the problems being experienced in the community but stressed that it had nothing to do with these pupils.

Councillor Mrs. J.E. Pemberton felt it vitally important that all points of view were considered and felt it unfortunate that more Members had not taken up the invitation to visit the applicant’s school in Leominster.

Councillor Mrs. S.P.A. Daniels, a Local Member, expressed concern that the proposed school might not follow state school term dates and, therefore, there was potential for traffic congestion over longer periods than usual.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that there was no indication of the start and end times of the educational day but this could be controlled through a condition.

Councillor Mrs. E.M. Bew commented that she had professional experience of children with learning difficulties and that, whilst residents often had very strong reservations at first, the perceptions of people often changed once such schools had become established.

Councillor Mrs. W.U. Attfield felt that there were no good planning reasons for refusal.  Councillor Mrs. Attfield noted concerns about traffic problems in the area and questioned whether the start and end times of the educational day could be staggered to avoid disruption and congestion with other schools in the area; she added that there were significant vehicular movements associated with the previous uses of the site.  Councillor Mrs. Attfield noted the community problems that needed to be addressed but felt that these would not go away if the school did not open and were unlikely to be exacerbated if it did.

Councillor D.B. Wilcox noted that many of the concerns centred around issues related to congestion at opening and closing times and proposed that Officers be authorised to negotiate times with Clifford House which would both take into account the operation of the school and the fears and concerns of local residents.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the Traffic Manager had commented that the extant use for offices was likely to be a higher overall generation of traffic over a working day than the proposed use.  The Principal Planning Officer also advised the Sub-Committee of the risk of costs being awarded against the Authority if the application was refused and an appeal by the applicant was successful. 

In order to take local residents’ and Members’ concerns into account, the Principal Planning Officer suggested that Officers be authorised to approve the application, in consultation with the Local Members and the Chairman, to approve the application subject to: a temporary two-year period to assess the impact of the use; a travel plan being required; a condition to be placed on usage times; and a condition to stagger opening and closing times to minimise disruption.

A motion to refuse the application was lost and the following resolution was then approved.

RESOLVED:

That Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers, in consultation with the Local Members and the Chairman, be authorised to approve the application subject to the following conditions and any further conditions or agreements felt to be necessary by Officers.

1.      A01 (Time limit for commencement (full permission)).

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.      A06 (Development in accordance with approved plans).

         Reason: To ensure adherence to the approved plans in the interests of a satisfactory form of development.

3.      The premises shall be used for up to 15 pupils.

         Reason: In order to clarify the terms of the permission and in accordance with the applicant's letter dated 8th December 2004.

Informative:

1.         N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC.