Agenda item

Permanent one form of entry expansion comprising two storey extension to the existing Earl Building to provide additional teaching and supporting accommodation; demolition of existing ‘Woodlands Building’ and erection of a replacement two storey standalone block comprising teaching and supporting accommodation; permanent retention of two demountable classroom units; modification of existing Main Building and Performing Arts Building elevations to provide new external windows and doors to suit altered internal layout and ventilation strategy; and associated external works and landscaping.

Officers:

Dawn Horton-Baker (Development Management Team Leader)

Ronald Musasiwa (Assistant Transport Development Planning Officer)

Caroline Smith, Planning Group Manager

Stephen Jenkins, Planning Development Manager

Helen Forbes, Senior Solicitor

Joss Butler, Committee Manager

Speakers:

None.

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    Officers introduced the report and provided a brief summary. Members noted that the application was for a permanent one form of entry expansion comprising two storey extension to the existing Earl Building to provide additional teaching and supporting accommodation; demolition of existing ‘Woodlands Building’ and erection of a replacement two storey standalone block comprising teaching and supporting accommodation; permanent retention of two demountable classroom units; modification of existing Main Building and Performing Arts Building elevations to provide new external windows and doors to suit altered internal layout and ventilation strategy; and associated external works and landscaping.

2.    The officer also informed Members that:

a.    Within the update sheet, under ‘Recommendation’, the text should state ‘Amend Condition 4…’ instead of ‘Amend Condition 3…’. 

b.    That an additional condition which included a three year time limit would be included.

c.     That the following underlined additional two words needed to be added to Condition 2: ‘there shall be no construction related deliveries’. 

d.    Clarified that there were minor typos within the informatives.

3.    Members noted that there had been five letters of objection and one petition which were largely related to existing highways problems. Officers further stated that the issues already existed and that there were no additional pupils joining the school as a result of the application. Officers went on to provide a summary of the report.

4.    A Member stated that they had not seen any significantly concerning issues around highways and also that they did not feel the current application would make the highways situation worse. The Member also raised concern that additional bulge classes may be implemented going forward which would be an issue as the school did not currently have the facilities to accommodate. Officers stated that Members could consider attaching an additional condition which stated something similar to: ‘The development hereby approved shall be used to facilitate the permanent expansion of St Andrews School to an 8 Form of Entry school with a 250 place sixth form only and no additional increases to the Forms of Entry (including bulge classes) shall occur without the consent of the County Planning Authority’.

5.    A Member stated that the highways issues highlight in the application were similar to the highways issues occurring at every school in Surrey. It was also said that the council had the responsibility to provide educational places and that there needed to be changes to schools to facilitate that.

6.    Members said that the county needed to plan appropriately for its educational needs. The Member also said that, during the site visit, the head teacher had stated that some classes were being held in the school hall.

7.    A Member asked whether other options had been explored to provide facilities for the bulge class without significantly impacting the footprint of the school which was within the green belt. Officers stated that the County Planners did not actively involve themselves with the architectural detail of the application however it was clear that additional space was needed to facilitate the bulge classes.

8.    The Committee discussed details of the transport plan where it was asked whether the local authority and parents had been engaged for consultation. Officers stated it was the responsibility of the local district authority to engage on the transport plan. The Chairman stated that he, along with the local Member, would have another conversation with the district council enforcement team on the matter.

9.    Officers provided an explanation on what was meant by ‘supporting accommodation’. Officers stated that this included facilities such as toilets, staff rooms, breakout rooms and laboratories. 

Actions / further information to be provided:

None.

Resolved:

It was agreed that, pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and County Planning General Regulations 1992, planning application ref: MO/2021/1087 be PERMITTED subject to a condition similar to the condition discussed within paragraph 4 of these minutes and conditions from page 40 of the agenda.