The erection of a part one, part two and part three storey building to provide a 5-form entry junior school, with two all-weather sports pitches, a MUGA pitch, a hard play area with netball court, and provision of car parking spaces and provision of a new internal access road with a new egress point on to Cockshot Hill, with associated hard and soft landscaping and off-site highways works.
Minutes:
Officers:
Caroline Smith (Planning Group Manager)
Sonia Sharp (Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor)
Stephen Jenkins (Planning Development Manager)
Dawn Horton Baker (Planning Development Team Leader)
Tricia Gurney (Principal Transport Development Planning Officer) – Attended virtually
Speakers:
Sophia Oliver spoke on behalf of Chris Morris and made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:
Luke Carter made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:
1. That he was a planning consultant, a chartered town planner and a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute for over 20 years. He was speaking on behalf of the residents of The Belvederes which was a development of houses and apartments immediately adjacent to the site of the proposed school.
2. As the immediate neighbours to the site, the residents of The Belvederes would be the most severely impacted by the development. Their homes would be 25 metres from the proposed building and, in some areas, the new school grounds would be immediately outside their living room windows.
3. That the building would stand 16 metres taller than the ground floor of the flats and houses in The Belvederes.
4. That 16 metres was roughly equivalent to the height of a five storey office block and that the building would be nearly 80 metres long.
5. That the proposed materials of the main block were a striking red and dark grey cladding in a random pattern which bears no reference to any local building material and made no attempt to blend in within its surroundings. The building’s materials increased the building’s prominence and its incongruous appearance within the historic grounds of the locally listed building.
6. In regard to impact on residents, over 40 windows and doors were proposed on the east side of the building looming over the houses, flats and gardens and looking down on occupiers of The Belvederes and their private gardens which would result in an unacceptable impact on their privacy.
7. That, not only would the loss of privacy be unacceptable and harmful, the sheer bulk height and scale of the proposed building would result in loss of sunlight and a substantial increase in overshadowing to the homes and gardens.
8. That a note from the officer report stated that there had been no analysis of overshadowing submitted with the planning application. This was unacceptable and contrary to both building planning requirements.
9. That it was not only the building itself that would be harmful to the occupiers of The Belvederes as the proposed sports pitches would be located next to The Belvederes and the land, just beyond their ground floor windows, would be raised up by 1.5 metres to provide a level pitch.
10. That noisy sports pitches would be used everyday up to 8pm.
11. That the proposed new entrance path through the school would cause noise and disturbance by pupils, parents and staff walking to and from the school, from the east entrance on Hornbeam Road.
12. That the raised path would have a 2.4 metre-high mesh fence all along the boundary on top of the raised ground so that the top of the fence would be 4 metres higher than the ground floor level of the adjacent homes. This was unacceptable and would be incredibly harmful to the occupiers of these homes.
13. That matters of visual impact, unacceptable design and materials, loss of privacy, loss of amenity, harm to living conditions were key concerns of the immediate neighbours.
14. That the impacts of the proposal would be so harmful that it would be wholly unreasonable for the committee to grant planning permission.
Jonathan Higton spoke on behalf of Katherine Black and made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:
Stuart Nicholson made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:
Greg Ardan made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:
On behalf of the applicant, Ed Furse (Regional Head South East and South West England, Department for Education), Liz Mills (Director for Education, Surrey County Council), David Holdaway (Director, Velocity Transport Planning) and Oliver Moses (Headteacher, Reigate Priory Junior School) spoke in response to the objector’s comments. The following key points were made:
Ed Furse
Liz Mils
David Holdaway
The Chairman highlighted that, in line with the speaking process, the speakers, speaking on behalf of the applicant, were allowed 15 minutes in total to address the committee.
Oliver Moses
The Local Member, Catherine Baart, made the following comments:
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Planning Development Team Leader introduced the report and highlighted that an update sheet was circulated and published on 21 February 2023. Members noted that the update sheet included reference to:
a. Three letters received. One referred to a freedom of information request. The documents sent by the representor were attached to the update sheet which related to pre-application meetings that were held between the DfE and Reigate and Banstead Borough Council prior to the application. The officer’s reading of the documents was that there was no appropriate acceptable development being put forward on the existing site and that a development could not be easily accommodated next to a Grade 1 listed building within a conservation area. Very special circumstances could not be proven within the Green Belt if it was shown that there was another site elsewhere. The officer further stated that she disagreed with the previous speaker’s conclusion that there was an acceptable alternative elsewhere.
b. Reworded conditions
c. Three additional conditions
2. The introduction provided by the Planning Development Team Leader is attached to these minutes at Appendix 1.
3. Cllr Mallet said that he had researched the proposal online and found comments made by Reigate and Banstead Council, parents and a statement by the Headteacher. He also attended the school and had a meeting with the headmaster, who did not try to persuade him in any way, but had the current situation explained to him. The Member said that following conversations he would consider the school to be an excellent school however, there were issues with the current classrooms. The Member noted that the objections were mainly around the loss of open space, traffic issues, heritage assets, a dislike of the new location on the A217 being a busy road. The Member further noted issues related to the suitability of the current building which included narrow fire escapes, small kitchens and classrooms, high energy costs and the general condition of the building. The Member went on to say that the educationalists had decided what they require and that it was not for the committee to decide this on their behalf. The Member noted that there were conflicts between parents and some of the local population and education, issues related to heritage of the present school, The interest of future pupils should be considered and that the headteacher had a particular interest in the interests of disabled pupils which could not currently be accommodated in the current building. The Member said that he considered the current building to be inadequate for present educational purposes and that there was an opportunity to place the school in a modern environment, and that the main concern of the Member was the safety of pupils. The Member stated that he was concerned with Condition 9, as there was an opportunity to provide a fairly sustainable pick up and drop off process, and would propose an amendment to amend Condition 9 to allow the pick up and drop off road to be open to all parents rather than a select few. The Member further said that the proposed plan to have parents park on the nearby residential estate was not adequate.
4. Cllr Powell said that the alternative site assessment stated that an alternative site needed to be greater than five hectares however the proposed site was 2.4 hectares. Furthermore, the alternative site assessment stated that the proposed site needed to be within 2 miles of the existing site, and that she wondered why this was, as the Local Transport Plan reference ’20 minute communities’, and that she would have expected a map which included the existing school catchment areas, for all of the schools in Reigate, rather than within 2 miles, to be included. Section 547 of the Transport Assessment stated it was anticipated that over time, in addition to the fact that the HCIS PAN was reducing by one form entry, that the catchment would move further to the South, however there was no map of the existing schools in the area. In regard to maps 5.1 and 5.2 of the Transport Assessment, the Member said that it was interesting to note that the two maps were on different scales and that they did not show the existing pupil population in the same way. The existing school map showed the existing pupils as different sizes of circles on the map. Map 5.2, which was reported to show the same data, did not show the same information and, when overlayed, were different. The Member asked, with the permission of the Chairman, to circulate a map which did overlay the two profiles of walking distance on each other and also showed where the existing school was. The Member said, when looking at where the existing schools were, that there was an infant school in the north of Reigate, there were no other schools to the north that would allow the catchment of the proposed school to move south. And that it would lead to a significant number of children with no school to attend. The Member further said that one of the speakers, Liz Mills, spoke about ensuring the current geographical intake was not disadvantaged, however the Member said that they felt this would happen with the proposal. The Chairman agreed that the maps would be circulated. The document circulated is attached to these minutes as Appendix 2. The Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor spoke to the Chairman and suggested that Cllr Powell explain whether there was a physical difference within the plan circulated compared with the plan within the report, to elaborate on the point being made on the new plan, and that the applicant, perhaps through the planning officer, received a copy of the circulated plan. The Member said that map 5.1 showed the current pupil postcode locations, and their proximity to the existing school, which showed that 82% of pupils lived within one mile of the existing school, and therefore it would be expected that the majority of the pupils would travel by non-car means, The Member added that the centre of Reigate was relatively flat and that attendees would need to travel up a hill to reach the proposed location. In regard to the second page of the document, the Member said that it included a map of the current site and a map of the proposed site, and that it was reported to be on the same basis but, the second map of the proposed site, showed all of the clusters of the numbers of children as the same size dot, but when the dots were compared, they were not the same.
5. Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor highlighted that, for those watching the webcast, the maps circulated could be accessed by clicking a tab on the webpage titled ‘slides’.
6. Cllr Powell continued her point and said that, in regard to the third page of the document, this included where the existing state schools were in the area. In regard to the final page of the document, the background slide was map 5.1 from the Transport Assessment, the yellow circles were existing infant schools, the red circles were existing junior schools, the blue circles were existing primary schools and the green circles were existing secondary schools. The Member said that there was a secondary school that, broadly speaking, served the north and centre of town, and that there was a secondary school that broadly served the south of the town. The red line was the one mile walking distance of the existing school and the blue line was the one-mile walking distance of the proposed school location. The Member further said that the was no school for pupils to the north of the red line that would be within one mile as there was no school there. Therefore, for the Transport Assessment to state that it was envisaged that the catchment area of the school would move south over time was flawed as there was no school for pupils to attend that was within a one mile walking distance. The Member added that she was also concerned that the walk to the proposed site was uphill and that she had doubts that the proposed site was in an appropriate location. It was further said that she understood the concerns related to the existing school, as she was educated in a school that was in bad condition, but that it was the teachers that made it a special place. Concerns were that the proposed site was not sustainable and that the Transport Assessment was flawed as it did not consider where the other schools were located.
7. Cllr Rivers said that she agreed with the points raised by Cllr Powell and that the issues with traffic, congestion and parking and their impact on pupils walking to school, did not convince her that the proposed site was the right site for a new school. Further to this, the Member said that she did not believe the building’s design to be elegant or playful.
8. In regard to the document circulated by Cllr Powell, the Planning Development Team Leader said that it included information on where the current pupil population lived, but that Members should consider pupils in the future, as the school would not be built for a number of years, and that it was difficult to say that there would not be more pupils attending from the south of the catchment. The Education Authority, the Highways Authority, the DfE and the existing school had said that the proposed site was in an acceptable location that met the standard required, and therefore she could not give weight to the comment made.
9. In regard to the homes within The Belvederes, Cllr Lewis said that, as they were close to the proposed new school, he had not seen any legitimate interest assessments which considered risks related to being close to the school and the impact on noise levels. The Member further said that they felt the design of the building was not in keeping with the local area, and there were risks related to the volume of children walking up the hill towards the proposed site. In addition, the Member said that there would be an increased risk to children’s lives due to the number of attendees driving to Woodhatch Place. In regard to the environmental impact, the Member said that the proposal would have a negative impact. In regard to comments related to potential changes to the catchment area in the future, the Member said that Members were unable to assume the future local plan of the area. The Member went on to say that, after considering the report, they did not feel the proposed site was the right place for the school.
10. Cllr Lewanski said that more discussion should have been had on the potential to redevelop the 1950’s block next to the existing school. The Member further added that a select committee report from 2021 said that the primary purpose of the purchase of Woodhatch Place site was to relocate the primary school and to provide land for the provision of extra care, and that he felt this meant that there was no choice but to move the school’s location. In regard to the Alternative Site Assessment, the Member said that it did not include detail on why sites were not selected. The Member said that he felt the report was skewed toward building the new school on the Woodhatch Site. In regard to a noise assessment, the Member said that there was no detail in the report regarding the number of decibels other than it cannot exceed 35 decibels. According to his own research from a Nottingham County Council noise assessment, the Member said that a playground of 200 children would make 66.5 decibels and asked why detail on a noise assessment had not been included within the report. Furthermore, the Member said that the report stated that the playground would only be used for school purposes, however later in the report it stated that the playground would be available after 5pm. This could mean that local people could be impacted by noise up to 8pm.
11. In regard to Cllr Mallet’s comment regarding Condition 9, the Principal Transport Development Planning Officer said that the drop off zone was limited as the Safer Routes to School Team prefer not to have drop off zones within schools as they generally lead to more problems and can cause parents to queue on the public highway.
12. In regard to Cllr Lewis’ comment regarding noise, the Planning Development Team Leader said that comments on this were included on pages 92 and 93 of the report. In regard to Cllr Lewanski’s comment on the same issue, the officer said that there would be a degree of noise from playground use, and that a noise assessment was submitted by the applicant but it was not currently clear what mitigation could be put in place to reduce the impact on the local homes. A condition had been suggested which, in consultation with The Belvederes, looked towards providing additional screening and landscaping along the southern boundary of the site to a degree where there would be no loss of privacy and reduce the impact of noise. The officer further said that having a school next to a development was not necessarily unacceptable and that the degree of harm was considered appropriate if limited within school time usage. The officer highlighted that the Member may have confused the condition which referred to the use of the school building after school hours as appropriate, with the condition relating to the external play area. There would be conditions restricting the use of the playing pitches.
13. In regard to issues related to the catchment area, the Planning Development Team Leader said that she was guided by the Education Authority, but as a planning officer, would not challenge the point as she would not consider the distance change to be inappropriate when considering the future, and that she believed that the site was an appropriate site for the school.
14. In regard to comments made regarding the building of the new school close to the existing site on the 1950’s block, the Planning Development Team Leader said that the update sheet included reference to a meeting between the DfE and Reigate and Banstead Council where the replacement of the building was considered but the officers of the borough council said no and that a three storey building could not be accommodated on the site. The officer further said that she was not convinced that the existing site could accommodate a new school that met the requirements of the Education Authority.
15. In regard to the noise assessment, the Planning Development Team Leader said that noise readings had not been taken from inside of the site of The Belvederes which was the reason why a condition had been included. Cllr Lewanski said that the figures should be available before the committee make a decision. The officer said that she did not consider the impact caused by noise during playtimes during school hours to be a significant issue however it was a residential amenity issue that could be mitigated by conditions.
16. In regard to screening, the Planning Development Team Leader said that they had not suggested that screening would cover the whole building, nor were they suggesting a need to do that, as there is an expectation of visual impact in most planning applications, but that there was the potential for conditions to mitigate, allowing an acceptable balance.
17. In regard to air quality, Cllr Lewanski referenced paragraph 220 of the report, which stated that proposal was not giving rise to completely new vehicle trip generation, and that the operational traffic impacts on the proposed development on local air quality were not significant, however within bullet point 2 of paragraph 18, it stated that 29.8% of pupils currently travelled to school by car and that it would increase to 52.7%. The Member said that this was therefore new trip generation. The Planning Development Team Leader said that she did not disagree with the conclusion however air quality was considered within the building and the adjacent sites, so although increased car movements was a material consideration, it was not a significant factor in the application. Cllr Lewanski did not agree with the officer’s conclusion. Cllr Rivers added that she also did not agree as children would be walking on the pavement while breathing the pollution.
18. Cllr Boparai said that the transport assessment was flawed as was the opposite of what the council was aiming for, putting more children at risk, and was unacceptable. In regard to the new building, the Member added that a building needed ‘soul’, and further asked whether a cost assessment had been undertaken to consider upgrading the current school. Furthermore he said that, as a parent of a primary school child, he felt the proposal was unrealistic.
19. Cllr Lewanski queried an inaccuracy within the report on page 157. The officer highlighted that the paragraph had been deleted within the update sheet.
20. In regard to the pick-up / drop-off road, Cllr Powell asked what would happen if the barrier did not rise to a car as it was not on the agreed list. The Member added that there would be no way to turn around which would cause traffic to build up. The Principal Transport Development Planning Officer said that it would be something for the school to monitor and manage, and that she would hope that a member of staff would be present at the gate to manage issues. The officer added that this was one of the issues of drop off / pick up roads within a school site.
21. Cllr Harmer said in his view the main issues were the protection of residential amenity and requested information on where the new exit would be. Members highlighted the area within a map.
The Chairman adjourned the meeting for 15 minutes
22. The Chairman stated that he knew the area well, and that there was no ideal site for the school, and that the committee had received comments from the Education Authority, advisors, the headteacher, which said that a new, upgraded school was needed. There were obvious issues around access and transport, and that he agreed with Cllr Mallet regarding amending Condition 9, and that changes to the public transport offer were required, as no bus stopped outside the site. The Chairman further commented that a new school was never popular.
23. The Planning Group Manager stated that officers understood the issue related to parents having to travel further to reach the school, but that the alternative site assessment was carried out and the proposed site was the only site available. In regard to the transport assessment, the officer further said that the Highway Authority was satisfied that the Transport Assessment was robust and was based on the current homes of pupils and was therefore a fair reflection on what the likely impact would be.
24. The Planning Group Manager confirmed that the application had been considered by officers completely independently of the education department.
25. Cllr Powell asked if the education department had considered the catchment area issue for the proposed site and believed that the new site could serve the same catchment area as the existing infant school. The Planning Group Manager said that she was unaware of the process undertaken to justify the school, but as the applicant was promoting the school, she assumed that they were happy with it. The Chairman added that, as the Headteacher had spoken in favour of the proposal, it should be assumed that he was aware of the catchment area issue.
26. The Chairman said that he agreed with Cllr Mallet’s point regarding amending Condition 9 of the report, and that he felt the public transport issue, which related to there being no buses which stop outside the new site, should be addressed within an informative.
27. The Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor stated that the application should be considered as submitted and on its own merits, and that there could be an issue if the proposed amendment to the condition was agreed but the school did not want to change it. Cllr Mallet responded that he felt that the committee could amend the conditions of the application that was being decided.
28. The Planning Development Team Leader said that she felt confident that the applicant would provide a considered response, however she felt uncomfortable with saying that the 26 drop off spaces could be used to accommodate the population of the school at peak times, and that allowing this could promote the use of a car.
29. Cllr Mallet proposed an amendment to Condition 9, which was to remove the bullet point which stated ‘Details of the criteria to be used for school pupils to be eligible for the use the proposed drop off and pick up spaces.’, and to include an informative related to improving the public transport available to the site, The Chairman also added that he wished to agree the conditions with the Vice-Chairman outside the meeting.
30. The Planning Group Manager said that, as this was a Regulation 3 application, there was no right of appeal, and therefore if the applicant was not in agreement with the amended conditions, then the application would need to return to the committee for consideration.
31. The Chairman moved Cllr Mallet’s proposal, as outlined in paragraph 29 of these minutes, which received five votes for, zero against, and 5 abstentions. Therefore, it was carried.
32. The Chairman moved the recommendation for approval with the amended condition, which received four votes for, five against, and 1 abstention. Therefore, it was lost.
33. The Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor advised that the committee conduct a further vote to confirm the intention to refuse and the reasons for such a refusal. The Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor further confirmed that, if Members were minded to come to the view to refuse, then, as per the usual procedure, the application would be referred back to the applicant with the grounds for refusal which would apply were the application to be determined.
The Chairman adjourned the meeting for 10 minutes
34. Cllr Lewanski moved a motion that the committee was minded to refuse, seconded by Cllr Powell, with the reasons for refusal being:
a. the basis of the alternative site assessment is contrary to Surrey County Council Local Transport Plan 4 as it looked only at two miles from the existing school and did not give priority to active travel.
b. the scale and design of the extension poorly relates to the parkland and surrounding buildings, which, combined with the sheer mass and materials of the building, together with a new fencing to Cockshot Road, would harm the character and appearance of the area.
c. the proposal would give rise to a harmful increase in traffic and congestion, together with highway safety concerns associated with the movement of children along narrow footways and across roads, including the internal access road, as well as inconsiderate parking in neighbouring streets, in particular Hornbeam Road, where it was proposed to have pedestrian access.
d. That there were severe impacts upon the amenities of neighbouring properties from adverse noise, light pollution or overbearing impacts, specifically in regard to The Belvederes.
35. The Planning Development Team Leader asked for clarification on reason for refusal A. Cllr Powell explained that concerns were related to the movement of the site which caused the catchment area to overlap with other schools and left an area of the town with no school. Furthermore, they felt that Surrey County Council Local Transport Plan 4 required 15 or 20 minute communities and that it was important for communities to have access to a school that increased active travel and reduced the need to drive. Therefore the site assessment conducted was contrary to Surrey County Council Local Transport Plan 4.
36. Cllr Mallet said that the committee was a planning committee and not an education committee and therefore catchment areas should not be a consideration of the committee.
37. Cllr Lewanski moved a motion that the committee was minded to refuse, seconded by Cllr Powell, with the reasons of refusal being:
a. the basis of the alternative site assessment is contrary to Surrey County Council Local Transport Plan 4 as it looked only at two miles from the existing school and did not give priority to active travel.
b. the scale and design of the extension poorly relates to the Parkland and surrounding buildings, which, combined with the sheer mass and materials of the building, together with a new fencing to Cockshot Road, would harm the character and appearance of the area.
c. the proposal would give rise to a harmful increase in traffic and congestion, together with highways safety concerns associated with the movement of children along narrow footways and across roads, including the internal access road, as well as inconsiderate parking in neighbouring streets, in particular Hornbeam Road, where it was proposed to have pedestrian access.
d. That there were severe impacts upon the amenities of neighbouring properties from adverse noise, light pollution or overbearing impacts, specifically in regard to The Belvederes.
38. The Chairman asked for a show of hands on the proposal and then requested that another vote be taken as the vote was split five for and five against. A final vote was taken, and the motion received five votes for, four against and one abstention, therefore the motion to be minded to refuse was carried.
39. The Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor explained that the application would be referred back to the applicant with the grounds for refusal which would apply were the application to be determined. It was then open to the applicant to return the application to committee for determination with revisions or without revisions, or to withdraw the application.
Actions / Further information to be provided:
None.
Resolved:
The Planning and Regulatory Committee was minded to refuse the application and therefore, in accordance with the Constitution of the County Council, the application was referred back to the applicant for the following reasons:
a. the basis of the alternative site assessment is contrary to Surrey County Council Local Transport Plan 4 as it looked only at two miles from the existing school and did not give priority to active travel.
b. the scale and design of the extension poorly relates to the Parkland and surrounding buildings, which, combined with the sheer mass and materials of the building, together with a new fencing to Cockshot Road, would harm the character and appearance of the area.
c. the proposal would give rise to a harmful increase in traffic and congestion, together with highways safety concerns associated with the movement of children along narrow footways and across roads, including the internal access road, as well as inconsiderate parking in neighbouring streets, in particular Hornbeam Road, where it was proposed to have pedestrian access.
d. That there were severe impacts upon the amenities of neighbouring properties from adverse noise, light pollution or overbearing impacts, specifically in regard to The Belvederes.
Supporting documents: