Agenda item

Demolition of a vacant single storey building formerly used as elderly persons accommodation and erection of a part single, part two storey building to provide new classroom support accommodation for primary and secondary pupils; staff facilities; construction of a Multi-Use Games Area; car parking spaces; associated hard and soft landscaping and associated works.

Officers:

Katie Rayner, Principal Planning Officer

Sian Saadeh, Planning Development Manager

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

James Lehane, Principal Transport Development Planning Officer

 

Officer Introduction:

 

Officers introduced the report, and updates sheet, and provided an overview of the application and relevant highways details. Members noted that the proposal was for the demolition of a vacant single storey building formerly used as elderly persons accommodation and erection of a part single, part two storey building to provide new classroom support accommodation for primary and secondary pupils; staff facilities; construction of a Multi-Use Games Area; car parking spaces; associated hard and soft landscaping and associated works.

 

It was noted that further correspondence had been received from the RH29 Community Group including comments on the content of the officer report, recommended conditions should permission be granted, and a report from a senior clinical lecturer in paediatric and mental health. Further representations had also been received from members of the public. Officers had reviewed the information and concluded that they did not raise any material matters which had not already been reflected or discussed within the officer report. In addition, should planning permission be granted, changes had been proposed to two conditions, with two additional informatives, as outlined in the update sheet.

 

Speakers:

 

1.    Kate Fairhurst spoke in objection to the application and made the following points:

 

a.    That she was opposed to the application

b.    That the location of the college on Park Hall Road was gravely inadequate for the schools proposed traffic load. The extra pressure placed on Park Hall Road and surrounding roads would be enormous.

c.     That adequate provision was needed for the supervised pick-up and drop-off. The speaker did not feel the site offered sufficient coverage as per the Department for Education (DfE) BB104 Guidance.

d.    That, given the wide catchment of the proposed college, it was reasonable to assume that individual taxis for students would be used, and that, in the worst case, there could be 62 – 72 taxis, twice a day, accessing the quite residential cul-de-sac.

e.    That the speaker felt the site was not compliant with the Council’s own standards for the width of the school access road and was contrary to Reigate and Banstead Borough Council’s DES1 Policy requiring adequate provision for access. 

f.      In regard to air quality, a report from a Senior Clinical Lecturer at Queen Mary University had concluded that the proposed site would create air pollution significantly above World Health Organisation limits and would therefore be highly detrimental to students health.

g.    That Policy DES9 at Reigate and Banstead Council required a design to minimise the occupant’s exposure to air pollution.

h.    That, in the speakers view, the site was wholly inappropriate in both transportation and air quality terms.

 

No Members raised any points for clarification.

 

2.    Michael Mamalis spoke in objection to the application and made the following points:

 

a.    That the need to improve Surrey’s alternative provision (AP) was clear however the council was in danger of losing sight of the young people they were trying to serve.

b.    The speaker stated that, as an Architect for 20 years, he had studied the proposal with increasing alarm.

c.     That, due to closures elsewhere, the site would take 30% of Surrey’s AP provision and would be the largest in the county.

d.    That the amalgamation of three campuses in one location would bring together 5 to 16-year-olds, each with their own varied and distinct health and behavioural needs, which would complicate safeguarding issues. 

e.    That the Council had stated that 72 pupils would be the maximum number of pupils at the site however officers stated that they did not feel there was a need to restrict pupil numbers and hours of use by condition.

f.      That the BB104 Guidance recommends a site area, where playing organised sports are involved, should be between 1.4 – 1.8 Hectares. Park Hall was 7 Hectares with a usable area for 6 Hectares. It was added that the proposed pupil area was 15% less than the existing site.

g.    That the application site was too small to meet the BB104 Guidance.

h.    In regard to air quality, a report from a Senior Clinical Lecturer at Queen Mary University had concluded that the proposed site would create air pollution significantly above World Health Organisation limits.

i.      That, due to the combination of size limitations and environmental conditions, the sport facilities could only be included in the most polluted area of the site.

 

A Member sought further information on the size of the proposal in comparison to other relevant schools. 

 

3.    John Aitchison spoke in objection to the application and made the following points:

 

a.    That he was speaking on behalf of hundreds of parents with children aged 10 and under who fear for their children’s health and lives when walking to school in a polluted area.

b.    Applauded the council for seeking to build a leading educational facility for children who require additional support.

c.     That the proposed development would fail students and irreversibly damage the lives of those living, traveling or playing in the area.

d.    Highlighted the damage caused by additional vehicles in the private and public roads surrounding the proposed development and invited the County’s Highways Authority to make a new traffic assessment or alternatively to find a new venue to the provision of education. 

 

No Members raised any points for clarification.

 

4.    Christopher William John Seldon spoke in objection to the application and made the following points:

 

a.    Asked Members of the Committee to reject the application.

b.    Highlighted the negative impact the proposed application would have on surrounding neighbours and their health.

c.     Highlighted that young children would live near the proposed site and be badly affected by the worsening pollution if the project moves forward.

d.    That Park Hall Road would be affected by extra traffic, lack of replacement trees, lack of noise protection, and the out of keeping industrial design of the proposal. The height of the proposal and additional height due to solar panels was also raised.

e.    That the education provision was needed in the county but would be better situated in another area due to faults with the current application.

f.      That the Planning Report had not provided an updated project cost for the development.

g.    That approval of the project would open councillors to the threat of legal action.

h.    Asked Members to reject the proposal and demand a new application on another site which could offer less pollution, more space, better teaching facilities, safer access and lower cost.

 

On behalf of applicant, Dave Euridge, Inclusive Education Trust, David Holdaway, Velocity Transport Planners, Mark Ellson, Holmes Miller Architects and Lucy Mortimer, Teacher at RVC

made the following points:

 

Dave Euridge, Inclusive Education Trust

1. That he was representing families, staff, local schools and pupils to advocate for the planning permission.
2. That the community urgently needed a purpose bult alternative facility that met complex needs of pupils.
3. That alternative provision schools improved pupil’s future life chances by providing specialist support at an early age, enabling them to return more quickly and successfully to full time education with their friends and siblings in the local community.
4. Reigate Valley College currently operated across three small sites, providing 12 primary and 60 secondary schools places. The current buildings are not fit for purpose as they are in poor condition which is likely to render them unusable within two years. They are too small to support the full cohort and lack the required facilities and space to provide a suitable learning environment to offer a full primary and secondary curriculum.
5. Park Hall Road was the perfect site for Reigate Valley College and has been stablished as the only technically and financially viable option to meet the site requirements within the available budget.
6. Benefits include that pupils could attend school closer to home and rooted in their local community, develop independent travel skills to use more sustainable means of travel, have adequate space on site to accommodate all school transport arrangements, a safer school site that maintains high standards of routine. safety, structure and supervision, direct access to open areas for therapeutic support, specialist teaching and learning facilities, architectural design that creates space and resources for flexible teaching,

 

A Member sought clarification on how the site was identified. The speaker stated that it was a collaboration between Surrey County Council and Inclusive Education Trust. The speaker also highlighted that the Sidlow site was located on a floodplain and was an insufficient size to house all 72 pupils.

 

A Member sought detail on pupils traveling to school in individual taxis. The speaker stated that pupils share taxis and that it was very rare for a student to arrive or depart individually.

 

The Speaker provided detail on the current sites for Reigate Valley College.

 

David Holdaway, Velocity Transport Planners

 

1. That Reigate Valley College was a small alternative provision school and the day-to-date impact on vehicle traffic would be negligible compared to a mainstream school.
2. Noted that, due to the remote learning and short stay nature of the school, no more than 62 pupils would be on site at any one time.
3. That the school travel assessment team within Surrey County Council believed that consolidating to Park Hall Road would reduce the number of vehicles as there would be a higher occupancy per vehicle.
4. Stated that there was no minimum policy expectation around parking and there was no requirement to contain all of the parking within the site however the application had designed out the risk by implementing ample space on site to accommodate both the long-stay arrangements and the short stay arrangements. The existing access and egress points were being widened and a one-way system would be implemented through the site.
5. On-street parking restrictions were being implemented on Park Hall Road, Brokes Road and Brokes Crescent.
6. In regard to the interpretation of highways design guidance, the speaker stated that it was ultimately for the County Highway Authority to assess the acceptability of standards.
7. That refuse and service vehicles already serve Park Hall Road.
8.  In regard to local queueing and delay, the speaker stated that they had adopted industry standard practice that shows nil detriment on the local highways.
9. That it was compliant with the Local Transport Plan, Healthy Streets for Surrey, and the County Highways Authority had raised no objection on parking safety, capacity and policy grounds.
10. Stated that, ultimately, the assessment was deemed to be worst case and took no account of the fact that the school used to generate traffic as a care home, took no benefit from the fact that traffic was already generated by the three schools on the highway, and took no account of the potential for independent travel or the opportunity to stagger arrival and depart times.

 

A Member raised concern with the comment that the additional traffic would be negligible and stated that they counted 264 additional movements on Park Hall Road. The speaker stated that the need for taxis was overestimated and that it was very unusual for there to be one pupil transported in one taxi.

 

The speaker added that the traffic impact was deemed negligible in comparison to other schools in the county and highlighted that Reigate Valley College was one of the smallest schools in Surrey.

 

Mark Ellson, Holmes Miller Architects

 

1. That the design of the proposal had been developed through close collaboration with Surrey County Council Capital Projects and Education Teams, and the Inclusive Education Trust.
2. That through extensive engagement, the site of Park Hall Road and the design solution both met the requirements of the school staff and pupils and would ensure that teaching and support spaces offer the optimal environment for individual learning support and pupil development.
3. That internally the building provided dedicated areas for both primary and secondary school pupils which are accessed from individual entrances from within the main school façade.
4. That primary school classrooms were located on the ground floor, allowing pupils direct access to the south-facing playground and outdoor teaching spaces. Secondary classrooms were distributed across the ground and first floors, with practical teaching areas provided with direct access to school grounds.
5. Stated that all internal spaces were designed with reference to the Department for Education output specification document with derogations only to suit the specific requirements and ambitions of the project.
6. Provided detail on the location of the school within the site and its boundary.
7. Stated that the air quality was assessed through monitoring data which concluded that the air quality levels within the site were suitable for the placement and that the air quality impact of the site to the surrounding area was negligible
8. Stated that the design included renewable technologies to ensure the new school operates at net zero carbon operation status, includes a flat roof design with photovoltaic panel installation, classrooms with north-south to optimise internal day-lighting, a highly insulated and near-tight envelope to maintain internal temperatures and mitigate heat loss, and an innovative timber frame construction with enhanced fabric performance.

 

A Member noted that the Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) had been situated away from residential properties but positioned closer to the nearby road. In response, the speaker explained that advice from both noise and air quality consultants had been sought during the site design. They also highlighted that the MUGA was proposed on the eastern side of the site, which allowed the south-facing outdoor teaching spaces to be sheltered from some of the noise generated by pupils playing sports in the area.

 

A Member noted that while the applicant referenced adherence to Department for Education guidance, the proposal appeared to deviate in terms of the building's specifications. The guidance recommended a minimum classroom height of 2.7 metres, with an average of 3.3 metres, whereas the proposal indicated a height of 2.6 metres. The Member questioned why this aspect of the guidance was not being followed. The speaker clarified that the application of Department for Education guidance had been carefully considered, as had been the practice for several years. It was explained that the pupils in question would be taught in groups of two or three, which aligned more closely with the specifications for SCN (Special Complex Needs) or therapy spaces. For these types of teaching spaces, the Department for Education guidance specified a minimum height of 2.4 metres, generally increasing to 2.55 metres and, in this case, up to 2.6 metres. The speaker emphasised that the building design had been specifically tailored to meet the needs of the school, rather than applying a generalised interpretation of the Department for Education standards.

 

Lucy Mortimer, Teacher at Reigate Valley College

 

a.    A statement was read on behalf of a student at Reigate Valley College, describing their journey since joining the school in September 2020. The student shared how they had previously been excluded from school, felt lost, and struggled with anger and fear. Upon joining Reigate Valley College, they found a supportive environment where staff helped them with both academic and personal challenges, teaching them to manage stress, build positive relationships, and recognise their potential. The student expressed gratitude to the college for transforming their life, enabling them to secure a job and a brighter future. They emphasised the importance of the school to the community and advocated for improved facilities, noting that the current buildings are outdated, unsafe, and do not reflect the high quality of work happening within.

                                                                                                  

Key points raised during the discussion:

 

1. A Member stated that they had mixed feelings due to the need for the facility and the impact on the local area. The Member asked whether enforcement teams or the local police had been contacted to ensure parking restrictions were enforced. In response, the officer explained that Surrey County Council had the authority to enforce infringements on traffic regulation orders. They stated that the final details of any restrictions would have been subject to consultation with local residents. While the proposed yellow lines were considered beneficial, the Highway Authority's assessment indicated that their absence was unlikely to have a material impact on highway safety. The officer also noted that a condition requiring a car park management plan had been included. This plan would allow the Highway Authority to monitor site operations, including travel methods, car park functionality, and traffic behaviour. They emphasised that multiple measures were in place to monitor and address any issues if they arose.
2. A Member expressed support for the application, noting that there were no valid planning reasons for refusal. While they acknowledged the site could have been more financially valuable as housing, this was not a planning matter. The Member highlighted that schools were commonly located in residential areas and often caused some traffic congestion at pick-up and drop-off times, which was typical and manageable. The Member stated that the proposed school’s impact would be minimal, given its small size and limited operating hours. Although they criticised the design as unremarkable, they noted that the drop-off and pick-up arrangements were better than those provided at most schools. In conclusion, the Member considered this a minor development compared to other schools in Surrey and supported the application.
3. The Chairman asked officers whether the number of student spaces, stated as 72, was not fixed and if this was correct. Officers confirmed that no condition had been imposed to limit the number of spaces, as planning conditions were intended to mitigate identified harm. They explained that their recommendation was based on the view that no harm had been identified that would require such a condition. However, they noted that the committee had the authority to impose a condition if they saw fit.
4. A Member requested detail on air quality. In response, officers stated that the officer report had covered air quality in detail, starting at paragraph 136. The applicant had submitted an air quality assessment, which examined the impact of additional vehicle movements and existing road pollution on the site’s users. This assessment had been critically reviewed by the county air quality consultant, who had raised no concerns regarding nitrogen, PM10, or PM2.5 pollutants. Although residents had raised concerns based on World Health Organisation targets, these were not part of adopted UK policy and should not have been used as a basis for assessing the application. Overall, the placement of the outdoor spaces was deemed suitable, and it was demonstrated that the proposal would not adversely affect air quality for either the site’s users or the nearby residents.
5. In terms of air quality impacts along the main road and the A217, the Highways officer stated that they could only assess the change in traffic levels and whether it represented a significant or material change. It was noted that the section of road already had over 16,000 movements per day, and adding movements from the site was not considered a material change.
6. Furthermore, regarding pedestrian routing to the site, the officer stated that there was recognition of the specific considerations for SEN and AP provision. The officer stated than, while the majority of students were unlikely to travel via active modes of transport, efforts to encourage sustainable travel were supported. The officer noted that many SEN placements were located further from town centres and have less existing infrastructure than the proposed site. Improvements to pedestrian connectivity were possible, but the lack of such improvements in this application were not seen as a material reason to refuse it.
7. Officers highlighted that the assumptions regarding the share of children per vehicle (2.2 – 2.4 children) were approximate averages. These figures were consistent with assumptions applied to other SEN and AP school placements considered by the authority in recent years and were not inconsistent with what was typically expected.
8. A Member expressed feeling conflicted, recognising the increasing unmet need for school places, particularly in AP schools, leading to more children unable to attend them. However, they raised concerns about the noise impact on children with ASD. Despite the officer’s report stating that noise could be mitigated by a 2.4-metre high fence, the Member felt that 60 decibels was still high for children sensitive to sudden noise, such as a lorry driving past or an accident. They were concerned about the placement of the AP facility next to a main road and questioned whether the noise impact on the children had been sufficiently considered in the officer’s report. The Member also expressed discomfort with the building’s design, finding it mismatched with the surrounding area and in contrast to the care home opposite. They sought the officers' view on the noise impact and the design's appropriateness in relation to the site.
9. The Chairman expressed concern that the proposed building did not blend well with the surrounding area.
10. Officers confirmed that the nature of the use and its impact on noise had been considered during discussions, with multiple iterations made to address concerns about noise levels, particularly in relation to SEND use. Regarding the design, the officer acknowledged that the building was non-domestic and the question of its fit within the area was a matter of balance, ultimately for the committee to decide. They highlighted that the site was atypical and that any new development would naturally differ from existing buildings. The officer’s view was that the proposed building, with landscaping mitigation, would not be harmful, but it was for the committee to determine. They also noted the need to balance these considerations with the broader benefits of the scheme.
11. In regard to noise, officers explained that initial concerns about elevated noise levels in the external areas of the site were raised with the applicant. In response, an acoustic screen was proposed along the eastern boundary of the MUGA and outdoor play spaces, reducing noise by four decibels. However, this did not meet the recommended guidance. The screen was then extended along the southern boundary, reducing the noise levels below 60 decibels, with most play areas now at 50 to 55 decibels, which was deemed acceptable by the county's noise consultants.
12. Officers noted that the area of Reigate was not designated for protection due to its landscape characteristics. It was an urban environment with a mix of different architectural styles, including flat roofs and four-storey buildings. Therefore, there was no specific or defined style that needed to be adopted for the proposal.
13. A member expressed concerns about several aspects of the proposal, particularly regarding the potential growth of pupil numbers at the school. They questioned why the role of the school wouldn’t expand beyond its capacity, especially given the increasing demand for such provisions. They raised the issue of whether the number of pupils should be conditioned, as there were concerns about the school's growth potentially compromising the quality of provision. They referenced discussions about small group teaching and specific needs of students, particularly those with ASD, and suggested that if the number of pupils could not be conditioned, then the stated figure of 72 pupils would be meaningless. The member indicated their willingness to propose a condition to ensure that the school would not exceed 72 pupils.
14. A member expressed mixed feelings about the proposal, noting that while there were no clear planning reasons to refuse or accept the application, they felt it could be the right type of building but in the wrong location. They shared concerns raised by other Members regarding the impact of noise on children with ASD, highlighting that while an acoustic fence could mitigate background noise, it would not address the issue of sudden, disruptive sounds, which could significantly affect sensitive individuals. The member also expressed surprise that the council could not find a more suitable site, given the special needs of the children, and emphasised that these children should be a priority.
15. It was noted that, if the committee were not inclined to follow the officer's recommendation, the concerns would be referred back to the applicant for consideration, rather than a refusal.
16. Officers explained that conditions should address issues that might otherwise justify refusal. While they did not propose limiting pupil numbers, citing the site’s self-limiting factors, they acknowledged that such a condition could be imposed if members identified specific harms, such as impacts on highways or residential amenities, that needed mitigation.
17. A Member raised concerns about the lack of detail regarding alternative site assessments. While paragraph 46 of the report stated that a thorough search was conducted and Park Hall Road was deemed the only viable location, the application did not include specifics about other sites considered or reasons for their dismissal.
18. Officers clarified that it was not the planning team's role to select or assess alternative sites, as their responsibility was limited to evaluating whether the proposed development on the presented site was acceptable. Officers acknowledged that the applicant had referenced a site assessment as part of their justification but emphasised that this process fell outside the remit of the planning team.The Member suggested that providing this detail would address public queries about why other locations, such as Woodhatch Place, had not been considered. In response, officers clarified that references in the report regarding alternative sites were based solely on the information provided in the applicant’s planning statement. They emphasised that their role was to assess the application as presented, and any further considerations regarding alternative sites by other council departments were not relevant to the planning process.
19. The Chairman acknowledged that the site was previously developed land in a residential area, aligning with government policy to make use of such sites. While recognising the urgent need for facilities to support vulnerable children, they expressed personal reservations about the suitability of the location for this particular facility.
20. The legal representative at the meeting explained that, under the code of best practice, if the committee were minded to refuse a county council planning application, the application would have to be referred back to the applicant. This would provide the applicant with an opportunity to reconsider and possibly amend the application in consultation with the planning team. The representative emphasised that Members would have to agree on specific grounds for refusal to facilitate this process.
21. A Committee Member emphasised that the committee must assess the application on its own merits, rather than comparing it to other potential sites. And stressed that the committee's responsibility was to determine whether the current proposal was acceptable.
22. The Committee discussed potential reasons for refusal. Following this, the chairman moved the officers’ recommendation, as outlined in the report, with an amendment to include a condition limiting the number of pupils to 72. The vote received 2 votes For, 8 votes Against and no Abstentions. Therefore, the recommendation was lost. In light of this, the chairman agreed to adjourn the meeting for five minutes to give officers the opportunity to reflect on the discussion and consider appropriate reasons for refusal.
23. Officers advised the following wording be used as a reason for refusal ‘The proposed development, including the appearance of the building and layout of the site, would fail to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness, nor respect the character of the local area, and would fail to ensure an acceptable environment for future users contrary to DES1 and DES9, as well as the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council Local Character & Distinctiveness Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document.
24. The Chairman moved to refer the application back to the Applicant, for the reasons outlined in paragraph 23 of these minutes, which received 9 votes For, 1 Against and no abstentions.

 

 

Actions / Further information to be provided:

 

None.

 

Resolved:

 

The Committee referred the application back to the applicant as the proposed development, including the appearance of the building and layout of the site, would fail to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness, nor respect the character of the local area, and would fail to ensure an acceptable environment for future users contrary to DES1 and DES9, and the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council Local Character & Distinctiveness Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document.