Agenda item

This is an application for the installation of demountable unit comprising two classrooms for a temporary period of 3 years.

The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions.

An update sheet was tabled and is attached as Annex 2.

As items 8 and 9 deal with retrospective applications, the Chairman asked the Principal Lawyer to explain the legal situation.  The Principal Lawyer explained that Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 clarifies that a retrospective planning application must be dealt with as if it is a conventional planning application.  Being retrospective is not grounds for refusal.

Declarations of interest:

None

Officers:

Louise Calam, Principal Transport Development Planning Officer

Nicola Downes, Transport Development Planning Officer

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager

Speakers:

John Lewis, a local resident, made representations in objection to the

application. The points he raised included:

·         The demountable unit had already been built and therefore the conditions being imposed were nonsense. 

·         He suggested an additional condition that the side gate be closed or additional parking restrictions are put in place which are enforced by Elmbridge Borough Council. 

·         More residents would have liked to attend and speak to the committee but due to the timing of the meeting they are on holiday.

·         Many parents park on kerbs.

·         A neighbour who is a midwife had been blocked into her drive by a parent and so could not get to an emergency birth.  The parent’s response to was to shout abuse.

Sue Ebbinghaus, a local resident, made representations in objection to the

application. The points she raised included:

·         She had lived in Garrick Gardens for many years.  Over time it had changed as the school had grown and traffic had increased. 

·         Cars blocking driveways had led to residents missing trains and GP appointments.  She had had to arrange a funeral around timing for school traffic.

·         Parents can be abusive when challenged.

Jo Wales, a local resident, made representations in objection to the

application. The points she raised included:

·         She had been a teacher at Hurst Park School and her son had attended it.  Traffic and parking had been a perennial issue.

·         The current difficulty was the result of Surrey County Council policies.  In the past school land had been sold to build houses.  As a result there are now not enough school places and schools are being expanded to cope.

·         The nursery is opened and closed twice a day which results in traffic and parking problems throughout the day. 

The local Member, Ernest Mallett, wished to participate as part of the committee rather than speak as the local Member.  

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Planning Development Control Team Manager introduced the report. 

2.    The local Member informed the committee that parking restrictions had previously been put into Garrick Gardens.  Most of Garrick Gardens has dropped kerbs and there are yellow lines where they aren’t dropped. The issue is one of enforcement.  Further restrictions would be to the detriment of residents and their guests.  He highlighted the new Hurst Park School which would lead to this site being closed and would therefore relieve residents of this problem in the medium term.  He argued that shutting the side gate would lead to a dangerous situation at the Hurst Road entrance to the site.  He also explained that school sites had been disposed of during a drop in birth rates and that there had recently been an increase in birth rates leading to the need for more school places.

3.    It was suggested that a liaison group between residents and the school would help address issues. 

4.    Concern was expressed about schools being expanded into ‘giant’ schools with people being forced to travel further and therefore making Surrey more car-dependent.

5.    Members felt that the committee was in a difficult position as it could not vote against an application where pupils are waiting for school places.  The Principal Lawyer clarified that Members must decide based on the information in front of them and not be bound by the application being retrospective or feeling that there is any pressure on them.

6.    The recycling potential of demountable buildings was queried.  The Planning Development Control Team Manager explained that the committee could require that a demountable building be removed but not that it be reused.  The Chairman suggested that the committee had to assume that Property would seek to reuse demountable buildings. 

Actions/Further information to be provided:

None

RESOLVED:

That pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, application number EL2014/2144 be PERMITTED subject to conditions, for the reasons set out in the report.