Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to the approval of planning application 210694 and amendments to conditions relating to application number 170118

Applicant: Mr Simon Jackson

Proposal: Application to vary condition 13 of 170118 and F/2010/1641 for the erection of a two-storey classroom block, construction of an internal access road (part temporary part permanent) and erection of two temporary buildings containing 4 classrooms following demolition of three existing classroom buildings. Condition 13 refers to pupils enrolled at the school and the variation is to allow for up to 1,100 pupils to be enrolled at the school

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 171 to 200.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

·           Correction to the recommendation set out on agenda page 172, which should refer to the grant of planning permission of planning application 210693;

·           Clarification that the AM peak was in relation to school arrivals in the morning between 7AM and 9AM;

·           Clarification that the maximum additional vehicle movements referenced within paragraph 25 was the absolute maximum, and the real number was likely substantially lower across the two hour arrival period;

·           Additional clarification of paragraphs 26 and 27, relating to vehicle movements from different routes to the school.

Trefor Fisher, Sonning Parish Council, spoke in support of the application. Trefor stated that Sonning Parish Council strongly objected to this application, as whilst residents were pleased to accommodate the school within the Parish, there was concern relating to issues including the traffic associated with the school. Previous planning applications had restricted pupil numbers to 750, and later to 825. The reasons for these restrictions were mainly due to highway safety and to congestion. Trefor stated that an enrolment of the proposed 1100 pupils compared to the 785 currently on roll would represent a forty percent increase, subsequently leading to a forty percent increase in traffic, congestion, and pollution. Trefor added that at school arrival and departure time, the section of Sonning Lane adjacent to the school entrance became gridlocked. Trefor added that local residents and commuters would avoid this area and take other routes due to this congestion. Trefor stated that the traffic survey accompanying the application focussed on the junctions of Sonning Lane and the A4, showing thirty-eight percent of school traffic went via this junction. Trefor added that the survey therefore failed to recognise that sixty-two percent of traffic travelled via the Pearson Road in Sonning, which was a narrow road with parking along its length. Trefor was of the opinion that the suggestion that a forty percent increase in school traffic was nonsensical. Trefor added that the increase in pupil numbers would place additional pressures on existing infrastructure, including the drainage and sewage systems, whereby the drains within the school site already experienced blockages with current pupil numbers. Trefor stated that approval of this application was subject for approval to a separate application for an extension of the car park at Berkshire County Sports Club. Sonning Parish Council had also objected to this application, on the grounds that it involved the loss of another area of green space, when other pre-existing tarmacked areas could be used instead. Trefor stated that the site of the school west of Sonning Lane was adjacent to Holme Park Farm, which had recently been added to consideration for the Local Plan Update. Trefor was of the opinion that for both this application for the school expansion in conjunction with any future application for housing at Holme Farm would be a disaster for the Village of Sonning. Trefor concluded by stating that consultation was a two way process, and it was not currently happening for this and other applications.

Christopher Wickham, agent, spoke in support of the application. Christopher stated that there was a strong demand for school places in the area, and co-educational provision. Christopher stated that the school had engaged proactively with Wokingham Borough Council (WBC), and cited national policy guidance which placed great weight on the need to expand schools. The application had been subject to rigorous assessment by WBC highways officers, and the school believed that the issues of highways impact, car parking capacity, and sustainable travel measures were fully supportable. Christopher stated that traffic surveys had shown that the additional traffic generated by the proposals in the AM peak hour, both coming north through Sonning village and south via the A4 junction was within entirely acceptable limits. This was in part due to the staggered starts of staff and pupils, in addition to the success of the managed drop off facilities that the school had provided on site. Christopher stated that during the 8.15AM to 8.30AM peak would amount in the worst case to one additional vehicle via Sonning Lane to the north. Christopher added that the historic issue of car parking along Sonning Lane had been addressed via the implementation of double yellow line restrictions and by the drop off lane which the school had constructed. Christophe stated that the detailed analysis within the report showed that the overall proposed level of off street parking would meet the Council’s parking standards, whilst other proposed conditions would cover parking management and the provision of cycle parking. The school had an established travel plan which was regularly updated, and the school also used a network of privately managed bus networks, which was due to be expanded further, whilst parking and turning of these bus services was provided off of the highway. Christopher concluded by stating that cycle parking and electric vehicle charging points were also proposed, and requested that the Committee approve the application.

Michael Firmager, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Michael stated that he was not in any way against the increase in education opportunities, as these should be the right of everyone if they so wished. Michael was of the opinion that this application would have a considerable on the traffic and pollution levels in Sonning, and in particular along the Sonning Lane and Pearson Road. Michael added that these roads were especially congested with parked cars, and as a result they were extremely tight for vehicles to navigate around. Michael stated that there had been a steady increase in pupil numbers over the years, and noted that even with car sharing and bus travel methods, the increase in pupils would lead to a large number of additional vehicles using the already congested roads in and around Sonning. Michael stated that the extension of car parking at the Berkshire County Sports Club was not in and of itself a bad idea, however it would still lead to more vehicle movements in and around Sonning’s roads. Michael reiterated his view that this application would increase congestion and pollution in surrounding area, whilst also increasing the risk of accidents within the surrounding area.

Angus Ross queried why only some schools had a limit on total pupil numbers, queried what tests had been carried out to evidence that the proposals were acceptable in terms of congestion and pollution, and queried what guarantees were there that the Berkshire County Sports car park would allow parking for the school beyond their current long term lease. Simon Taylor, case officer, stated that capping pupil numbers by condition was a recent trend. Relating to the car parking, Simon stated that the lease agreement was in place until 2040, and condition 18 tried to tie the lease to this application. Judy Kelly, Highways Development Manager, stated that the modal split data came from the school travel plan, which provided detailed data. A survey had been carried out at the junction, and showed that the worst case scenario was the queue increasing from one vehicle to four vehicles, which was not a high level nor at capacity. Any increase of queueing in this manner would be temporary and limited by the nature of the peak school drop-off and pickup time periods.

Angus Ross commented that only thirty-eight percent of the traffic was shown to use the A4 junction, with the rest of the traffic travelling via Pearson Road. Angus sought clarification regarding the traffic which was not using the A4 junction. Judy Kelly stated that the traffic was split in three directions, with the flow of vehicles using the Sonning Lane junction shown to be the highest of the three different directions of travel. When assessing the performance of a junction, officers looked at the direction of most vehicle flow as that was the junction which was most likely to struggle. Having been assessed, the A4 junction had shown a maximum additional queue of three vehicles in the AM peak drop off time, which was considered acceptable.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried why the percentage increase of pupils had been carried out from the current maximum number of pupils being 850 rather than the number of pupils currently on roll, queried whether it was possible for to guarantee use of the Berkshire County Sports Club in perpetuity, and commented that the issue of congestion was not just due to the number of additional vehicles but also the nature of the roads. Simon stated that the thirty-three percent increase in pupil numbers was based on the existing approval, and was not a traffic based assessment. Simon stated that the use of the car park could not be changed, and if it were to change it would be anticipated that an alternative arrangement would come forward prior to any change occurring. Simon added that the dual-use nature of the car park was a positive for outcome for the Sports Club. In relation to the nature of the roads, Judy Kelly stated that the Highways officer would have carried out a site visit at the school peak hour in order to identify any potential issues. There were very strict rules in relation to the input of geometric dimensions of the road and junction within the software used, and needed to include the visibility splays from all directions. Judy added that the additional vehicles using the road would be cars and not oversized vehicles.

Bill Soane sought assurances that the completion of the car park was a prerequisite to increase of the maximum pupil numbers. Bill commented that he had great concerns in relation to the safety of Sonning Lane and the A4, which included a very dangerous right turn off of the junction in his opinion. Bill added that any form of traffic control would be of benefit to the area, and commented that he had attended a large funeral locally recently which had caused the village area to become gridlocked. Justin Turvey, Operational Manager – Development Management, confirmed that condition 13 required completion of the planning application for extension of the car parking area prior to the school increasing their maximum pupil numbers.

Stephen Conway commented that he had personal experience with this section of road at the school drop-off time, and added that there was also a nursery next to the school. Stephen was of the opinion that this application would add to the congestion issues on the road, but added that Members had to be guided by the technical recommendation which was based off of data.

Pauline Jorgensen noted that there was a low number of pupils cycling to the school, and queried whether officers had engaged with the school to understand what the barriers were to children cycling to and from school. Judy Kelly stated that the school had a travel plan which was due to be updated in six months’ time, and part of this process involved consulting with the school and wider community to understand what barriers to cycling were present.

Pauline Jorgensen proposed an additional informative, encouraging the school to work with the Local Authority to increase the amount of cycling to and from the school. This proposal was seconded by Chris Bowring, carried, and added to the list of informatives.

RESOLVED That application number 210693 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 172 to 177, reference to the correct planning application number of 210693 as contained within the Supplementary planning Agenda, and additional informative encouraging the school to work with the Local Authority to increase the amount of cycling to and from the school as resolved by the Committee.