Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use from office (Class E) to private school (Class F1), including installation of playground, play equipment and erection of additional fencing.

Applicant: Mrs Kashyap

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 559 to 590.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

Tariq Bailey-Biggs, case officer, advised the Committee that an additional condition was proposed, requiring a remediation scheme in the event that contamination was found on the site at any time during development.

Charu Kashyap, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Charu thanked the planning officer for visiting the site and producing a comprehensive report. Charu stated that the applicant had instructed their legal team to work alongside the Council to agree the S106 agreement should approval be granted. Charu added that the proposal would propose a small and unique learning environment for children who had experienced poor educational experiences within mainstream settings. Charu stated that they were committed to make a significant financial investment to deliver a warm, nurturing, unique and high quality learning environment. Over 50 consultations had been received for places at the school, and a waiting list was already in operation for September. This school would be both a private school and an independent school for children who had no other education options or who were in provisions where their needs were not being met. Charu stated that at least thirty percent of student referred to them were of compulsory school age and were not currently within education. Charu noted the points of objection raised by a local Ward Member, and clarified that the school would only be able to being operation once OFSTED were satisfied that the school could be operated safely. Charu added that she would welcome an opportunity to meet with the Ward Member on site, to allay and remaining concerns. Charu asked that the application be approved.

Maria Gee, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Maria stated that there had been a statutory consultee objection from Wokingham Town Council. Maria added that there were issues in relation to pedestrian access and car pollution for those accessing the site by foot. Maria questioned whether the application should have been validated in the first instance by Wokingham Borough Council (WBC), and raised concern as to the lack of detail on dimensions which made it difficult to assess how children would be catered for. Maria queried whether the applicant had considered that should the site have been over one hectare then it would have required a flood risk assessment. Maria felt that this site should have been assessed via a land contamination assessment as it was one of 840 potentially contaminated sites within the Borough. Maria felt that the statement within the planning application that outlined that there were no users of the site who were particularly vulnerable to contamination was incorrect. Maria added that there was a considerable amount of confusion as to how staff and pupils might access the site, as the access statement had shown that only one pupil lived within a walkable distance. Maria stated that correspondence with the planning consultant had clarified that no pupils would be walking or cycling along this road, suggesting that the site was unsustainable. Maria questioned whether the proposal would enhance and maintain the vitality of the local community and economy, as there were no local facilities. Maria raised concern regarding the transport management proposals, which appeared to rely on temporary measures to control vehicle and pedestrian access to the site. Maria was of the opinion that the site was not safe for pupils to access, and commented that this stretch of London Road was an adopted highway and she had found no evidence that the Council was in discussion with the applicant. Maria asked that the application be refused, due to inaccuracies within the application and a lack of a land contamination assessment.

At this point of the meeting, Stephen Conway proposed that the end time of the meeting be extended by a maximum of 30 minutes until 11pm. This was seconded by Andrew Mickleburgh, and upon being put to the vote the motion was carried.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey commented that the Borough needed additional Special Educational Needs (SEN) capacity, and hoped that pupils of the Borough would be accepted.

Rebecca Margetts queried what would happen if the air quality management results came back as unsuitable. Tariq Bailey-Biggs stated that the development could not commence until a mitigation strategy was in place, which was also the case for any instances of contamination.

David Cornish noted the clear need for additional SEN places within the Borough, and sought officer insight as to which of the issues raised by Maria Gee were valid. Tariq Bailey Biggs stated that the Council’s SEN officer had not objected to the proposals, whilst the applicant would be required to adhere to planning policies, separate SEN statutory legislation, and OFSTED requirements. Tariq added that many of the issues raised during public speaking were matters for Building Control, and would be dealt with via that separate function.

Stephen Conway stated that there was a real need for additional SEN places within the Borough as a result of under provision, and was confident that issues raised during public speaking would be addresses via conditions, Building Control Regulations, and separate legislation specific to SEN schools and OFSTED requirements.

Stephen Conway proposed that the application be approved in line with the officer recommendation, including the additional condition in relation to a remediation scheme in the event that contamination was found on the site at any time during development, and subject to legal agreement. This was seconded by John Kaiser.

RESOLVED That application number 223023 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 569 to 574, additional condition in relation to a remediation scheme in the event that contamination was found on the site at any time during development, and subject to legal agreement.