Agenda item

Application no - 170031 - Aldryngton Primary School, Earley, RG6 7HR

Recommendation:  Approval

Minutes:

Proposal:  Full application for the proposed demolition of external stores, swimming pool (including support facilities), temporary classrooms and part demolition of main building, followed by erection of two storey teaching block with hall. Erection of detached store adjacent to car park, provision of MUGA in playing field and associated works to landscaping and extension to car and cycle parking.

 

Applicant:  Wokingham Borough Council

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in Agenda pages 15 to 54.

 

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included: 

 

·         Clarification as to the number of objections that were received per subject;

·         Additional comments from the adjoining Ward;

·         Additional information regarding the hours of the two schools, Aldryngton Primary School and Maiden Erlegh Secondary School;

·         Proposed amendment to condition 9, to whit that there would be no deliveries during the start and end of school day.

 

Members had visited the site on 24 February 2017.

 

William Luck, Town Councillor, Earley Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.  He stated that, whilst he understood the issues around school places, he felt that traffic and parking issues had not been properly addressed by the application, omitting a revised plan for on-site parking, a travel plan and traffic mitigation measures. 

 

Ian Head, Chair of Governors, Michael Gordon, Resident, and Hannah Sealam, Resident, led the Members through a presentation, and asked for a rejection of the application, raising the following points:

 

·         The governors in the school were legally bound to guarantee health and safety in the school and the plan did not fully address traffic, parking or safety and the impact of the increase in pupil numbers, referring to the availability of parking in the surrounding area that did not exist and taking into account the proximity of Maiden Erlegh Secondary School, a pre-school and shops.

·         Lancaster Road, referred to in the plan as offering 18 on-street parking spaces could, in fact, only safely house 11.  Residents felt there was an unacceptable level of danger already and the proposed increase in pupil numbers would impact traffic, noise and safety.  It was also felt that the design was overbearing.

·         The loss of the swimming pool would contravene several paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in regards to loss of the pool, amenity and opportunities to improve health and well-being in the community.   The proposed alternative at Loddon Valley Leisure Centre would not be able to cater to the level of use the pool at Aldryngton Primary School was subject to.  In addition, as pointed out by Sport England, the proposed Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) was not big enough for a number of field sports and did not have a run-off area.

 

Kathryn Mitchell, Resident, spoke in favour of the application as a parent who had not been able to place her child because of oversubscription despite living 0.32 miles away.  She stated that her allocated school was 3 miles away and that this resulted in an annual mileage of approximately 3000 miles, going on to explain the impact that the situation had on parents and children in terms of being able to engage in many of the normal activities of a family.

 

Piers Brunning, Service Manager, Policy, Strategy and Partnerships for Wokingham Borough Council, spoke in favour of the application.  He explained how demand for places at Aldryngton Primary School had increased due to the influx of young families into the area and that, whilst both Aldryngton Primary School and Loddon Primary School had been part of a review of school places in Earley, there had been a marked increase in numbers applying to Aldryngton Primary School.  He indicated that it was expected that the additional places would be taken up by pupils who likely lived within walking distance and that traffic would be reduced as a result and that various methods would be adopted to encourage walking.   He went on to suggest that the school compared to similar schools nationally, so would not lead to a reduction in teaching standards as well as offering a range of modern facilities.

 

Councillor David Chopping spoke on his and Councillor Ken Miall’s behalf as Ward Members, in favour of the application, stating that the expansion of Aldryngton Primary School would go some way to satisfy the needs of local families in the catchment area in finding school places for their children.  He explained that there had been a campaign around expansion for two years and that an expansion would result in improved level of acceptance of pre-school children moving up to primary, a reduction in car journeys, and more in-year admissions.  He raised concerns regarding car parking in the area, but stated that the number of places proposed in the plan met Council requirements and that the increase in movements would be minor.  He commended the officers on their work.

 

In response, the Service Manager, Highways Development Management, stated that the number of parking spaces in the plan was double that required by staffing levels proposed by the school expansion, and that whilst parking on roads within the vicinity of the school was acknowledged, enforcement of illegal parking was a matter for the police.  A survey had been carried out on parking in the area and this had been used on an advisory basis in the planning process. He went on to state that the size of the development did not trigger the requirement for a Transport Assessment and that a Transport Statement had been produced.  In line with this, highways are happy with the condition relating to the requirement for a Travel Plan.  He informed the Committee that parking enforcement would be more actively pursued when the Council obtained Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE) later in the year. 

 

The Case Officer stated that there were other 2 and 3 storey buildings in the area and that the current level of landscaping would be maintained, with a 28m gap between the school and the nearest residence.  In relation to the MUGA, she explained that the Sport England guidelines listed a range of sizes as appropriate, and that the age of the pupils precluded the need for full sized pitches.   The MUGA in the proposal would accommodate pitch sizes of the sports being played and an adjacent field was available.  The lack of run-off area would not make the pitch unsafe.

 

She went on to talk to the loss of the swimming pool, which had a range of users in addition to the school pupils.  She stated that Loddon Valley Leisure Centre had been consulted with regard to providing the curriculum requirement. 

 

In response to Member questions, the Case Officer indicated that the proposed expansion included a lift.  It was clarified that the lack, or not, of school places was not a planning matter, but that part of the role of the Planning Department was to take a balance and a view on what to give weight to as part of the decision process.  The Operational Development Management Lead Officer went on to quote directly from the NPPF, to whit that the Government favoured the offering of choice to parents in regards to school places and that Planning Departments should take a pro-active, positive and collaborative approach to meeting these requirements.

 

In relation to construction traffic, the Case Officer referred to conditions 4 and 9 in the application requiring a Construction Method Statement and a Construction Management Plan to be submitted.  The Operational Development Management Lead Officer stated that works on the site would be restricted in hours and that the application for the Tesco Express had included conditions limiting the time of deliveries to exclude the start and end of the school day. 

 

In response to Member questions, the Service Manager, Highways Development Management, stated that the applicant had set out within the Transport Statement information relating to existing bus services, and went on to reiterate that the school pick up and drop off issues compare to similar schools within the Borough and nationally, and that the proposed number of parking spaces proposed on-site met the Council’s required parking standards.  He stated that, whilst outside the application before the Committee, the parking associated with the Tesco Express did not typically add to increased traffic movements in the area due to the majority of its trade being base on pass-by and diverted trips, including some parents, and would not solely be new trips, and, as such, might actually help alleviate parking issues as we have seen from other areas of the borough where convenience stores are located within close proximity to a school.  He indicated that the accident data obtained for the last 5 years showed that only one accident, recorded as slight, had happened at the nearby zebra crossing and that the accident was outside of the school peak hours and identified by the Police as driver error. 

 

Officers were requested to look into the existence of any travel plans.  The Service Manager, Highways Development Management, referred to the conditions in the report, highlighting that a Travel Plan was to be approved prior to occupation and that it would be beneficial to include both schools and consider the facilities within the surrounding area by the shops.  He suggested that the increase in traffic movements would amount to no more than 15 per year over seven years and that road use and the Travel Plan would be reviewed over that time period.   He outlined a number of measures that could be taken to formalise parking, such as signage and carriageway lines associated with parking enforcement, however these would need to be secured along with measures to encourage alternative modes of travel.

 

Councillor Bowring suggested the addition of a new condition limiting the number of school places in future to 420.  Officers agreed that this would be possible.

 

Councillor Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey suggested that the application approval be subject to an approved travel plan.

 

The Service Manager, Highways Development Management, explained that the practice was for a travel plan to be approved until 6 months after the occupation of a new site, but as this was an expansion it would be acceptable to require the approval of a travel plan prior to commencement.

 

Resolved:  That the Committee resolve to consult the Secretary of State on Application no 170031 and supporting papers in accordance with paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, and grant planning permission provided:

 

1)      the Secretary of State decides not to call-in the application for determination, or

2)      the period in which the Secretary of State may respond under paragraph 11 of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 expires.

 

Following this, that Application no 170031 be approved subject to the conditions set out in Agenda pages 15 to 14 and the amended condition as laid out in the Members’ Update; the additional condition that the number of school places be limited to 420, and an amendment to condition 11, to whit that the Travel Plan be approved in writing by the Planning Department in Consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee before commencement.

Supporting documents: