Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 21/01086/COMIND in respect of the change of use from Class E(g) (i), E(f) and E(e) to F1(a) for a special educational needs school and associated works.

Principal Planning Officer, Ms Emma Nutchey, introduced the report and highlighted the key points. The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Philip and Sarah Harris, Objectors, and Mrs Lucy White and Mr Mark Heywood, agent/applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representations:

Mr and Mrs Harris in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Harris stated that he and his wife were the owners of Harris Mind and Body, which was the business that currently occupied the Atrium and had done so for six years. It was believed that they provided a valuable service to the local population and they wished to continue.

·         There was a few points they wanted considered. First of all because of the way the planning notice was displayed, it was not clear that all the buildings were involved in the proposal. If there had there been more time to object, Mr Harris believed that there would have been a larger number of objections.

·         Mr Harris added that given the pandemic had disrupted the amount of people travelling, fewer people had seen the planning notice. It was not until 7^th June 2021 that Mr and Mrs Harris had seen the notices and they only had until 10^th to raise any objections.

·         Mr Harris stated that whilst it was understood that there was a need for Special Educational Needs schools and that the provision of such as school was part of one of the Council’s objectives, the benefit of a community health and wellbeing service could not be underestimated.

·         Mr and Mrs Harris’ business supported local General Practitioners and their populations. The multidisciplinary approach that they delivered ensured general health and wellbeing could be provided to people locally.

·         The benefit of the business compared to the proposed school was that Mr and Mrs Harris were able to provide the service for all the local population to access and not just small minority. They disagreed with the summation in the report that suggested that one service was required above another.

·         Mrs Harris reiterated that Harris Mind and Body was a well-established business and was family run. They had worked incredibly hard to survive recessions and lockdowns through offering a very diligent and professional service to anyone who needed their support.

·         It was a historic site and it was important to bring the buildings back in to action. Mr and Mrs Harris agreed that it was a shame to see the large Grange Manor house looking derelict however, the Atrium was already in use and a quality service was being provided.

·         It was noted that that the proposal would only use the site in term time, so there would be a large period of time when all the buildings would be empty. Mrs Harris stressed that the Atrium was already in use.

·         It was understood that there were other steps to be considered when looking at why a building should have a change of use and it was understood that the needs to a business were not always the points that could be considered. Ultimately Mr and Mrs Harris were requesting that the businesses could co-exist.

Member Questions to the Objector:

Councillor Tony Linden appreciated the hard work that had been put in to the business, which was very valuable. He understood that businesses were often reluctant to move due to customers however, he was confident that there would be alternative premises for Harris Mind and Body in the locality. It was not a planning consideration however, there was an Economic Development Officer at the Local Authority who might be able to offer some support. Councillor Linden queried if Mr and Mrs Harris had looked at alternative locations. Mrs Harris confirmed that they had looked at other available buildings however, it was difficult to obtain change of use for a retail or office building. Moving to the Atrium had been a difficult and expensive process as a change to use had needed to be obtained for the business. Mrs Harris stated that she would welcome the support from the Economic Development Officer. Mr Harris added that the Atrium had been chosen initially for access reasons because it was all on one floor and many customers who used the business had disabilities.

Councillor Bridgman stated that he was the Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing and welcomed all businesses that offered services like Harris Mind and Body. Councillor Bridgman raised a contractual question and stated that he understood that Mr and Mrs Harris were tenants of the property in question. He presumed that there was a commercial lease with a landlord, which was coming to an end he highlighted that the landlord could choose at that point not to renew the tenancy. Councillor Bridgman queried why the planning process should interfere with this. Mr Harris acknowledged the point and stated that he could not provide an argument against it and stated that unfortunately the landlord had been extremely poor in communicating the plans with them. Mrs Harris added that the other business currently on the site was in exactly the same position and had no idea about the plans until very recently. There was frustration with the landlord however, Mrs Harris stressed that they wanted their voices heard. It was appreciated that every child was entitled to an education and the main point that Mr and Mrs Harris wanted considered was whether the Atrium could be excluded from the plans. Mrs Harris reported that they would support phase one of the plan but not phase two.

Agent and Applicant Representations:

Mrs Lucy White (Agent) and Mr Mark Heywood (Applicant) in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mrs White reported that the applicant supported the Planning Officer’s recommendation and proposed conditions.

·         The proposal would provide 60 new school places for children with SEN, in particular social, emotional and behavioural needs such as autism, aspergers, ADHD and severe anxiety. These pupils were unable to cope in larger mainstream settings and benefitted from smaller class sizes.

·         There would be both primary and secondary age children at the school. The Local Education Authority (LEA) was aware of an increasing number of children within West Berkshire needing school places at specialist schools. In the absence of sufficient places within the district a growing number of children were travelling to neighbouring authority areas for their education. Longer journeys were less sustainable and often impacted negatively on children’s wellbeing.

·         The LEA also had plans to deliver a Special Educational Needs (SEN) school with 42 places through redevelopment of an existing site however, due to the build program this would take some time to deliver and it did not have sufficient capacity to meet all known needs in the district.

·         The applicant had held meetings with the LEA to discuss the proposals and given the local need and ability for the school to be operational substantially sooner that its own, the LEA was in support of the proposed development.

·         The provision of the school aligned with emerging Local Plan objectives to encourage provision of new community uses and public services within Thatcham. It also aligned with the LEA’s published SEN Strategy for the delivery of specialist school places.

·         Objections to the proposal had primarily expressed concerns over the loss of the Atrium as the premises for the physiotherapy practice. There had been no objections in principle to the proposed introduction of a school on to the site.

·         The leases for the sub-tenants would come to a natural end in October 2022 with no right to renew. Following vacation of the businesses the applicant could make substantial use of the whole site to benefit the local community. As a result the applicant proposes to phase the delivery of the school, initially occupying the Grange and Lodge, which had been vacant since the closure of the day nursery. During phase one the school would accommodate approximately 20 pupils and 14 staff, with parking for 40 cars. Staggered drop off and picks would take place to avoid congestion on the site. 

·         The second phase of plan would involve the occupation of the Mews and Atrium following the natural end of the leases. The applicant had no intention to occupy the buildings before the current tenant’s leases had expired. The remaining 16 months of tenancy provided the tenants with time to secure new premises.

·         Prior to occupation of the second phase an additional 22 car parking spaces would be provided giving a total of 62 spaces to serve the school.

·         The schools proposed hours of operation would be shorter than the former day nursery and limited to school term time only. In addition the pupil capacity would reduce by about 90 children compared with the former day nursery. The number of car journeys into the site and noise generation would reduce as a result to the benefit of local residents.

·         The applicant had been made aware of some issues with the existing external lighting disturbing neighbouring residents and the applicant was happy to work with residents at the earliest opportunity to resolve these issues. The shorter hours of operation should also reduce the need for such lighting.

·         In summary, Mrs White concluded that the proposed school would help the education authority to deliver its SEN Strategy through the provision of 60 new specialist school places. No objections had been raised regarding the principle of a new special needs school in the location and there were no objections from statutory consultees. The proposal aligned with the Council’s planning policies and emerging policy objectives. It was hoped that Member of the Committee would support the proposal.

Member Questions to the Agent:

Councillor Bridgman asked for clarification that the applicant was taking a lease out on the premises and the existing tenants would therefore become subtenants of the applicant. He queried if he was correct in understanding that there was no intention of extending the current tenancies and there was no right to an extension. Mrs White agreed that the landowner had no intention to extend the existing tenancies and Phoenix Childcare would only occupy the buildings following the cessation of those leases.

Member Questions to Officers:

Councillor Mayes noted within the plans that the yellow doors would be removed and asked if this was advisable as it would make the access to the building narrower. Ms Nutchey reported that the works referred to by Councillor Mayes had been presented as part of the application and although she could not confirm the reason for this change it would be more aesthetically in keeping. Councillor Pask stated that any doorway would have to be compliant with suitable regulations for wheelchairs and other disabled users and Ms Nutchey agreed with this point. Councillor Linden stated that Members had been informed at the site visit that the change to the doors would be useful for the new use.

Debate:

Councillor Bridgman firstly commented that Councillor Linden was correct and stated that Members had been told at the site visit that one of the buildings had double doors and the intention was to replace the yellow doors with similar double doors. Councillor Bridgman commented that previously when attending physical planning meetings there had been access to plans and he suggested that Officers consider reverting to this.

In beginning the debate on the item Councillor Bridgman stated that there were cases where the Council had little control regarding objections raised and in the case of the current proposal the applicant could refuse to grant the current occupants of the Atrium a fresh tenancy. The application therefore needed to be treated with this in mind. Councillor Bridgman sympathised with Mr and Mrs Harris as he wanted to see businesses like Harris Body and Mind continue however, the Committee could not stand in the way of the legal right of the applicant to refuse to grant a fresh tenancy. Councillor Bridgman’s understanding of the proposal was that it would only work if all of the site was used. He supported the proposed use of the site and therefore he was in favour of the application but he recognised the difficulties if caused for the existing business and its users.

Councillor Richard Somner felt that it was a very unfortunate situation of a tenancy debate. Councillor Somner stated that he would be more than happy to put the Economic Development Officer in touch with Mr and Mrs Harris. Secondly Councillor Somner stated that he had been surprised on the site visit at the size of the site and the different buildings located on it. He felt that it would be an ideal site for the provision of an SEN service. Councillor Somner felt that the provider of the service would want the security of knowing that the whole site was going to be available as soon as possible. As mentioned by Councillor Bridgman it was noted that the current leases would expire naturally and Councillor Somner was of the view that the proposal would provide a great opportunity for children in the area.

Councillor Linden felt that the application was very valuable and supported the proposal. He was confident that the Economic Development Officer would be able to offer support to the businesses currently on the site in finding alternative premises.

Councillor Somner proposed that the Officer recommendation to approve planning permission was supported and this was seconded by Councillor Linden. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

 Conditions

Informatives