Agenda item

Proposal:	Redevelopment of land of the school grounds including new play equipment with fencing and planting.
Location:	Basildon Church Of England Primary School, School Lane, Upper Basildon, Reading, West Berkshire, RG8 8PD
Applicant:	Basildon Church Of England Primary School
Recommendation:	Delegate to the Service Director of Development and Regulation to grant conditional planning permission.

 

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 21/02450/REG4 in respect of redevelopment of the school grounds including new play equipment and fencing.

Mr Michael Butler (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the item which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Geoffrey Couchman, Basidon Parish Council representative, Ms Ruth Cane, objector, and Ms Pam Slingsby, Ms Natasha Lee and Reverend Grant Fensome, applicants, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

Mr Couchman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Basildon Parish Council objected to the proposal on environmental grounds.

·         The proposal would destroy an established wilding area with mature vegetation.

·         The proposal also cut across the West Berkshire Environmental Strategy’s vision to improve natural habitats and wilding areas.

·         Existing vegetation would be removed and replaced with rubberised, safe play areas. This relied on petro-chemical manufacturing, which again had environmental issues.

·         There were a number of trees on site. Two would be kept, but two or three of the less mature sycamores would be removed.

·         It was strange to replace a natural environment (albeit neglected) by something that detracted from the environmental issues.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

Members asked if there was a planning policy issue with the proposal. It was noted that landowners could replace ponds, wildlife areas, trees that were not protected, etc with something else under planning rules (i.e. with no planning application required per se). It was noted that any building project would utilise building materials that had an environmental / carbon impact, but planning law did not allow such projects to be refused on environmental grounds. Members asked if the parish council could identify any planning policy grounds to refuse the application.

Mr Couchman indicated that it was not considered contrary to planning policy, but it was contrary to the adopted Environment Strategy. He quote from the strategy as follows: ‘Our environmental assets will have been protected for future generations’. He noted that the school’s freehold was within the Council’s ownership. He also noted that there was a need to build houses, but this was a separate issue.

Objectors Representations

Ms Ruth Cane in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The proposed development would have adverse environmental impacts.

·         Objectors were supportive of the Council’s Environment Strategy, which was considered to be very forward looking and highlighted the need to engage all communities to take action to protect the environment. The Strategy also made a commitment to encourage children to be closer to nature and to improve the natural environment.

·         Other aspects of the strategy that were considered important included:

o   Protecting the environment

o   Understanding the role of local woodland trees (the proposal would result in the loss of sycamore trees)

o   Improving diversity and wildlife

o   Protecting the environment for future generations

o   Working with residents and communities to deliver positive change

·         The school referred to the proposed development as a ‘forest zone’. While the school was believed to be well-intentioned, there was nothing in the proposal that bore any resemblance to a forest.

·         It would use shredded rubber tyre surfacing and there were concerns about such products.

·         The current wild environment provided a habitat for various wildlife and plants, which would be replaced with artificial constructions, which would not be in keeping with the character of the open field environment (Policy ADPP1).

·         The proposed fire pit was considered a fire risk, and it was not clear how it could be moved when hot.

·         The loss of the pond was a concern - not just the loss of rare newts.

·         The objectors felt strongly that the proposal was not in line with the Council’s strategic intentions and key policies.

·         The school field was large and mostly laid to grass. It was perverse and irresponsible to remove the one wild area that was more than a monoculture. This was the only biodiverse part of the playground and replacing it with something as sterile as the proposed development was not sensible.

·         Other sites within the school grounds had been cleared and had fallen into disuse.

·         Previously, the local horticultural society had offered to maintain the wild area, but this offer had not been taken up.

·         There was a small community owned wood nearby that the children had access to.

·         Objectors were pleased to see proposed conditions requiring further landscaping plans.

·         They had concerns that the area would be used by older children outside of school hours. They felt the area should be fenced off, since the fire pit would become a point of nuisance.

·         In summary, the objectors could not see how the proposal was in line with the Council’s Environment Strategy.

Member Questions to the Objector

Members noted that ‘forest school’ was a term for outdoor learning and asked if this was considered to be an important part of children’s education. Ms Cane agreed that is was important, but she did not see how that was furthered by removal of the only biodiverse area in the school grounds. It was suggested that this area could be enhanced by planting fruit trees that could be used for education purposes. She proposed an unused area to the north of the school as an alternative site for the forest zone. 

Clarification was sought as the negative impacts of shredded rubber surfacing. It was explained that there were potential hazards associated with toxins in the material. While it was acknowledged that this was currently considered to be OK, there was emerging evidence of unstable chemicals present in the material. It was felt unnecessary to use this material.

A question was asked about how the pond was fed and where water went when the pond was full. Ms Cane did not know about how it was fed, but noted that it appeared to be just a collecting point for water, and levels varied throughout the year. She did not know where water went when the pond was full.

Applicants Representations

Ms Natasha Lee, Ms Pam Slingsby and Rev Grant Fensome raised the following points:

·         The school had requested permission to convert a small, overgrown, unusable brambled area into a forest school and den-building play area.

·         A forest school would promote holistic development of children through personal, social and technical skills, supplementary to classroom learning. It would also foster resilient, confident, independent, creative learners.

·         Ofsted recommended that schools evaluated the quality of learning outside the classroom in order to maximise learners’ achievement, personal development and wellbeing.

·         DfE guidance referred to the importance and positive research of the benefits of children learning outside the classroom, particularly those with special education and behaviour needs, as well as those who were more vulnerable and disadvantaged.

·         Also, SIAM schools were encouraged to have space for outside worship.

·         The project was a milestone in delivery of a varied and highly effective curriculum.

·         The area would include a range of play equipment to support this.

·         To support educational outcomes, there would be stepping stones, a seating area, and an area to develop core stability and motor skills, identified as an issue post-pandemic.

·         A den-building area and huts would promote creative development, team building, resilience and imaginative play.

·         A seating area would allow classes to be taught surrounded by nature and for acts of class / school worship.

·         The school was able to use nearby community woods for some lessons, but access was limited due to staff ratios and this was not so good from a safeguarding perspective.

·         Pupils had contributed to the design of the proposal.

·         Two teaching staff had experience of the forest school approach.

·         The proposal was supported by the parent body who had fundraised for it over the last five years.

·         Other locations had been considered, but this was the preferred area, since it was currently unusable by the school.

·         The structures would be wooden. Rubberised bark chips would be used, which would be natural in appearance. These were widely used.

·         All large trees would be preserved.

·         Low maintenance planting would feature between the paths.

·         Serious consideration has been taken of neighbours throughout the planning process and the development had been moved further into the school site, away from the boundary in response to comments received.

·         The school had been given five trees by West Berkshire Council, which would be planted on the boundary of the site.

·         The existing area had a man-made pond, which needed to be manually filled and had been dry for many years.

·         The existing area was full of brambles and nettles and was unsightly and unsafe.

·         The area was less than 100m² and was smaller than extensions of neighbouring properties.

·         The development would bring significant educational benefits for the school.

Member Questions to the Applicants

Members noted that the existing pond was man-made and not fed by natural sources. They asked about the history of the pond and the wildlife it supported. The applicants stated that the pond had been redeveloped in 2006. The previous pond was a liner in the ground, but the new structure was raised and had a bridge over the top. Following changes to legislation, the area had to be fenced off and this made it difficult to maintain. Work was carried out with the Pang Valley Volunteers on two occasions to redevelop the area.  The previous headteacher had not considered this to be an appropriate use of curriculum time, so the pond had fallen into disrepair. It rarely had water in it and the stopcock had to be removed, to stop it being abused by users of the footpath through the site. Historically, there had been tadpoles and frogs, but otherwise no significant wildlife.

Members sought clarification about the meaning of SIAM. Also, concerns were expressed about the potential fire risk posed by the fire pit.  It was explained that SIAM was the Statutory Inspection of Anglican and Methodist Schools, which reported on the quantity and quality of worship at the school. This proposal, which included a collective outdoor worship space, was felt to be beneficial. The fire pit would be removable and the suppliers had indicated that it would cool down within two hours, after which it could be stowed away. The school allowed children to learn to manage risk and the fire pit would be controlled.

Members noted that the parish council’s concerns related to the negative environmental impact of replacing a wild area and asked for more details of the wild area, what it was used for and what benefits it provided for the children. A question was also asked about plans to create wild areas elsewhere on the school site. It was confirmed that the area was very small (<100m²). It had been fenced off and was not accessible for students. It was covered in brambles and nettles and was overgrown, so it could not be utilised. It was considered to be in a useful location, next to the play area with good visibility from most of the school site. The children had access to other wild areas in the nearby community woodland and countryside.

The Rights of Way Officer’s comments were noted and Members asked who would be driving on the public footpath. The public footpath passed through the school site and passed between the school building and playground. Driving was not permitted except construction traffic. At the front of the school, the footpath was fenced off from the staff parking area.

Members sought clarification as to what would be included in the development. It was explained that the proposal had been revised several times in response to consultation feedback. The plan titled ‘Version 3’ was the latest version and included shelters, amphitheatre with upright posts, weaving posts and frames.

Members asked why this location had been selected to the proposal. Discussions with Sport England had confirmed that the size of the playing field needed to be retained and the current structure needed to be removed in order to maintain tournament activities. Other possible sites included a small grassed area with surface-mounted planters, which was used by younger children. This was only about a third of the size and so would deliver limited educational benefits. The other grassed area was adjacent to the proposed site, but this already had play equipment that was higher than the proposed features. To the rear of the site was a fenced off area for the Early Years Centre – a small area behind this had been proposed by residents as an alternative site. However, this was not flat and would need significant excavation that would affect neighbouring properties. The area contained several fruit trees and was regularly maintained. There was no other suitable area in the school.

Ward Member Representation

In addressing the committee, Councillor Alan Law raised the following points:

·         The site was a wild, overgrown area.

·         The Parish Council and objectors had made objections on environmental grounds, but the Ecology Officer had no serious objections.

·         Many of the objections related to the choice of location within the site, but the applicant had provided a clear rationale for this.

·         The officers’ report mentioned some conditions that did not appear in the proposed conditions list.

Questions to the Ward Member

There were no questions of clarification for the local ward member.

Questions to Officers

Members asked if the Ecology Officer had visited the site. Officers did not think that the Ecology Officer had visited the site, but the application had been accompanied by an ecological survey, which required a site visit and detailed site appraisal. This was standard practice and was considered a sufficient basis on which to make reasonable judgements.

It was queried whether paragraph 6.10 referred to the woodland hut. This was confirmed by officers.

Clarification was sought as to the comment in 6.27. It was explained that the Ecologist’s preference was to retain the pond, but this did not form part of the proposal. The mitigation plan and landscaping conditions would seek to mitigate the loss of the pond. The pond had been assessed as having low ecological value, so a reason for refusal on that basis could not be substantiated.

Members noted that the boundary fence with 17 Emery Acres was lower than those of surrounding properties and asked if this could be addressed by a condition. Officers highlighted that the landscaping condition included boundary treatments.

The terms GCN and RAMs were queried - these referred to great crested newts and reasonable avoidance measures.

Members asked if conditions were required to manage fire risk. It was explained that a moveable fire pit did not constitute development, so did not require planning permission. This would be a matter for the school and their health and safety responsibilities.

Members noted that the mitigation plan was not included in Condition 7 on Ecology. Officers indicated that Condition 4 required the Ecology Mitigation and Enhancement Plan to be agreed. Surveys were covered by Condition 5 and Condition 7 required a fresh Ecology Survey if the development did not commence within a certain time period.

Members suggested that the Construction Management Plan should be enhanced to include the part of Informative 3 about not driving on the public footpath. Officers explained that this was a standard request from the Rights of Way Team for any works close to the network. Mostly, these issues were addressed by other legislation, but officers were happy for this to be added to the condition.

Debate

Councillor Richard Somner recognised the benefits of the scheme for the children. Many local schools were in the fortunate position of being able to have forest zones where children could develop and learn outside. He recognised the logical reasons for the objections, but felt that these could be mitigated with things that the school wanted to do.  Providing an area where the children were safe and were learning would lead to development and children wanting to get involved in environmental activities. This would have clear benefits both locally and for the wider area.

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted the objection of the Parish Council and objectors were on environmental grounds, which confused the roles of the Council as applicant and planning authority. The Committee’s role was to consider whether the application met the Council’s requirements as planning authority rather than defending the Council’s environmental policies as the applicant. Also, he felt that the arguments overplayed the environmental policy aspects. The proposal was to replace a wasted area with something that would be of great benefit. He proposed to accept officers’ recommendation with the amendment of conditions to ensure that the public footpath was not obstructed during construction. This was seconded by Councillor Richard Somner.

Councillor Tony Linden felt that it would be good for the community and would encourage other schools to look at similar projects. He fully supported the application.

Councillor Alan Law noted that there were two debates – one around the environmental policy aspects, which had been addressed by Councillor Bridgman, and the requirement for mitigation plans, and another around the location of the development within the site, for which there were no planning objections.  He noted that there was a public right of way going through the middle of the school site and asked for an additional condition to require the existing fence to be retained as part of the landscaping. Officers were content for this to be added. This was supported by Councillors Bridgman and Somner.

Councillor Geoff Mayes expressed concern about loose rubber mulch being put over the fill in the pond. It was confirmed that the material would be bonded. 

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Graham Bridgman and seconded by Councillor Richard Somner to accept officers’ recommendation to approve the application, but amending Condition 3 related to the Construction and Environment Management Plan to include measures to safeguard the public footpath during construction, and amending Condition 11 on Landscaping to retain the existing fence alongside the public footpath. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Service Director of Planning and Regulation be authorised to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions listed below.

Conditions

1.	Commencement of development The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.   Reason:   To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).
2.	Approved plans The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents listed below:   ·            Location Plan received 27.09.2021; ·            Block Plan received 27.09.2021; ·            Location of proposed development received 27.09.2021; ·            Details of proposed equipment received 27.09.2021; ·            Detailed Floor Plan received on 02.03.2022; ·            3D Image received on 02.03.2022; ·            BSK33248-10 – Open Ended House Frame received 27.09.2021; ·            IF 035 - Weaving Posts received 27.09.2021; ·            IF 056 - Wigwam Posts received 27.09.2021; ·            Materials Details received 27.09.2021; ·            QF003 – Picnic Table – Small received 27.09.2021; ·            QF103 – Large Shelter with Seating and Planters received 27.09.2021; ·            Qf117 – Herb Planter received 27.09.2021; ·            School Playground Equipment received 27.09.2021; ·            Material Information received 27.09.2021; ·            WILD003 – Woodland Hut received 27.09.2021; ·            WILD009 – Log Amphitheatre – Three Tier received 27.09.2021; ·            WILD033 – Forest Playhut – With Table and Seats received 27.09.2021; ·            Tree Survey Drawing received 27.09.2021.   Reason:  For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
3.	Construction Environmental Management Plan No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include the following: (a)  Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities. (b)  Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”. (c)  Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements). (d)  The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features. (e)  The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works. (f)   Responsible persons and lines of communication. (g)  The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person. (h)  Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs. (i)    Measures to ensure that the public right of way is not obstructed at any time during the course of the development.   The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.   Reason:   To ensure the conservation and enhancement of the biodiversity assets of the site.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan 2019-24, and Policies CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.  A pre-commencement condition is required because the CEMP will need to be adhered to throughout construction.
4.	Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Plan No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until an Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter the Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Plan shall be implemented in full as part of the approved development.   Reason:   To ensure the conservation and enhancement of the biodiversity assets of the site.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.  A pre-commencement condition is required because the Mitigation and Enhancement Plan will need to be adhered to throughout construction.
5.	GCN surveys for pond removal The existing pond shall not be removed until a report on a great crested newt survey has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The report shall include any appropriate mitigation measures.  Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.   Reason:   To ensure the conservation and enhancement of the biodiversity assets of the site.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
6.	Lighting plan Prior to any installation of external lighting, an “Isolux lighting plan” showing the predicted levels of lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.   Reason: The introduction of artificial light might mean certain species are disturbed and/or discouraged from using their breeding and resting places, established flyways or foraging areas. Such disturbance can constitute an offence under relevant wildlife legislation. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
7.	Ecology report valid for 3 years If the development hereby approved does not commence by 10th February 2025 (3 years from the original ecology survey), a further ecology survey shall be carried out and a report submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before any development takes place.  Where the survey results indicate that changes have occurred that will result in ecological impacts not previously addressed in the approved scheme, the original approved ecological measures will be revised and new or amended measures, and a timetable for their implementation, will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Works will then be carried out in accordance with the proposed new approved ecological measures and timetable.   IMPORTANT: If any protected species are identified in the new surveys that were not previously known to be on site, and are likely to be harmed by the development, then a protected species licence might be required before works can commence.  Advice should be sought from Natural England and/or a suitably qualified ecologist.   Reason:  To ensure the conservation and enhancement of the biodiversity assets of the site.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
8.	Materials The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be as specified on the plans and the application forms.   Reason:   To ensure that the external materials respect the character and appearance of the area.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).
9.	Hours of work (construction/demolition) No demolition or construction works shall take place outside the following hours, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority: 8:30am to 6:00pm Mondays to Fridays; 9:00am to 1:00pm Saturdays; No work shall be carried out at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.   Reason:   To safeguard the amenities of adjoining land uses and occupiers.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
10.	Drainage There shall be no discharge into sewers, watercourses or other waterbodies during and post construction. The applicant shall ensure that no overland flow occurs as result of the works approved under this application, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.   Reason:   To ensure that surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Part 4 of Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006), Sustainable Drainage SPD (2008).
11.	Landscaping The development shall not be first brought into use until the site has been landscaped in accordance with a landscaping scheme that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The landscaping scheme shall retain the existing fence alongside the public footpath and shall include details of boundary treatments along the public highway and details of any planting.   Reason: To ensure appropriate landscaping of the site following completion of work.  This condition is applied in accordance with the NPPF, Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and the Quality Design SPD.

 

Informatives

1.	Damage to footways, cycleways and verges The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Berkshire Act, 1986, Part II, Clause 9, which enables the Highway Authority to recover the costs of repairing damage to the footway, cycleway or grass verge, arising during building operations.
2.	Damage to the carriageway The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Highways Act, 1980, which enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to extraordinary traffic.
3.	Rights of way The applicant is advised that all visitors to the site should be made aware that they would be driving along a public footpath. As a result they should drive with caution when manoeuvring into and out of the site, and should give way to pedestrians at all times. Nothing connected with either the development or the construction must adversely affect or encroach upon the footpath, which must remain available for public use at all times. The applicant is advised that the Rights of Way Officer must be informed prior to the laying of any services beneath the path. Where the ground levels adjacent to the path are to be raised above the existing ground levels, a suitable drainage system must be installed adjacent to the path, to a specification agreed with the Local Authority, prior to development commencing. No alteration of the surface of the right of way must take place without the prior written consent of the Rights of Way Officer.
4.	Proactive statement This decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development.  In this application whilst there has been a need to balance conflicting considerations, the local planning authority has secured and accepted what is considered to be a development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.