Agenda item

(Item starts at 8 minutes and 50 seconds into the recording)

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning planning application 23/01650/FUL in respect of the change of use of office building (Class E) to education use (Class F1(a)), minor external alterations and associated works to curtilage, including provision of outdoor amenity space and erection of fencing.

2.       Ms Cheyanne Kirby introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the  Development Control Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr James Cole, Town Council representative (Hungerford), Mr James Iles, Agent, and Councillor Tony Vickers, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

4.       Mr Cole in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       The Town Council had no warning about the application and the fast-tracking of the application raised policy issues.

·       Members of the Town Council had met with the promoters of the application and were happy with what they heard.

·       This would not be a standard school and pupils would mostly arrive by minibus or car. However, roads were capable of handling the additional traffic. A swept path analysis had been completed and it was understood that start and finish times would be staggered.

·       The proposed fencing was considered acceptable.

·       Some planting was proposed, which would improve the appearance of the site.

·       Even if this turned out to be a short-term solution, it was considered to be a good use of an empty building and it would be good to have such a school in Hungerford.

·       The Town Council would be happy for the Committee to approve the application.

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

5.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Agent Representation

6.       Mr Iles in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Mr Iles had been pleased to work closely with Planning Officers and he was grateful for their assistance in bringing the application to Committee in such a timely manner.

·       The proposal was for a much-needed special needs school, located in a fully-refurbished office block.

·       There was an acute need for a special needs school in the district and the proposal would provide 30 places serving a catchment of around 30 minutes travel time, meeting the demands of West Berkshire and the immediate neighbouring area.

·       Teaching would be on a one-to-one basis in small groups.

·       The applicant had worked hard to find a suitable location and the aim was to open the school in September to meet demand and support local authority placements as soon as possible.

·       Various modest modifications were proposed, including a new security fence, provision of outdoor play areas, a new doorway to access the play space, roof lights, and new native hedge planting.

·       There would be space within the parking area to allow minibuses to turn round and cycle parking would be provided as requested by Highways.

·       There had been no objections and positive responses had been received from Hungerford Town Council.

·       Where additional information had been requested, this had been provided. Additional facilities and play space would be accessed via the nearby Herongate Club. Fencing would be designed to minimise impacts on tree roots. Water butts would be provided to help with rainwater recycling and drainage. Electric vehicle charging points would be provided.

·       The proposal would deliver economic benefits through the creation of teaching, administrative and support jobs, as well as supporting local grounds maintenance companies, uniform providers, food and drink suppliers, facilities and partnership working with Herongate Club and other local organisations.

·       It was proposed to open the school in September, creating a great school for local children, with dedicated special needs teaching that was desperately needed.

·       The headteacher and management team would work with other schools to improve standards and outcomes for children and create more opportunities for staff, local authorities and other stakeholders.

·       It was hoped that the Committee would support the officers’ recommendation for approval.

Member Questions to the Agent

7.       Members asked questions of the Agent representative and were given the following responses:

·       Concerns about pupil safety around the fire escape would be picked up as part of Building Regulations approvals and Ofsted inspections.

Ward Member Representation

8.       Councillor Vickers in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       The local ward members had queried the provision of a school within an employment area and were going to call it in due to the lack of detail on the application, but officers had called it in on public interest grounds.

·       Fast-tracking of applications was considered justified where there was a wider interest for the Council.

·       While technically not an employment use class, it would provide significant employment due to the one-to-one teaching ratio, and each application should be considered on its merits.

·       Local ward members were happy to support the application.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

9.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

10.   Members asked questions of the Officers and were given the following responses:

·       Officers were unable to require solar panels, since BREEAM only applied to new development.

·       Highways had recommended conditional approval subject to parking being provided in accordance with the plans, provision of electric vehicle charging (which had been accepted by the applicant) and motorcycle / cycle parking spaces.

·       The planning permission would be for longer than two years, but the certificate of lawfulness was for two academic years, which was in accordance with the General Permitted Development Order (GDPO).

·       Officers could not confirm how long the unit had been vacant. It had previously been used by David Wilson Homes.

·       Officers explained that the school was keen to open in September 2023. They had previously explored their permitted development rights, but without Secretary of State approval, a planning application had to be submitted. This needed to be progressed at pace, since a delay to the next meeting of the Committee would have meant the school would have been unable to open in September.

·       It was confirmed that a swept path analysis had been completed for the minibus turning area, and two parking areas would be set aside to allow minibuses to turn. Condition 3 stipulated that the development shall not be brought into use until the works were completed.

·       Officers stressed that there were no concerns about the school opening in September, since most of the works were relatively minor. Also, the exact opening date had not been confirmed. Officers were only concerned with the planning permission and compliance with conditions. Trigger points were clear, and it was up to the applicant to comply. Enforcement could be undertaken if necessary. There was no requirement for the applicant to provide any further information before proceeding.

Debate

11.   Councillor Vickers opened the debate. He emphasised that the key issue was the change of use. However, it was not the first time that there had been an application for education use in a business park. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that it was right for local authorities to work pro-actively to support sustainable development where there was a public interest. Many of the proposed measures could be carried out under permitted development. Work undertaken to date had been at the applicant’s own risk. He felt that the Committee should support the proposal. His only concern was whether a barrier should be erected until the hedging matured to prevent views into the site. He felt that the application needed to be fast-tracked, but if the school was unable to open at the start of term, that was not a planning matter.

12.   Councillor Antony Amirtharaj supported the application and stressed that it would take pressure off other schools in the area.

13.   Councillor Dennis Benneyworth noted that when the application had first been proposed, it had lacked detail, but as details emerged, it found favour with the Town Council. While the loss of industrial use was regrettable, he was supportive of the scheme.

14.   Councillor Benneyworth proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Heather Codling.

15.   Councillor Carolyne Culver asked if a condition was needed to provide temporary screening to prevent views into the site while the hedging matured. This was agreed by the Members who had proposed and seconded the motion.

16.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Benneyworth, seconded by Councillor Codling, to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Control Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report and update report and the additional condition as set out below:

Conditions

Conditions as per those set out in the report and update report, but with the additional condition as set out below (precise wording to be determined by officers):