Agenda item

Proposal:	Extension and refurbishment of existing school sports hall. Temporary overflow car parking space to be resurfaced and reused for the duration of the construction process. External plant compound.
Location:	The Downs School, Compton, Newbury, RG20 6AD
Applicant:	West Berkshire Council
Recommendation:	To DELEGATE to the Development Control Manager to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

 

                    Item starts 3 hours, 6 minutes and 9 seconds into the recording.

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 21/02865/REG3 in respect of the extension and refurbishment of the existing school sports hall. Temporary overflow car parking space to be resurfaced and reused for the duration of the construction process. External plant compound.

2.       Ms Catherine Ireland 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.       Mr Bob Dray wished to clarify two points that had arisen since the publication of the report and revise the recommendation verbally. Further comments from the Drainage Engineer were included with the update sheet regarding the flood risk assessment and drainage strategy. The Drainage Engineer still had concerns however, was working with the applicant in relation to surface and ground water issues. It was recommended in the update report that if Members were otherwise content with the proposed application, then they could approve it and delegate drainage matters to Officers to resolve prior to the decision being issued.

4.       Mr Dray reported that a further response had been received regarding the BREAAM matter detailed in the report. In the report, BREAAM excellent was recommended and there had been ongoing debate as to whether this was achievable. Further information had been received and Mr Dray would scrutinise this with the Environmental Delivery Team. If it was deemed not appropriate to apply BREAAM then an alternative condition would be applied setting out what environmental measures would be provided.

5.       Mr Dray stated that neither of the matters related to why the application had been called in and if Members were minded to otherwise approve the scheme, then the two technical points could be delegated to Officers to resolve. This was Officers’ revised recommendation.

6.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Fred Quartermain, Parish Council representative, Mr Greg Bowman (West Berkshire Council) Applicant, Mr Thomas Maxwell, Agent, and Councillor Carolyne Culver, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

7.       Mr Quartermain in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       It was not in dispute that the current facility was ageing and did not meet requirements. The principle of the redevelopment of the site was not a contentious issue for the Parish Council.

·       The Parish Council was concerned that the aspect of the redevelopment proposed was flawed in a number of ways. One of these areas was the use of the site.

·       The sports facility on the site had been in place for a number of years. It was Council owned however, was not just a school sports hall and since it had opened had been a community facility outside of school hours including evenings, weekends and school holidays. It was currently open to the public Monday to Thursday, 6pm until 10pm. It was available for private hire on Fridays and at weekends. The local archery club used the hall most Friday evenings and every other Saturday morning. Summer holiday clubs were also run at the facility.

·       The Council had produced its own report regarding use of the facility, which clearly recognised the facility for community use and as a community asset. There had been 8088 public attendances at the facility over the last year consisting predominately of local clubs but also individual members of the public. The data demonstrated a small but thriving community facility. In despite of this, the Case Officer’s report stated that public use of the facility was a civil matter outside of planning consideration. It was felt that this was incorrect. Adopted planning policy required the loss of the facility for use by the public to be considered as part of the Committee’s decision on the application. This was clearly set out in Compton’s Neighbourhood Development Plan, which was referenced in the Officer’s report and was a thread that ran through all levels of the Local Authority’s (LA) planning policy.

·       Ensuring ongoing community use was an important policy consideration and the LA should be ensuring that the ongoing community use was secured as part of the process whether through a condition or planning obligation. It was an approach the LA had used elsewhere when securing community access to developments.

·       Failure to recognise the need for ongoing community use would amount to a failure to comply with the Public Service Equality Duty. It could negatively impact upon those with protected characteristics. The dismissive approach taken in the Officer’s report was directly at odds with the LA’s duty.

·       Regarding noise, the Parish Council and residents were concerned about the impact of the new external plant area and conditions needed to be put in place to ensure there was no harm caused to amenity.

·       In terms of design, the Parish Council felt that the design of the building did not respect the site’s location in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Large amounts of glazing and a modern design was proposed, which the Parish Council felt would be harmful. Conditions were proposed to deal with external light however, no consideration had been given to the amount of light pollution that would spill from internal lighting during evening and weekend usage due to the glazing. The glazing had also led to privacy and safeguarding concerns. Obscured glazing had been suggested however, this had not been secured at the current stage.

·       Finally, the Parish Council felt the application was a missed opportunity to address ongoing issues around parking for the school, which already caused a significant and detrimental impact on local amenity. The application, if approved, would drive parking away from the school site and onto surrounding roads certainly during the construction phase. Given the design and parking issues raised, the Parish Council felt the application should be refused and refined to deliver better outcomes. If approved, further conditions must be imposed regarding noise and light pollution, and the protection of community use must be ensured.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

8.       Members asked questions of the Parish Council representative and were given the following responses:

·       Mr Quartermain did not feel it was for him to advise whether the issue of community use should be covered as a Section 106 obligation rather than a condition. It was felt however, that a planning obligation would be appropriate.

·       Mr Quartermain was not aware of the contractual arrangements and whether the school benefitted from community use of the facility. The report produced by the Planning Officer suggested it was outsourced to an external supplier and that any benefit was not secured wholly by the school. The fact was that there was an existing thriving community use and the way the application was currently being dealt with did nothing to protect this.

Applicant/Agent Representation

9.       Mr Bowman (Applicant) and Mr Maxwell (Agent) in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       They supported the application, which had been brought to the Committee on behalf of West Berkshire Council’s Education Service, to extend and refurbish the dilapidated sports hall at The Downs School.

·       This would have the benefit of providing a fit for purpose sports hall which met the Department for Education’s guidelines. It would extend the sports hall from three to four courts, which was in line with other school sports halls elsewhere. It would provide excellent modern facilities for students to participate in sport and encourage healthy hearts and minds.

·       It would replace a poorly performing building, with a refurbished and extended sports hall, which would perform much better in terms of energy sustainability than the current building. It would be net zero in operation.

·       Efficiency of the car park would be improved providing additional accessible parking. The north car park would be resurfaced with parking denoted. Both car parks would remain operational during the building and works would be phased.

·       It was hoped the Committee would support the proposal and grant planning permission.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

10.   Members asked questions of the Applicant/Agent and were given the following responses:

·       It was confirmed that phasing of the work would take place outside of school term time. In reference to the disturbance to trees in terms of nesting times, it was confirmed that most of the work on the car park would not impact on the trees. Most of the planning for the tree areas was for them to remain as they were  currently. The north car park was currently a gravelled space, which would be removed, levelled and then re-gravelled with denoted parking bays. It could not be guaranteed that it would prevent parking on surrounding roads however, it would not impact on the current parking onsite.

·       Regarding usage of the facility outside of educational usage, the facility would provide the ability for community use however, Mr Bowman did not have any information on whether community use would continue.

Ward Member Representation

11.   Councillor Culver in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Councillor Culver had called the application in 19 months ago.

·       Councillor Culver welcomed the fact that the Council wished to improve the facility however, she had some concerns along with the Parish Council and residents.

·       Highways’ colleagues acknowledged that there might be a temporary displacement of sixth form students’ cars from the school site to neighbouring streets during the construction phase and had suggested less spaces would mean less students used their cars. Councillor Culver felt that this failed to recognise that it was a rural school where sixth form students travelled in from a wide catchment, and the only public bus route ran every two hours. Unless students lived in the villages served by the bus route, it would not be of any use to them.

·       There was already pressure caused by parking on neighbouring streets, which the school and Councillor Culver had received complaints about. Councillor Culver strongly recommended to the school that if the application was approved, they should work out how to ration spaces so that those who could not walk, cycle or use the bus were prioritised for a parking space.

·       Members were told at the site visit that a tree would be lost. Councillor Culver requested that this be addressed in the conditions.

·       Councillor Culver felt it would be helpful to have clarity about when work would take place and how long it would take given the longest school break of the year was coming to an end.

·       The Parish Council and residents who ran the public provision at the school were concerned about public access to the new facility. While the Officer’s report stated ‘it is understood that consultation will be held regarding the community use of the facilities’, coaches that ran some of the public provision had informed Councillor Culver that they had received no response from the new leisure contractor despite raising concerns with them. They had not been consulted ahead of the tender exercise and as a consequence they were now experiencing problems they did not have under the previous contractor.

·       Councillor Culver reiterated that she had made the call-in 19 months ago and queried why no reassurance been provided in the meantime. Concerns had been heightened by the apparent lack of interest of the new contractor in engaging with the coaches.

·       In February 2022, Compton passed its Neighbourhood Development Plan at referendum. The document stated that planning decisions should ‘guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities’.

·       When the Institute received planning permission shortly after the referendum, the following policies were not met: policy C2 for the number of homes; policy C4 district heating; policy C5 housing mix; policy C6 hostel retention; policy C7 regarding house size and policy C11 business hub. Councillor Culver stressed it was important that policy C12 on community facilities was not ignored as well.  

·       The school had experienced flooding on site. School staff had showed Councillor Culver a building where students needed to jump across a flooded path to get in and out.

·       The Principal Engineer for Drainage and Flood Risk had raised a series of concerns since February 2022. Members had been given sight of his emails from February 2022, April 2022, June 2022 and August 2023 on the planning portal.

·       On 15th August the Principal Engineer for Drainage had written ‘The FRA needs to be revised’. Councillor Culver stressed that this was a fundamental problem and from looking at the emails she had no confidence that policy CS16 could be met. Councillor Culver queried why the Principal Engineer’s concerns had not been sorted 18 months after his first concerns were raised, so that Members could vote with confidence that his concerns had been dealt with.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

12.   Members asked questions of the Ward Member and were given the following responses:

·       Regarding the glazing being one of the reasons for the item being called in, Councillor Culver did not feel the issue had been resolved and agreed with Mr Quartermain’s existing concerns regarding the proposed glazed design.

13.   Councillor Woollaston noted that there were a number of areas that had been raised by Councillor Culver that had not been addressed in the report. On this basis he queried if the application should be deferred. Ms Sharon Armour advised that the Committee should proceed with questions to Officers before making a decision about whether to defer the item.

Member Questions to Officers

14.   Councillor Heather Codling declared an interest in the item as she was the Portfolio Holder for Education and was aware of the application.

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

·       On whether the glazed element of the proposal was necessary, the Planning Authority had to consider the application before it, and assess it on its merits. It was expected that the proposed glazing related to the amenity of the facility and because it provided a nice outlook. A condition had not been added to secure obscured glazing because the distance to the public right of way did not make this necessary. This was not a condition recommended by Planning however, might be something Members wished to consider.

·       A planning condition should only be added to make the development acceptable. Concern regarding the glazing had been raised and during the course of the application process the applicant had offered to obscure glaze the windows to half way up. Planning Officers did not however feel that this was necessary due to the distance involved to the public right of way and had therefore not recommended it as a condition. It was expected that the applicant would accept a condition on this if Members felt it was necessary on planning grounds.

·       It was confirmed that the contract between West Berkshire Council and the leisure contractor was not a planning matter however, community use of the facility possibly was.

·       The application included a proposal to extend and refurbish the sports hall with new facilities. Nothing that was being proposed would remove the possibility of community use and no change of use was proposed. Members could request that details regarding community use be secured if wished and this might be an element the Committee wished to debate.

·       In terms of the best way to secure community use going forward, both conditions and Section 106 Agreements aimed to secure measures in the planning permission. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was clear that conditions should be used where possible. A S106 Agreement should only be resorted to when a condition would not suffice and there was no reason that could be identified as to why a S106 would be required over a condition.

·       Regarding Mr Quartermain’s statement that adopted planning policy requested the potential loss of the facility be considered as part of the decision, there was no evidence in the planning application that there would be a change of use to stop the community use.

·       The latest position regarding SuDS had arisen since publication of the planning report including the issue of ground and surface water. The Drainage Officer was not content with the drainage strategy submitted. If Members were minded to otherwise approve the application then drainage could be delegated to Officers as a technical matter to ensure the Drainage Officer was satisfied with the scheme before proceeding. If there were any fundamental changes required to the scheme it was likely it would be brought back to Committee for consideration.    

Debate

16.   Councillor Vickers opened the debate by stating he hoped it would not be necessary to defer the item and set out what he deemed to be the key issues. On the matter of community use, Councillor Vickers stated that he would like to accept Mr Dray’s suggestion of adding a condition that required proposals on continuing with community use to be set out.

17.   Councillor Vickers was concerned about the parking issues raised and felt that a Travel Plan condition could be added. It was not only the reduction in the available space that was an issue but also a way of rationing available spaces was required. The footprint of the building was being increased at the expense of land available for parking and therefore it was felt this would be a reasonable request.

18.   In terms of drainage and SuDS, Councillor Vickers commented that the impermeable surface was not increasing significantly and based on Councillor Culver’s comments, it sounded like this was an existing issue. Councillor Vickers felt that the applicant should not be asked to deal with an existing problem. If a new drainage strategy was required, this might be something that was outside the remit of the application. Councillor Vickers stated he would be happy to delegate the matter to Officers.

19.   Councillor Vickers stated that he was content with the glazed aspect of the proposal and what had already been offered by the applicant. He felt to be exercising in a windowless environment would not be good for one’s mental health. It was not felt that the child protection matters raised were significant, as there was little difference to children playing out on the school field as they did currently. 

20.   Councillor Culver stated that the applicant was not being expected to deal with the existing flooding issues. The Flood Engineer had specifically considered the application. Councillor Culver’s point had been that there was already an issue on site and the Flood Engineer had stated that the proposal would require a new flood risk assessment. Her point was that if the proposal was approved the issue would be compounded. Members needed to consider the application on its merits and the Drainage Engineer currently did not consider this area of the application to be adequate. The Drainage Engineer’s concerns dated back to February 2022 and Councillor Culver queried why the matter had not been addressed.

21.   Councillor Culver was of the view that if the issues of drainage and community usage had been addressed earlier there would be confidence in the scheme being granted approval and going ahead. Councillor Culver did not want to prevent a positive application from going ahead however, felt that by voting in favour of the scheme she would be going against the comments of the Flood Engineer. Councillor Culver wanted to feel confident that the Flood Engineer’s concerns had been addressed. Councillor Culver felt that a condition was also required on public usage. Concerns about both aspects had been raised by the public and the Parish Council 19 months ago and Councillor Culver felt that West Berkshire Council as the applicant should had rectified the issues.

22.   The Chairman asked if Councillor Culver would be in support of the issues mentioned being delegated to Officers to resolve and she confirmed that she would not support this approach. 

23.   Councillor Codling stated that she supported the proposal. It was necessary for the school the have the facility. Councillor Codling had believed the intention was for community use to continue and this was why Everyone Active had pushed for the scheme to be progressed.

24.   Councillor Amirtharaj stated that although he would support the proposal he was concerned about the privacy issues raised by the Parish Council with regards to the glazing. He was not convinced that the distance to the public right of way was sufficient. Councillor Amirtharaj felt the building needed to be fully obscured. The Chairman stated that it was not within the remit of the Committee to redesign the building. Mr Dray confirmed that the Committee could debate the matter and add a condition to ensure obscured glazing was put in place.

25.   Councillor Culver proposed that the item be deferred until further information was obtained regarding community usage and the drainage issues. Councillor Woollaston seconded the proposal. The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal and at the vote the motion was not carried.

26.   Councillor Hooker agreed with the comments raised by Councillor Vickers. Councillor Hooker proposed Members accept the recommendation to approve planning permission subject to conditions being added in line with Councillor Vickers comments. Councillor Vickers seconded the proposal.

27.   Mr Dray clarified the conditions that Councillor Hooker and Councillor Vickers wished to add to the proposal. It was acknowledged that the proposal was to accept the Officer recommendation as set out in the report and update sheet including the delegation of matters regarding BREEAM and SuDs to Officers.

28.   Regarding concerns about parking and phasing, rather than a Travel Plan Mr Dray suggested that condition five on the construction method statement be amended and extended to explain about phasing and timings. Councillor Vickers stated that it was not just the construction method statement but also the finished plan. He felt the school would need to ration the use of parking spaces and this might require a Travel Plan. Mr Dray acknowledged that concerns related to the operation of the site as well as the construction phase and therefore suggested that as well as amending condition five, a separate condition be added to ensure a plan was provided for how parking on the site would be operated. Details on this would need to be provided prior to occupation.

29.   Mr Dray further clarified that a condition was required regarding community use. This would state that prior to occupation, a scheme of community use should be submitted to the Council for approval.

30.   Regarding a condition on obscured glazing, Mr Dray clarified with Councillor Hooker that he wished for half of the window to be obscured. Councillor Vickers confirmed he was content with this proposal. 

31.   Mr Paul Goddard reported that there had been a time when every school in the district had a Travel Plan. He was unsure of the current Travel Plan arrangements for the school in question or whether it still existed. A Travel Plan condition could be included or it might be possible to update the current Travel Plan to account for the current proposal if approved. Regarding condition five on the construction method statement, Mr Goddard was aware of concerns regarding the overspill of parking onto nearby roads during the construction phase and suggested an additional line was added to ensure staff car parking continued on the site.

32.   Councillor Hooker and Councillor Vickers confirmed that they agreed with the clarification provided on conditions by Officers.  

33.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Hooker seconded by Councillor Vickers 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 (1) resolution of the drainage and BREEAM issues (including applying any necessary conditions) within 3 months of the date of the committee meeting, or such longer period as agreed by the Development Control Manager in consultation with the Chairman of the committee, and (2) the additional/amended conditions as set out below;

OR in the event that the drainage and BREEAM issues are not resolved, that the application is brought back for the consideration of the committee.

Conditions

5.	Construction method statement (amended) No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The statement shall provide for:   (a) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors, including a plan to manage the phasing and timing of work with the available parking across the school site (b) Loading and unloading of plant and materials (c) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development (d) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing (e) Wheel washing facilities (f) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction (g) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works (h) A site set-up plan during the works (i) Temporary parking school uses during construction   Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers and in the interests of highway safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS5 and CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy TRANS 1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007). A pre-commencement condition is required because the CMS must be adhered to during all demolition and construction operations.
	Travel Plan (additional) The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until a Travel Plan (or an updated Travel Plan) for the school has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the Travel Plan shall be implemented from the development first being brought into use. It should be reviewed and updated if necessary within 6 months of first implementation. After that the Travel Plan shall be annually reviewed and updated and all reasonable practicable steps made to achieve the agreed targets and measures within the timescales set out in the plan and any subsequent revisions.   Reason:  To ensure the development reduces reliance on private motor vehicles and provides the appropriate level of vehicle parking and/or management of parking across the site.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
	Scheme of Community Use (additional) The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until a scheme of community use has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.   Reason: To prevent the loss of valued community use in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy C12 of the Compton Neighbourhood Development Plan.
	Obscure glazing (additional) The studio window at first floor level in the eastern elevation shall be fitted with obscure glass or an opaque frosted film across the lower half of the window (in accordance with drawing number 20083-OA-B1-ZZ-DR-A-5002/P6) before the extension hereby permitted is occupied.  The obscure glazing / opaque frosted film shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.   Reason:  To safeguard the privacy of the users of the development.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).