Agenda item

The Committee considered a Regulation 3 planning application for a Proposed Renewal of Planning Consent to retain a Mobile Classroom at Sedgeberrow CE First School, Main Street, Sedgeberrow, Evesham.

The report set out the background of the proposal, the proposal itself, the relevant planning policy and details of the site, consultations and representations.

The report set out the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Planning's comments in relation to Need to retain school places, and Design.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Planning concluded that the retention of the existing double mobile classroom would, overall, accord with the development plan in a planning balance exercise for the following reasons.

Firstly, whilst the concerns expressed regarding the physical condition of the mobile in terms of its suitability for giving pupils the best possible learning environment (and the absence of high quality design which complements the character of the local area) were important, the weight carried by these concerns was not considered sufficient to outweigh the great weight that should be applied to the need to retain an existing community facility required by Policy SWDP37 and Paragraph 94(a) of the NPPF. The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that it would be wholly unreasonable to refuse planning permission and remove approximately one third of Sedgeberrow CE First School's classroom spaces with no alternative provision in place without considering the use of a planning condition that would allow the applicant sufficient time to develop a plan for permanent accommodation.

Secondly, the concerns expressed regarding the suitability of the double mobile classroom for those with disabilities, whilst sensitive and material considerations, were considered to be manageable in the way the school uses its buildings. The Development Plan policies did not require the addition of ramps to the double mobile classroom. In addition, the County Planning Authority's Principal Planning Solicitor had confirmed that the applicant's approach to undertake reasonable adjustments at the appropriate time would accord with the County Council's Equalities duties.

Overall, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that the planning balance lies in favour of retaining the existing double mobile classroom on site, subject to a condition requiring its removal within five years in order to allow the applicant time to develop a plan for permanent accommodation at the site.

Notwithstanding the above conclusion, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy agreed that permanent accommodation solutions for temporary mobile classrooms across Worcestershire should be sought as a priority in the interests of providing good quality learning environments for children in Worcestershire.

Taking in to account the provisions of the Development Plan and in particular Policies SWDP 1, SWDP 2, SWDP 4, SWDP 21, SWDP 22, SWDP 25, SWDP 27, SWDP 28, SWDP 29, SWDP 30, SWDP 31 and SWDP 38 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan, it was considered the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the interests intended to be protected by these policies or highway safety.

Mr Edwards, Chairman of Sedgeberrow First School and an objector to the application addressed the Committee. He commented the governors believed that the ‘temporary mobile’ classroom subject to this planning application was sub-standard and no longer provided a fit for purpose teaching environment and pupils and teachers faced a number of challenges on a daily basis.

The rooms were also comparatively small for modern classrooms, with very little storage space and did not provide breakout spaces for teachers and teaching assistants to work with smaller groups of children. The size was also restricting the teachers' ability to deliver lessons in an interactive and imaginative manner as there was little space for the pupils to do anything other than sit in rows of desks. The school had a very small capital expenditure budget of £5k per annum which was more than consumed on the up keep of the ‘temporary mobile’ classroom meaning that ongoing repairs and maintenance were having to be funded from the school's education budget.

The basis of the Governors objection to the application for a further 5 years of planning permission for the ‘temporary mobile’ classrooms was based on the following:

·         Granting planning permission for a further 5 years (to 2023) was too long a period of time and would only reinforce the lack of progress that the school had made to get these ‘temporary mobile’ classrooms replaced with a permanent structure

·         The planning application as currently worded was vague and provided the governing body with no confidence or reassurance that the Council were committed to replacing the ‘temporary mobile’ classrooms with a permanent structure in the timeframe quoted

·         Due to the issues noted above the classrooms were sub-standard and no longer fit for purpose

·         The ‘temporary mobile’ classrooms were not suitable for pupils with disabilities who need the use of a wheelchair. This would become a problem in the future as there was currently a child in Year 1 who would need the use of a wheelchair

Mr Edwards concluded that the Governors of Sedgeberrow C of E First School were requesting the following:

·         A shorter planning permission period of 1 year not 5

·         A planning condition to include a commitment to complete a full structural condition survey (including the roof) of the ‘temporary mobile’ classrooms. A stronger, definitive commitment from the council to commit funding for a permanent replacement structure, as well as agreement of a proactive, approach from all parties to ensure that this could be achieved.

In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised:

·         The local councillor commented that there was a lack of confidence that the Council would be able to meet the needs of a child with a disability in attendance at the school. Condition surveys were not comprehensive in nature and had not picked up all the faults with the mobile classroom. The state of the building was impacting on children's learning despite the school's efforts to make it as habitable as possible. The same issue arose in 2011 and she was given an assurance that the mobile would be replaced within 5 years. Given these circumstances, permission should only be granted for one year and certainly not for 5 years

·         In response to a query, the representative of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that if a child with a disability required access to the mobile unit then the applicant would need to make reasonable adjustments. That need had not yet arisen therefore the duty to make reasonable adjustment did not apply. In response concern was expressed that the Council's Equality Officer had not been consulted and account had not been taken of the potential use of the unit by a disabled child

·         Mobile accommodation was inappropriate for children from a safeguarding perspective. In the circumstances, the school required a new build rather than an extension to the permission for the mobile classroom

·         Planning permission should have been sought at the time the previous permission ran out in 2016

·         If permission for the renewal of planning consent was refused, what would be the effect on the school? The representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy explained that the mobile classroom would not have planning permission. A decision would then need to made whether to take enforcement action and consideration of the implications of such action on the school. In accordance with Government Guidance, very good reasons were required for removing a classroom without community use

·         The school should not be expected to spend any further money on accommodation that was not fit-for-purpose and permission should only be granted for one year

·         It was unacceptable that children had been educated in temporary classrooms in this school for 23 years. However it was clear that there was insufficient funding available for a permanent replacement classroom. The applicant had asked for a renewal for 5 years however this should be taken from the date that the previous permission expired which would focus the mind of the applicant in seeking to address the accommodation issues at the school. The representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy advised that officers usually imposed a time-limit of 5 years due to the temporary nature of the permission. Some district councils had policies that restricted the length of permission for temporary buildings but this was not the case in Wychavon

·         The proposal to restrict permission to 3 years was still too long and 12 months would be more appropriate. In response, it was commented that realistically 3 years would provide sufficient time for the applicant to find alternative solutions to the problem. The local councillor accepted that that 3 years was a more realistic period to allow for a permanent solution to be found

·         An amendment that the double mobile classroom be removed from the site by 31 December 2021 was agreed.

RESOLVED thatplanning permission be granted for the Proposed Renewal of Planning Consent to retain a Mobile Classroom at Sedgeberrow CE First School, Main Street, Sedgeberrow, Evesham, subject to the following condition:

Requirement to remove the temporary mobile classroom

The double mobile classroom and all associated infrastructure shall be removed from the site by 31 December 2021. Prior to the removal of the double mobile classroom and associated infrastructure, a scheme for the reinstatement of the land on which the double mobile classroom is situated shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter, the land shall be reinstated in accordance with the approved scheme.