Agenda item

The Committee considered an application under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning Regulations 1992 for a proposed three classroom extension, demolition of temporary double mobile classrooms, new car park and Change of Use from Agriculture to Educational use for two adjacent fields at Fairfield First School, Stourbridge Road, Fairfield, Worcestershire.

 

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 Economy’s comments in relation to Green Belt, Landscape Character, Visual Impact and Residential Amenity, Traffic and Highway Safety, Other Matters – Crime, Historic Environment, Ecology and Biodiversity, Water Environment, and Waste.

 

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy concluded that the proposed development was located within the West Midlands Green Belt. It was considered that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which was, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

 

The proposed height and scale of the proposal would limit the impact on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt. The proposal was for a site where there was existing built development and it was considered that the proposal would not result in urban sprawl or unacceptable encroachment into the countryside. The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that the range of factors including the need to expand the school as a result of the anticipated growth in pupil numbers, the removal of split age classes and the existing poor condition of the modular buildings, meant that it was considered that very special circumstances had been demonstrated in this instance that would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Consequently, the Head of Economy and Infrastructure considered that the other considerations in this case clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt.

 

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the scale, massing and design of the proposed development, there would not be an adverse or detrimental visual impact. Furthermore, it was considered that due to the distances involved the proposed development, would not cause any unacceptable overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking implications that detracted from residential amenity due to its design, size and location.

 

The County Highways Officer had stated that a robust assessment of the planning application had been undertaken, and based on this analysis, it had been concluded that there would not be an unacceptable impact and, therefore, there were no justifiable grounds on which an objection could be maintained. The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy was satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon traffic or highway safety, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

 

West Mercia Police had been consulted and had no objections to the proposal.  In view of this, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy was satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon crime and antisocial behaviour.

 

The County Archaeologist has been consulted and had raised no objections to the proposal. The District Council's Conservation Officer also made no adverse comments. In view of this, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economic considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the historic environment.

 

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposed development would have no adverse impacts on the ecology and biodiversity at the site or in the surrounding area, and would enhance the application site’s value for biodiversity.

 

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considers that subject to the

imposition of appropriate conditions, that the proposed development would have no adverse impacts on the water environment.

 

Taking into account the provisions of the Development Plan and in particular Policy WCS17 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and policies BDP1, BDP2, BDP4, BDP15, BDP16, BDP19, BDP20, BDP21, BDP22, BDP23, BDP24 and BDP25 of the  Bromsgrove District Plan (2011-2030), it was considered the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the interests intended to be protected by these policies or highway safety.

 

The representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy introduced the report and commented that members had visited the site and observed the location of the nearest local residents, the school access road off Stourbridge Road, and the adjacent non-designated heritage site. Members visited the location of the existing double mobile classroom and noted the location of the proposed three classroom extension and the existing forest school area.

 

Mr Palmer an objector to the proposal addressed the Committee on behalf of the Fairfield Village Community Association. He commented that approximately 12 pupils lived in the local area and with no local development, it was forecast that the number of local children in the area was unlikely to increase. The starting point for the consideration of this application was whether the extension was a disproportionate addition over above the size to the existing building. The Planning Inspectorate had previously deemed that a school expansion of approximately 120% would be deemed disproportionate and this application was a 300% expansion. Although Planning Inspectorate decisions were not legally binding, they should guide local planning authorities. Bromsgrove District Council considered the extension disproportionate to the original building and therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt. An application that was disproportionate was harmful to the Green Belt. The High Court had ruled development could not preserve the openness of the Green Belt and provided clarity of the form that harm could be. The term should not be construed to mean that all individual considerations should be considered together as a cumulative consideration of harm.

 

The proposal would create additional school places for 35 children who did not live in reasonable walking distance. No consideration had not been given for the expansion of schools in the local area where the children lived. No consideration had been given to the impact on an already congested arterial road. The Travel Plan relied on no suitable public transport links and parents taking siblings to other schools and did not work in the same location. Additional traffic would be using the narrow school drive increasing risk to pedestrians and potential damage to properties.

 

He considered that the applicant had not demonstrated very special circumstances for this development that outweighed the harm to the Green Belt. Presumption in favour of the development did not apply as the needs of existing pupils in the local area were already being met.

 

The following point was raised with Mr Palmer following his presentation:

 

·         In response to a query, Mr Palmer indicated that his main objection to the application was to the overall net build, because the application was not for a like-for-like replacement build.

 

Ms Lewing the agent acting on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee. She commented that from a school’s point of view, the proposal was extremely positive in two crucial ways: 1. The school enjoyed an excellent reputation across the area and had been oversubscribed for many years. An increase in the

admission number would alleviate this and increase the number of school places across the town of Bromsgrove – enabling the school to help with Objective 3 of Worcestershire Children’s First Strategy. 2. The most important part of the project to the school was the replacement of the aging and dilapidated temporary classrooms. They had now been in place for nearly 25 years and were second hand when they arrived. The classrooms were extremely cold and expensive to heat in the winter and were hot and stuffy in the summer. They were dark, the windows leaked and one of the rooms had been closed recently after the roof had leaked during the half term break. Both rooms had been during the winter months due to frozen pipes. This had a substantial negative impact on the school maintenance budget and most importantly reduced the number of school days children were being educated. It was proposed that the fields associated with this project would be used to plant trees and create a wildflower meadow to extend the current Forest School provision.

 

From an architect’s perspective, she commented that the limited site access had been carefully considered in the pre-construction information for potential contractors to develop into their Construction Phase Plan for the proposed works. The contractor would advise all drivers accessing the site of the restrictions before they arrived. The drive would have restricted access at the start and end of each school day and all deliveries would be supervised from the main road.

 

The building had been carefully designed to have high fabric insulation values and high air tightness well above those required to meet Building Regulations standards. The Council’s ‘Sustainable Design Guide’ included for all new build schools to have an overall target of 22kg Carbon Dioxide per metre. It had been calculated that this building would have a substantially lower emission rate of 14.3kg – this equated to a reduction of over 2,000kg of CO2 per year.

 

The following points were raised with Ms Lewing following her presentation:

 

·         Would construction traffic be any heavier than the farming machinery previously travelling along the access road? Ms Lewing responded that the contractor had had to complete a full assessment of the potential impact on the access road, the footpath, the church wall and the surface of the road. The classroom extension had been designed as brick and block construction with small units and therefore the size of vehicle using the access to the site would be restricted. Previously the farmer had driven oil tankers and other farm machinery along the access road

·         In response to a query, Ms Lewing indicated that the contractor would be responsible for any damage that occurred during the construction period

·         In response to a query, Ms Lewing stated that the ownership of the access road was unclear

·         Who had responsibility for overseeing the scheme? Ms Lewing explained the tender documentation set out the responsibility of the contractor to liaise with local residents however if any major issues occurred, she would tackle them with the contractor in her role as the contract administrator

·         How long would the construction works take to complete? Ms Lewing indicated that it was anticipated that the contractor would be on site by the February 2020 half term with completion during the October 2020 half term. 

 

In the ensuing debate, the following points were raised:

 

·         It was a fantastic achievement that the proposal would lead to a reduction in carbon emissions of 2 tonnes a year

·         Following comments about the attractive nature of the location of the site, the representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy confirmed under planning legislation, there was no right to a view

·         In response to a query about sustainable transport, the representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy explained that some staff used the local bus services to travel to work

·         It was clear from the site visit that the existing mobile classrooms were past their sell-by date and this application was necessary to bring this part of school up to modern standards

·         The very special circumstances for the location of this development in the Green Belt had clearly been demonstrated. Temporary classrooms were terrible environments for teaching and learning and this application was long overdue. This was a clearly a popular and successful school with a growing population of children needing to attend it and it was necessary to find school places where the need arose. The only other alternative would be to build a new school elsewhere in the village. The expansion of the forest school was a welcome and appropriate use of Green Belt.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for a proposed three classroom extension, demolition of temporary double mobile classrooms, new car park and change of use from agriculture to educational use for two adjacent fields at Fairfield First School, Stourbridge Road, Fairfield, Worcestershire, subject to the following conditions:

 

a)    The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission;

 

b)   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on submitted Drawings Numbered: BW40005L QCA-JAC-00-GF-DR-A- 0100 and BW40005L QCA-JAC-00-GF-DR-A- 0101 except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission;

 

c)    Notwithstanding any indication of the materials, which may have been given in this application, within 1 month of the commencement of the development hereby approved, a schedule and/or samples of the materials and finishes for the development shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. Thereafter the development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details;

 

d)   The development hereby permitted should not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of foul water flows have been submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use;

 

e)    No construction deliveries associated with the development hereby permitted shall take place between the hours of 07:30 and 09:15 and 14:30 and 16:00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive during term time;

 

f)     Notwithstanding any submitted details, the development hereby approved shall not commence until hours of construction work are agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter, construction work shall only take place between the agreed hours;

 

g)   The travel plan shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details which have been registered with Modeshift STARS Business;

 

h)   The Development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until at least 1 electric vehicle charging space has been provided in accordance with a specification which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.  Thereafter, such space(s) and power point(s) shall be kept available and maintained for the use of electric vehicles only;

 

i)     The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the parking and turning facilities have been provided as shown on drawing BW40005L QCA-JAC-00-GF-DR-A- 0100;

 

j)     Notwithstanding the submitted details, the development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until at least 1 accessible car parking space has been provided in a location to be agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accidence with the approved details and the space(s) shall be kept available and maintained for use by disabled users only;

 

k)    The development hereby approved shall not commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan for Highways has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. This shall include but not be limited to the following:

 

                       i.       Measures to ensure that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or other detritus on the public highway;

 

                     ii.       Details of site operative parking areas, material storage areas and the location of site operatives facilities;

 

                    iii.       The hours that delivery vehicles will be permitted to arrive and depart, and arrangements for unloading and manoeuvring; and

 

                    iv.       A highway condition survey, timescale for re-inspections, and details of any reinstatement.

 

The measures set out in the approved Plan shall be carried out and complied with in full during the construction of the development hereby approved.  Site operatives' parking, material storage and the positioning of operatives' facilities shall only take place on the site in locations approved by in writing by the County Planning Authority;

 

l)     A pre-commencement site inspection for mobile species such as badger shall be undertaken by a competent ecologist.

 

If work does not commence prior to 1st March 2021 an updated ecological assessment must be undertaken by a competent ecologist and report submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing;

 

m)  All vegetation clearance at the site shall be undertaken outside the bird nesting season which generally extends between March and September inclusive. If this is not possible then any vegetation that is to be removed or disturbed should be checked by an experienced ecologist for nesting birds immediately prior to works commencing. If birds are found to be nesting any works which may affect them would have to be delayed until the young have fledged and the nest has been abandoned naturally;

 

n)   Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. This will confirm numbers, species, densities and peat-free planting arrangements of any new hedgerow, hedgerow ground flora, and wildflower areas. The LEMP will detail the selection and management of standard trees with a timetable of all proposed landscape management operations including the removal of plastic tree-guards (or use of biodegradable tree-guards). The LEMP will include monitoring and management of any other ecological assets to include the numbers, location, specification and installation details of bat boxes or bricks and bird boxes or bricks; and

 

o)   Details of any new lighting to be installed at the site shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing prior to being erected.  These details shall include:

 

                     i.        Height of the lighting posts;

                    ii.        Intensity of the lights;

                   iii.        Spread of light (in metres);

                   iv.        Any measure proposed to minimise the impact of the lighting or disturbance through glare;

                    v.        Any measures to minimise the impact of lighting upon protected species and habitats, in particular the adjacent woodland; and

                   vi.        Times when the lighting would be illuminated;

 

Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.