Agenda item

Andrew Miles, Rajvinder Kular, and James Averies spoke in support of the application.

Nicholas Rose, Richard Sergeant, and Brian Parrish spoke in opposition to the application.

Cllr John Coole, Cricklade Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer drew attention to the late observations and introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused. The application was for the erection of a building to provide two classrooms. It was explained that the application also proposed an increase in pupils from 48 to 84. It was commented that the school itself and the neighbouring property were both Grade II Listed buildings and located within a conservation area. The Planning Officer highlighted that a parking plan had been provided by the applicant. There was a gravel parking area with 14 spaces, 9 of which were reserved for staff parking, and a tarmacked area providing an additional 12 spaces for use in pickup and dropoff times; this was also used as a school play area during the day.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions and it was confirmed that the parking provision met Wiltshire Council standards. The Highways Officer also noted that individual parking bays could be defined in a gravelled area using a plastic grid and inserts. It was highlighted that the gravelled area was under the control of Meadowpark School and, as such, any irregular parking could likely be monitored and rectified. It was also clarified that the site was considered to have a medium probability of flooding and had been categorised as a flood zone 2 area by the Environment Agency.

The Highways Officer clarified that the proposal complied with Wiltshire Council parking requirements but that it was not possible to force parents to use to allocated dropping off and setting down points. It was also commented that the current Travel Plan required the school gates to be locked during the day but, if the Committee were minded to grant planning permission, a renewed Travel Plan would likely require the gates to be kept open during the day.

The Planning Officer advised that the building in question did not reflect a historic burgage plot, due to its width being wider than a traditional burgage plot. It was advised that there may be the potential to reduce the width to that of a burgage plot.

Members of the public then addressed the Committee as detailed above.

The Highways Officer clarified that some highways concerns raised could be addressed through other enforcement avenues. It was explained that a planning application could only be refused if the effect on the network was severe which was not the case for this application. The Planning Officer also clarified that the scale of the building was roughly twice the size of the existing building in terms of width but similar in terms of height.

Councillor Peter Hutton proposed, subsequently seconded by Councillor Toby Sturgis, that permission be delegated to officers to grant permission. Following advice from the officers, the proposer and seconder agreed that the permission should subject to the agreement of an appropriate Travel Plan.

In the debate that followed, the Committee recognised that Meadowpark, as an Outstanding school, was an asset to the local community area and advocated consultation between the school and town council to address highways issues. Some members commented that highways and parking issues were probably the most contentious issue at most primary schools in the country. The Committee highlighted the importance of an updated Travel Plan and expressed a desire to see a delineation of parking spaces on the gravelled parking provision.

It was noted that issues of sewerage and flooding had been considered acceptable by external consultees. It was also considered that the proposed development would not result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the Cricklade Conservation Area, the setting of the adjacent Listed Buildings, and the open landscape from the River Thames.

The Committee considered the benefits of the development in terms of educational provision compared with the potential harm identified and considered the expansion of the school to be justifiable.

Following a vote, the meeting;

Resolved:

To DELEGATE authority to the Area Development Manager to grant planning permission subject to the agreement of an appropriate Travel Plan and the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Site Location Plan – Received 11 August 2015

Block Plan – LPC,2529,15,01 – Received 11 August 2015

Parking Plan – LPC,2529,15,03 – Received 11 August 2015

Proposed Elevations – LPC,2529,15,02A – Received 9 October 2015

Travel Plan – Reference TBC

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3. No development shall commence on site until details of the external materials to be used on the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: The application contained insufficient information to enable this matter to be considered prior to granting planning permission and the matter is required to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before development commences in order that the development is undertaken in an acceptable manner, in the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

4. No part of the development shall be brought into use until the water butt shown on plan reference LPC,2529,15,02A has been erected at the site, in accordance with the approved plans. Thereafter, the drainage system shall be maintained to be operational at all times.

REASON: To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order  2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting or amending that Order with or without modification), no foul water drainage systems shall be installed within the building hereby approved without prior written consent by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of foul drainage within an area liable to flooding.

6. The operation of the parking and traffic management at the site shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details approved in Travel Plan (reference TBC). No alteration to operation of the parking and traffic management at the site shall be undertaken at the site without prior written consent by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of road safety and reducing vehicular traffic to the development.

7. The capacity of the school shall be limited to a maximum of 84 pupils and related staff.

REASON: In the interests of road safety and reducing vehicular traffic to the development

8. No development shall commence on site until details of any required means to access to the building by disabled users have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To ensure the building is accessible by all.