Agenda item

Retention of additional classroom and assembly area with library for pre-prep school, together with first aid room and staff toilet, without complying with condition 4 of planning permission ref: 10795/APP/2001/1600 dated 21/11/2001 (which limited pupil numbers at the school to 350 and staff to no more than 40 FTE) to allow for the retention of the current staff numbers (65 full-time equivalent staff).

 

Recommendation: Approval

Retention of additional classroom and assembly area with library for pre-prep school, together with first aid room and staff toilet, without complying with condition 4 of planning permission ref: 10795/APP/2001/1600 dated 21/11/2001 (which limited pupil numbers at the school to 350 and staff to no more than 40 FTE) to allow for the retention of the current staff numbers (65 full-time equivalent staff).

 

The Chairman introduced the application and reminded all those present that the Council meeting on 12 January 2012 had approved a change to its petition procedures and speaking rights at Planning Committee meetings.

 

Where there were multiple petitions received in relation to a planning application, the Chairman of the Planning Committee had the discretion to amend speaking rights so that there was no duplication of presentations to the meeting. There would not be an automatic right that each organiser of a petition will get 5 minutes to speak. The Chairman may agree a maximum of 10 minutes speaking time for a representative to speak on behalf of the multiple petitions. The applicant or their agent also had the right to speak at the Committee meeting about the application for 5 minutes.

 

For this application the Council had received a total of 37 petitions in support of the application, this included an on-line petition. A total of 4 petitions had been received against the application.  The Chairman had agreed that the petitioners in support of the application be granted 10 minutes to address Committee and two petitioners had been nominated to speak on the petitioners behalf. The Chairman had agreed that the petitioners against the application be granted 5 minutes to address Committee as the 4 petitions received had the same statement against the application and as the majority of the signatures on the petitions being the same.

 

It was noted that Members had considered the large volume correspondence and papers in relation to this application. This included a lengthy addendum which set out an additional statement from the petitioners in objection to the application. It was noted that all planning decisions were influenced by planning matters. The comments from residents, MP, Councillor’s had all been noted by Committee.

 

An earlier application to retain a single storey extension to the school which was sited within the Green Belt without complying with condition 4 of the original permission dated 21st November 2001 which limited pupil and staff numbers at the school to 350 and 40 full time equivalent (FTE) respectively so as to allow current numbers of 405 pupils and 65 FTE staff to be retained was refused at the North Planning Committee on 29^th April 2010.

 

A subsequent appeal was dismissed. The School had made a legal challenge to the Inspector's decision which was still pending. Before the appeal was due to be heard, a further application was submitted with up-dated information. This application was due to be considered at a special North Planning Committee meeting on the 9th March 2011, but the School withdrew the application before the committee could consider it.

 

A breach of condition notice was subsequently served on the 20th September 2011. This was also the subject of judicial review but this had been quashed. This application seeked to retain the single storey extension to the school whilst allowing the School to retain the existing 65 FTE compliment of staff only at the School.

 

The School stated that plans were in hand to reduce existing pupil numbers. This application was therefore substantially different from the previous application. Furthermore, Counsel opinion had been obtained and advised that the determination of this application would not affect the continuing legal effect of the BCN.

 

The Inspector dismissed the previous appeal due to traffic queuing on Potter Street Hill, which was prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety and the free flow of traffic.

 

The School was clear that 65FTE were employed at the School and that this number would not be exceeded. Car parking was now better managed at the School.  It was considered that the School had adequately demonstrated that the 25 staff did not materially contribute to the congestion on Potter Street Hill to justify a refusal of permission. Traffic queues occurred during peak parent pick up and drop off times. It was also noted that there was significant support from the wider community that St John's should be allowed to retain existing staff numbers.

 

In considering the previous appeal to retain existing pupil and staff numbers, the Inspector, in May 2011, stated that the building would remain, so its impact upon its surroundings would be neutral so that in itself, the building would have no further effect on the openness of the Green Belt or the character and appearance of the area.

 

Since the Inspector's decision there had been no changes at the School to suggest that the on-site parking was no longer available. The issue that needed to be assessed was the contribution that the staff made to the formation of traffic queues which restricted the free flow of traffic on Potter Street Hill.

 

Based upon the recent travel plan survey, staff contributed a total of 118 vehicle movements a day (81% of 73 staff arriving and departing). If all staff traffic movements were assumed to use Potter Street Hill, staff accounted for only 6.6% of total traffic movements. A reduction of 25 staff or 34% would in turn represent a pro-rata reduction in traffic by approximately 2.2% reduction. A number of school staff did not use Potter Street Hill; therefore this figure would be lower.

 

The timings of staff movements and the implications for the queuing on Potter Street Hill reflected that very few staff vehicle movements took place at the same time as when traffic queues typically form on Potter Street Hill. Reducing staff numbers would therefore have little discernible impact on the traffic queues. A number of the teachers also made the point that they were contractually obliged to be present at the school before pupils arrived and after they departed.

 

This application only concerned staff numbers; it was therefore materially different from the previous application considered at appeal. The application was recommended for approval.

 

In accordance with the Council’s constitution representatives of the petitions received in support to the proposal were invited to address the meeting. Ms Suki Kalirai, Head of Special Educational Needs at St John’s School, and Ms Naomi Vaughan, on behalf of parents of pupils at St John’s School, spoke on behalf of the petitions submitted.

·          The petitioners spoke on behalf of staff at St John’s School, Hillingdon Residents, neighbours, parents, local businesses of Northwood and friends of the school.

·          Ms Kalirai had worked as a teacher in The London Borough of Hillingdon for over 20 years. At schools such as Stockley Academy, for the language support service with children from ethnic minority backgrounds, Sunshine House School - school and home for children with visual and physical disabilities.

·          Ms Kalirai stated it had been a fantastic borough to work for and she had been proud to be part of it. That she was proud to be at St Johns School, which was one of the most nurturing schools she had worked in.

·          Staff were distressed at the situation the school was in and wanted their voice to be heard to ensure that the outstanding school could stay open.

·          As staff, they regret the upset surrounding the approval and conditions laid down by the Committee in 2001.

·          Current staff numbers were broadly the same now as they were then. The pupil numbers were being reduced by the school.

·          This issue was about jobs and education, not traffic.

·          Ms Kalirai stated it seemed that the 2001 Planning Committee Members laid down the original conditions because it wanted to limit the traffic on Potter Street Hill.

·          This application would not affect the traffic flow or impact negatively on the safety of any individuals or residents using Potter Street Hill.

·          Staff were bound by their contracts to arrive and leave at different times from the pupils. Teaching staff needed to be on site before and after the pupils. Cleaners and caterers arrived and left at completely different times to the pupils. Petitioners therefore felt that traffic volume would not be reduced by cutting staff numbers.

·          The petitioner stated that the Committee had it in their power to keep 25 people in their jobs, with a local employer who wanted to keep them. Alternatively the Committee could add them to the unemployment figure by allowing redundancies. Staff would be made redundant in a tough economy.

·          Ms Kalirai asked if it acceptable that staff may have to up root their own families and go somewhere else new to seek employment, when the traffic on Potter Street Hill would not be affected at all by any staff cuts.

·          Staff were proud to work at St John’s. It was a successful, thriving school, with excellent academic standards, the pastoral care and the high quality extra-curricular activities offered.

·          Pupils were encouraged to become involved in the community and they provided musical entertainment for the children at Sunshine house school and for the elderly at Erskine hall. In the last 9 years the school had raised over £130,000 for good causes.

·          Even with reduced pupil numbers, the school still needed all the teaching staff, as they would have the same number of classes and sets.

·          Teaching assistants were a vital part of staffing with younger children and they were found in every single school in the country.

·          The school also needed all of the support staff. Petitioners felt they could not reduce the cleaning and maintenance staff. Appropriate health and safety standards needed to be maintained.

·          Ms Kalirai stated that petitioners regretted that the breach had caused so much upset. Staff traffic was not the problem, maintaining a community asset was.

·          Ms Vaughan had been nominated by the parent body at St John’s to speak to the Committee on behalf of parents.  She was a former Chair of the St John’s Parents Association.  

·          Ms Vaughan had many conversations with other parents who were seriously worried about the impact of the Committee’s decision on the future of their children’s education. The Parents Association wanted the school to resolve its planning issues and to be able to focus on providing an outstanding education.

·          It was stated that all of the school’s parents supported the application and many of them were present.

·          It was felt the staff at the school were of the highest quality and all were needed to continue to deliver a first class education. The impact of a refusal of this application would be on teaching staff, as all of the school’s support staff were needed to maintain its grounds and buildings.

·          If the number of teaching staff was reduced then fewer parents would apply to send their children to St John’s School. There would be a decline in standards and was in competition, the school would eventually close.

·          Over fifteen hundred Hillingdon residents, neighbours, staff, parents and friends of the school had signed the 36 petitions in support and there were nearly two thousand names on an on-line petition.  

·          That although a small number of local residents opposed the application, over 100 Gatehill Estate Residents and over 70 Pinner Hill Estate Residents had signed petitions supporting the school. 

·          Parents had been told by the School that it was committed to reducing pupil numbers. In terms of the impact on traffic, it was self-evident that teaching and support staff travel to and from school at different times to parents delivering and picking up their children.

·          The school would continue to work with parents and the Council in reducing traffic journeys as it had done for some time through the efforts of the School Travel Plan, agreed with Hillingdon, and other initiatives. 

·          No Council or Councillor wanted to see 25 local people be made redundant, and the local MP had written to Councillors to this effect.

·          Should the school close, it was a great concern for parents, because at this stage in the school year places at alternative schools would be limited and really opportunistic. 

·          Also, many children would have missed deadlines to apply for places elsewhere for September 2012. The disruption to the pupil’s education would be disastrous.

·          Any move to allow redundancy in this economy is wrong.

 

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitions received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting. Mr Nick Raspin spoke on behalf of the petitioners.

·           Mr Raspin stated that the academic record of St John’s School was not up for discussion.

·           That conditions were set to prevent additional traffic and this had safety implications.

·           He stated that many of St John’s School staff used Potter Street Hill to travel to and from the school.

·           Many that were in favour of the application that had signed the petition lived outside the area.

·           Mr Raspin stated that this was not a popularity contest; it was about what was right.

·           He asked how many staff were employed at the site and that a condition had been set for 40fte staff.

·           That the school had repeatedly increased staff and mislaid the Council on this.

·           The petitioner felt that the application forms did not match the financial accounts.

·           He stated that although it maybe tempting to replace the original condition or amend this, he did not advise Committee do this.

·           There were daily parking issues and residents were forced to park on narrow roads. The parking issues faced went against policy.

·           The tutor to staff ratio was improving, independent schools did operate with higher ratio’s.

·           Mr Raspin stated that accidents had increased in recent years and that there had been delays for emergency services using the road due to traffic.

·           The road safety condition had been there for 10 years, this application, if approved, would weaken the safety issues.

·           Mr Raspin asked the Committee to consider what a life was worth.

 

Mr Martin Robb, Governor of St John’s School, spoke on behalf of the application submitted:

·            On behalf of the Board of Governor’s Mr Robb expressed his sincerest apologies for the need to be at the Committee meeting. As a Chartered Surveyor with around 20 years’ experience; he understood the significance of a breach of planning condition.

·            St John’s wished to act as a constructive and legitimate member of the community at all times.  He asked the Council to allow the School to retain 65FTE staff.

·            Mr Robb confirmed that they now had systems in place at the School to ensure that planning conditions were complied with. The school was in the process of reducing pupil numbers to 350 by September 2012. 

·            The seriousness of the position that St John’s found itself in could not be overstated. If the Committee’s decision was to refuse planning consent they would have insufficient staff numbers to educate 350 boys and St John’s would not be viable.

·            The school had similar ratios of teaching staff to pupils to competitor schools. The school was not doing anything excessive in having these staff numbers, nor were they in 2001, when the total staff numbered around 70, including around 40 FTE teaching staff.

·            It was noted that when the planning inspector reached her decision last May, it was considered that there was no adverse intensification of the use of the Green Belt.

·            Mr Robb stated there was no adverse contribution to congestion in Potter Street Hill caused by staff. They provided evidence for this in their Planning, Design and Access Statement and it was agreed with in the officer report.

·            The school required staff to arrive before pupils, to prepare for the school day.  They left after the pupils had gone home.  Any car journeys by staff were made well before, or after, the roads became busy.

·            The movement of pupils was an issue, the school recognised that. They were reducing pupil numbers, as required and looking at a range of measures that would help to make life easier for the school and its neighbours. Discussions on specific proposals were underway with the Council’s Highways Department.

·            This application was about staff, not pupils travel arrangements. The impact of this application on congestion was nil, the impact on the green belt was considered by an independent expert to be nil.

 

The Chairman asked Mr Robb about the legal challenge that was outstanding; Mr Robb stated if the Council approved the application then the challenge would be withdrawn.

 

Ward Councillors were present and spoke on the application:

·            There was a long history with this application. Most of this had revolved around the school being situation on Green Belt land. The Council put a lot of significance on Green Belt and the Council had a good record of protecting this for residents.

·            There was a great deal of emotion on this application and this was understood and appreciated.

·            It was important that Committee Members had to consider the planning issues, and these were dealt with by planning law and not emotions.

·            The Ward Councillors had met a number of the staff at St John’s School, and it was noted that Councillor John Morgan, as a Committee Member, had stayed away from any discussions with the school.

·            Ward Councillors were pleased to hear the school was moving towards improving pupil numbers.

·            It was important to ensure a line was drawn and going forward the Council was not faced with another application similar.

·            The Green Belt needed to be protected.

·            Looking to the future the Council and the school should be working together.

·            The crux of matter was traffic; Ward Councillors had visited the area and observed the traffic to and from the school.

·            Ward Councillors were disturbed by some of the antics of some of the residents who made it difficult to people to park on the nearby road.

·            The Ward Councillor suggested that the school asked parents to car share, particularly those arriving in large vehicles. That this conversation should be continued to be discussed in the future.

·            Ward Councillors felt that staff had a minimal effect on traffic and they did not want staff to lose their jobs. That as a Council they wished for employment levels to increase.

·            The Ward Councillors supported the officer recommendation and asked that Committee approved the application with the conditions set out in the report.

 

Members asked the Council’s Legal Officer to confirm the status of the BCN served on St John’s School. The Legal Officer confirmed that the application being considered would have no effect on the BCN. It applied to the 2001 planning application and would be set alongside that.

 

Members commented on the emotion regarding this application and had enormous sympathy for all. It was stressed that the Committee had to consider planning issues and the key issue was traffic. The building on the Green belt would remain regardless of the decision. No other issues were being determined on the site.

 

Members stated that education was not being considered but the planning issues and that argument with regard to staff not being an issue to the traffic was well made. Members commented that all schools across the Country faced the issues regarding traffic during peak times, and that St John’s was not in isolation. It was clear in this case that staff at St John’s School did not cause the traffic at Potter Street Hill and that with the pupil reduction the situation should improve.

 

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved as per the agenda and the changes set out in the addendum.