Agenda item

Demolition of the existing sports hall and construction of a replacement sports hall to provide indoor PE and sports facilities (Amended plan to include provision of external platform lift, amended Energy Statement, amended Flood Risk Assessment & Clarification Statement received).

Recommendation: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED – That the application and s106 be approved, subject to the changes in the addendum and additional condition agreed at the meeting.

ST JOHNS SCHOOL, POTTER STREET HILL, NORTHWOOD - 10795/APP/2018/149  (Agenda Item 9)

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of the existing sports hall and construction of a replacement sports hall to provide indoor PE and sports facilities. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval and sec 106.

A petition was submitted in objection of the application. A petitioner and nominated representative spoke in objection of the application. The petitioner explained that this development concerned an application in a green belt for which there was clear judicial authority and case law. Need meant required for the public and community as a whole, it did not mean need or desire for a private interests. Unmet need alone was unlikely to constitute very special circumstances, and the hurdle to prove this was very high. Even in cases involving children’s education, family housing and human rights, applications were denied given the substantial weight given to greenbelts. Openness and visual impacts were two distinct concepts. Loss of openness added further substantial harm and could not be mitigated against. Other factors also needed to be considered, there was no legal indoor requirement for physical education and the petitioner explained what the legal requirements were. The petitioner submitted that Sports England was only a statutory consultee, they were unable to dictate the size and design of the sports hall. A robust and up to date assessment of the need in the area had not been done. The correct height of the hall was 9.6 metres. The PE timetable was a total of eight  hours divided into 14 lessons which was less then 50% of the sports hall capacity. A real requirement had not been demonstrated for the replacement of the school gym.

School, parents and even Ofsted had said that the provision for a sporting performance was already excellent in the school.  Current sports resources were under utilised and it did not make sense to develop this building when the area already had accessibility difficulties. The petitioner made reference to paragraph 73 of the NPPF, the fact that legally changing and shower facilities were only required for children over 11 years old and there were better options for Community Use Agreement in local schools outside the Green Belt.  The real question to be answered was whether there were any very special circumstances to justify this development. The nominated representative submitted that in this case there was no requirement in the greenbelt area, the need was questionable and the case was fatally flawed. The mitigation offered did not compensate anything. It was submitted that there was a need to be guardians of the greenbelt as when it is gone it is gone, and hence this application needed to be rejected.

The Headmaster for the school was nominated to speak on behalf of the applicant/ agent. He submitted that the school had worked with the LBH for the past three years and provided the opportunity for consultation. Two pre planning applications had been adopted with all of the suggestions and recommendations made during the process. The school welcomed the support from Sports England, the GLA and the Council. The need for a new sports hall would give the school an extended PE curriculum as the current facility was over 30 years old and did not meet today’s standards. It was submitted that an active lifestyle was encouraged, and research showed that daily exercise meant that children were more receptive to classroom learning. Architects had put forward an application that provided a three-court sports hall. Consideration was given to a larger and more usual sports hall but this would have had more of a significant impact on the greenbelt and footprint. The sports hall would be multi purpose including pre and after school care. The site was sensitive but the design did everything it could to minimise impact on the greenbelt and the residents. Consultation was carried out, and local residents were invited to attend and speak to governors and teachers to answer any questions. Access concerns were raised and as a result construction environment action plans would be created. No construction traffic would enter the schools grounds from the Gateshilll estate. The school was keen to use this as an opportunity to develop relationships with primary schools and were proposing to green part of the site by converting it into an allotment. The high bar set for greenbelt contractions was fully understood and it was submitted that the very special circumstances test had been met.

In response to a Member questions regarding the community use agreement, the Headmaster confirmed that the facility would be used to work in partnership with primary schools. There was already Taekwondo group that used the facilities for other activities. The current hall did not meet the education requirements due to its size and not big enough, extending it would allow the school to have facility to work inside and outdoors. The hall could be used for sporting and general activities, as there was stage. Outdoor facilities were used for games; there was an astro turf and field.

At the outset of the discussion, the Legal Advisor echoed the statement of the petitioners that once greenbelt is gone it is gone. Therefore, national policy required very special circumstances to justify what would otherwise constitute inappropriate development in the green belt.  It was a matter for the Committee’s judgement as to what constituted very special circumstances. The case made by the school was that the facility was outdated and needed replacing and residents disagreed. The factors in the report needed to be taken into account, in addition to all the points made by officers, the petitioner the Headmaster, Sports England and the GLA. The Legal Advisor also asked the Committee to take into account the public sector equality duty   as outlined in the report. The Legal advisor disagreed with the petitioners’ submissions in relation to the test of need, which according to the petitioners was for need to be  demonstrated in the public interest . He advised that this related to a case that was originally heard in 2013 but which had been overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2014. The Legal Advisor explained the definition of need which was to establish need in a broad sense, so that the requirement was capable of being met by establishing the existence of a demand for the proposed type of facility which was not being met by existing facilities.

The Committee noted that the sports hall building would be substantially bigger than what was already on the site. It also noted the assertions that once greenbelt had gone, it had gone and empathised with the concerns of residents. The Committee had some reservations about the development being built on the greenbelt. However, the Committee bore in mind the evidence of experts that a need had been expressed. This was an additional building in an already developed site.

Members discussed desire vs need. Members discussed the degree to which the green belt was eroding, and one member wondered whether this application was a desire rather than a need. There were already facilities for the school to carry out physical education activities. A member questioned where the line would be drawn as other schools had similar facilities or had no facilities and used indoor facilities.

Members considered that there was a need for better changing facilities. It was noted that this development was in the best interests of children, which could lead to qualifications and careers. This was echoed by officers and Sports England. For these reasons, after balancing all the submissions put before it, the Committee considered that the need was met and were satisfied there was an acceptable special circumstances argument.

The Head of Planning noted that there had been a lot of discussion and consultation and the proposal had been drawn back in terms of the scale of the facilities. This was drawn back to address earlier concerns, provisions in the plan and to include a green roof.

In summary, Members considered that there was a need for the children. Young children needed exercise and the facility would enhance this. There was also semi public access to other primary schools. The green belt designation had to be considered in the context of it being a built up school site and overall this was not a bad scheme. The Committee came to view that it would be difficult to refuse this as it was complaint and in accordance with planning policies. There was an agreement amongst Members that it was important to get education right from the start for the interests of children.

Members requested an informative be included in relation to a Sport England comment about doors and hinges being flush and not projecting out.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, seven voted in favour and one abstained.

RESOVLED –

That the Committee –

1) approve the application as per officer's recommendation and the amendments in the addendum;

2) delegate authority to the Head of Planning, to formulate suitable wording for a condition to ensure maintenance of green roof;

3) an informative be included to include the Sports England comment on hinges; and

4) a more robust accessibility condition be formulated.