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 limits pupil numbers at the school to 350 and staff to no more than 40) to allow the retention of the current numbers of 405 pupils and 65 full-time equivalent staff (Retrospective Application).

Recommendation : Approval subject to a S106/Unilateral Undertaking

ST JOHN'S SCHOOL, POTTER STREET HILL, NORTHWOOD

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 limits pupil numbers at the school to 350 and staff to no more than 40) to allow the retention of the current numbers of 405 pupils and 65 full-time equivalent staff (Retrospective Application).

10795/APP/2009/1560

In accordance with the Council’s constitution representatives of petitions received in objection to the proposal were invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioners:

• Back in 2001, the applicant assured the Council that they would not increase the numbers of pupils and staff. This has proven to be incorrect.
• School numbers have increased from 336 pupils in 1997 to 405 in 2009 and there has been a massive amount of overdevelopment at the school.
• Two applications were submitted to the Council by the school in 2008/09 due to the increase in pupil numbers.
• The current application needs to be considered afresh and all relevant factors material to a retrospective planning application need to be considered.
• The proposed development constitutes an undue intensification in the Green Belt.
• A letter written by the case officer in 2001 was used to illustrate the point that back in 2001, the Council was not minded to allow an increase of both pupil and staff numbers at the school.
• About 50 mature trees have been removed and therefore the school is less well screened from residential properties.
• There is a history of withdrawn and revised applications submitted by the school to improve facilities to allow the school to increase the number of pupils.
• The overdevelopment and intensification at the site has led to the removal of trees and shrubs which has affected the water-table. This has allegedly affected the structures of some of the residential properties in Woodgate Crescent.
• A request that the trees which have been removed are replaced with mature saplings.
• A request that a phased programme is used to lower pupils numbers.

Points raised by the applicant:

• The school was completely unaware of the conditions relating to pupil numbers.
• There was no consultation about the removal of the mature trees on the school grounds.
• The school had monitored traffic flows and the traffic survey found that the school traffic was not detrimental to the area. The school encouraged car sharing as part of its travel plan.
• The school is open 170 days per year but is closed for 190 days.

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting in support of the petitioners objecting and raised the following points:

• The school was clearly a successful business and it was bad luck that it was situated in the Green Belt.
• There was a strongly held cross party view (at the Council) against development in the Green Belt and especially if there had been a number of past infringements.
• There had clearly been a breach of pupil and teacher numbers which had led to an intensification of use.
• 40 to 50 matures trees had been removed.
• Traffic flows had been affected and with reference to photographs of a country lane circulated at the meeting, parking was clearly an issue. The school car park was inadequate.
• The school’s ignorance (of the breaches of planning conditions) was not an excuse.
• The Council needed to make a strong stand against planning applications within the Green Belt.
• A request was made that the planning application was refused, the removed trees replaced and that enforcement action was taken over the number of pupil numbers.

The Legal officer advised the committee about limitation periods for enforcement action relating to breaches of planning control. In the case of operational development the period was four (4) years. In the case of action against a breach of condition the period was ten (10) years.

Members were concerned that at no time had the school complied with some planning conditions and agreed that the claim by the applicant that they were unaware of the planning breaches was not an excuse.

There was cross party consensus that the Green Belt needed to be protected and it was agreed that there had been an intensification of use at the school. In relation to the impact on the local highway, the Committee agreed that local roads and parking facilities faced difficulties at both the start and end of the school day when parents drove the children to and from the school. In relation to past planning applications, Officers confirmed the application in 2001 was entirely related to traffic and highway matters only.

Members were concerned at the continued growth of pupil and staff numbers at the school and considered a phased reduction in numbers was appropriate in this case. In response, Officers referred to the degree of material harm and advised the Committee that if a decision for refusal was proposed, this would require strong and clear planning grounds.

Members also raised the question of using S106 contributions related to the expansion of the school, if they were minded to approve. In response, Officers confirmed that it would be inappropriate to seek to raise revenues through a S106 agreement.

Members were also concerned about the number of mature trees which had been removed by the School. In response, the Legal Officer advised Members this concern could be addressed through an informative.

To assist members in their deliberations, the Head of Planning and Enforcement confirmed that if the Committee were minded to refuse the application the Committee could propose this on two grounds:

1. An adverse impact on Highway safety.
2. Highways safety in relation to the increase of pupil numbers and the material impact on the greenbelt arising from an intensification of use.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds that it was detrimental to the Green Belt and Highways safety. On being put to the vote refusal was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be Refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal by reason of the increase in capacity of pupils and staff would result in increase in parking demand and traffic to the detriment of highway and pedestrian safety and contrary to Policy AM7 and AM14 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September 2007.

2. The proposed development would result in an intensification of use  to the detriment of the visual amenities of the Green Belt contrary to Policy OL4 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September 2007 and National Planning Policy as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 - Green Belts.