BOSTON BOROUGH COUNCIL Planning Committee – 16 October 2018 Reference No: B/18/0017 Expiry Date: 18-Apr-2018 Extension of Time: 19-Oct-2018 Application Type: Full Planning Permission Proposal: Front extension and alterations to roof at rear of garage building and Change of Use of former dairy room/creamery and other outbuildings along with associated land and existing paddock area to special needs school (Class D1) Site: The Coach House, Hall Lane, Algarkirk, Boston, PE20 2HG Applicant: Ms Darryll Loizou Ward: Five Village Parish: Algarkirk Parish Council, Sutterton Parish Council Case Officer: John Taylor Link to application: B/18/0017 Third Party Reps: (1) 32 representations submitted (2) Hard copy of online petition submitted with over 2500 names provided (3) Agent letter written on behalf of 6 of the objectors Recommendation: MINDED TO APPROVE
Transcript
BOSTON BOROUGH COUNCIL
Planning Committee – 16 October 2018
Reference No: B/18/0017
Expiry Date: 18-Apr-2018 Extension of Time: 19-Oct-2018
Application Type: Full Planning Permission Proposal: Front extension and alterations to roof at rear of garage building
and Change of Use of former dairy room/creamery and other outbuildings along with associated land and existing paddock area to special needs school (Class D1)
Site: The Coach House, Hall Lane, Algarkirk, Boston, PE20 2HG
Applicant: Ms Darryll Loizou
Ward: Five Village
Parish: Algarkirk Parish Council, Sutterton Parish Council Case Officer: John Taylor
Link to application: B/18/0017 Third Party Reps: (1) 32 representations submitted
(2) Hard copy of online petition submitted with over 2500 names provided
(3) Agent letter written on behalf of 6 of the objectors
1.1 The application has been called in to Planning Committee by Councillor Spencer
due to concerns over neighbour’s amenity, highway impacts and the wider public interest in the proposal.
2.0 Application Site and Proposal 2.1 The application site is located to the north of but close to the settlement boundary
of Algarkirk; a small village located to the east of Sutterton. The site is divided into two distinct parts; one covering an area of land and buildings immediately to the northeast of The Rectory where a number of buildings exist and a second larger area of paddock land that includes a pond. A wooden stable/storage building also exists close to the northern boundary of the paddock.
2.2 The smaller part of the application site includes a converted rural building used as
a dwellinghouse, a larger two storey building (believed to be a former coach house) and other smaller structures. On the eastern edge of the area are a number of mature protected trees covered by an area Tree Preservation Order (TPO) Algarkirk and Sutterton no.1. This area TPO also includes trees that run along parts of the northern boundary of the paddock land.
2.3 To the north of the smaller part of the application site are two dwellings known as
‘The Garden House’ and ‘Hall Toft’ with ‘The Old Rectory’ located immediately to the southwest. The eastern edge of the site fronts onto Hall Lane as does the entrance to the paddock area.
2.4 The northern edge of the paddock boundary predominately runs along the
boundary of ‘The Old Rectory’ with the western boundary adjoin a watercourse beyond which are the rear gardens of the dwellings of no’s 9-17 Stanley Drive and no’s 61-62 Park Avenue. Further dwellings are also located to the southwest of the paddock area.
2.5 Mature trees and hedging run along part of the southern boundary of the paddock
where the recreation ground and play area exist. This area is covered by Adopted Plan Policy R1. Further to the south but abutting the southernmost part of the application site lays St. Peter and St Paul’s Church; a Grade 1 listed building.
2.6 The eastern part of the paddock area also falls within an area identified as a
Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM). Information suggests that this was the site of a shrunken medieval village. The whole site is also positioned within an area of known archaeological interest.
2.7 This application seeks a front extension to the former Coach House and
alterations to the rear roof area and a change of use of the whole application site (buildings and land that extends to over 3 hectares) to a special needs school (Class D1).
2.8 The following documents have been submitted as part of this application;
Design and Access Statement (Rev P04) Engaging Special Needs Learners through the Natural World (Appendix A) Arboricultural Report (Appendix B) Ecology Survey (updated 11/09/2018) Transport Statement (Appendix D) Flood Risk Assessment
3.0 Relevant History 3.1 B/15/0461 – Conversion and extension to existing garage/store/office building to
create dwellinghouse – Approved on 08/02/2016
4.0 Relevant Policy
Boston Borough Adopted Local Plan 1999
4.1 The development plan consists of the saved policies of the Boston Borough Local Plan (Adopted 1999). Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
4.2 The saved Local Plan Policies of relevance to this application are as follows:
G1 – Amenity G2 – Landscape and Wildife G3 – Surface and Foul Water G6 – Highway Access ED6 – Small Scale Industiral or Commercial Development CO1 – Coutryside Protection
Emerging South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 (SELLP)
4.3 With regards to emerging plans paragraph 48 of the NPPF states:
Local planning authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:
a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);
b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and
c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).
4.4 It is anticipated that the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan will likely be adopted before the end of this year. Therefore the policies contained within this document are attracting increasing weight.
4.5 Thus, relevant policies contained within the SELLP which must be given some
weight in the determination of this application are:
Policy 2 - Development Management Policy 4 - Approach to Flood Risk Policy 36 - Vehicle and Cycle Parking
4.6 Policy 2 Development Management:
Proposals requiring planning permission for development will be permitted provided that sustainable development considerations are met, specifically in relation to: 1. size, scale, layout, density and impact on the amenity, trees, character and
appearance of the area and the relationship to existing development and land uses;
2. quality of design and orientation; 3. maximising the use of sustainable materials and resources; 4. access and vehicle generation levels; 5. the capacity of existing community services and infrastructure; 6. impact upon neighbouring land uses by reason of noise, odour,
disturbance or visual intrusion; 7. sustainable drainage and flood risk; and 8. impact or enhancement for areas of natural habitats and historical
buildings and heritage assets. 4.7 Policy 36 Vehicle and Cycle Parking states:
All new development, including change of use, should provide vehicle and cycle parking, in accordance with the minimum Parking Standards adopted by the Local Planning Authorities (in Appendix 6), unless a high quality-design can demonstrate that a lower standard of provision delivers the requirements set out in 1-4 below. Parking for residents, employees and visitors should be integral to the design and form of all new development, and should ensure that: 1. parking spaces are fit for their intended use in terms of size and design; 2. for major residential development: a) a balanced provision of allocated and communal parking is provided, overlooked and accessible to the development it serves; b) off-curtilage parking is designed to maximise levels of security and safety for vehicles, drivers and pedestrians; and c) a secure, covered, convenient space to store at least two bicycles is provided within each residential plot; in the case of flatted developments this may be provided as a communal facility within the curtilage of the building containing the flats;
3. for major non-residential development: a) secure, covered, convenient storage for bicycles for employees should be provided close to an entrance to the building. Changing and shower facilities should be provided where possible; b) secure, covered bicycle storage for visitors are located close to the main entrance to the building; c) where more than 50 parking spaces are provided, at least one double electric vehicle charge point will be required (2 spaces). For each additional 50 parking spaces, one double charging point should be provided up to a maximum of three (6 spaces); and
4. parking is well-integrated within the townscape or landscape, through an appropriate use of materials and landscaping;
Innovative solutions to vehicle-parking provision including shared spaces (where the location and patterns of use permit), and the incorporation of measures such as car clubs, will be supported.
An adequate supply of safe, secure and convenient public parking for vehicles will be delivered within and adjacent to the town centres, in partnership with the Local Highway Authority.
To demonstrate compliance with this policy, a Transport Assessment and associated Travel Plan should be submitted with proposals. The form will be dependent upon the scale and nature of the development and should be agreed through early discussion with the Local Highway Authority.
National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (NPPF)
4.8 The revised NPPF (2018) does not have a section specific to the type of proposal
being considered in this application; however, the following chapters do have some relevance:
Chapter 6 - Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Chapter 8 - Promoting Healthy and Safe Communities Chapter 9 - Promoting Sustainable Transport Chapter 16 - Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment
5.0 Representations 5.1 Consultation for this application was originally made early in the year and due to a
change in the description of the application a further 21 days consultation was given in May. A further period of consultation has now been carried out for a further 21 days that is due to expire on 24 October 2018. Given that this date is after Planning Committee any vote by Members would need to be made subject to no new objections being made or new materials planning consideration being raised above and beyond those that have already been considered as part of this application.
5.2 As a result of publicity to date 32 representations have been received, 10 of which are objecting to the proposal. The objections were received from:
Algarkirk: Church Lane – no.10, ‘Wellington Lodge’, ‘South Cottage’, ‘Church View
Cottage’, ‘Harvest View’, Hawthorn Lodge’ Hall Lane – ‘Hall Toft’, ‘The Old Rectory’
Sutterton: Churchgate – no.27
Frampton: Middlegate Road: no.31 Letter of objection from Robert Doughty Consultancy representing 6 of the
addresses referred to above
5.3 The concerns raised within the objections received are summarised as follows;
Highways issues
Roads unsuitable for the special needs school No passing places on road network Visibility is poor at the entrance especially at harvest time Roads can get covered in mud making the lane precarious Massive increase in cars, busses, vans and lorries would occur A blind bend exists on Church Lane/Hall Lane Transport assessment does not account for vehicles using the site up to 9pm No lighting or pavements exist near the site Where will all the friends and relatives etc park...along the verge? Lack of parking spaces It is anticipated that parking will occur on our driveway Proposal stipulates 22 staff and 20-30 students so vehicle movement could
be in excess of 52, twice a day Children will need to walk on the road to gain access to the paddock and no
pavement exists between the two No pedestrian access to the site Access and egress concerns Copious amounts of school traffic at am and pm times Proposed parking and turning on the site looks inadequate Unsafe when transporting children from school to paddock and back again Transport statement does not assess minibuses shuttling between the site
and the paddock area TRICS data does not take into account the likely character of the use and the
inevitable dependence on the private car Parking for events and activities has not been considered Picking up students by minibus from a large catchment area would be
impractical
Impact on the character of the area and nearby historic assets
A high fence along the church wall would greatly alter the look of the church and church yard
Impact on the setting of the church Impact on the character and environment of the village Impact to the scheduled ancient monument site
Impact on neighbour’s amenity and other nearby land users
Impact on the rural community Events will be noisy Loss of privacy as a group of houses overlook part of the paddock Noise in the paddock will impact on nearby residents eroding the tranquillity,
character and environment on evenings and weekends Pollution when transferring pupils from school to paddock via a minibus Impact on people’s fitness and pleasure from excessive vehicle movements Direct overlooking into the children’s bedroom and bathroom from new upper
floor windows Noise and disturbance from the children Noise from staff, students and visitors on all sides of the curtilage of the
rectory will be significant and 7 days a week.
Other material considerations
More suitable places exist No other commercial business on this side of the village The proposal would bring no benefits Information suggest school open till 9pm for parents and training sessions
and evening and weekend functions will occur No infrastructure for this school unlike a number of other specialised schools
that are in the pipeline for Lincolnshire The proposal will increase in the daytime the population by at least 10% Utilities cannot cope The expectation of living in a rural area is that the neighbouring land and
buildings will not be ‘zoned’ for commercial use No access to plans on website Impact on protected trees Impact on wildlife How is waste to be managed? Water supply inadequate Adequate lighting will need to be provided and this may impact on wildlife Why is overnight accommodation necessary? Impact on safety of residents and their children The comments in support appear to be more like character references No shop, post office or transport links make the site unsuitable Access from the school to the outdoor space is non-existent Impact on the safety of children using the existing play area Reports are out of date and do not cover the paddock area Tree survey does not cover the paddock area Proposed sites in the area are more sustainable No plans of the smaller building No assessment of 6ft fence around paddock Use of school will essentially operate from 7am to 9pm five days per week
with an unspecified number of events at the weekends Barn does not have planning permission and access track and water supply
has been installed across the paddock, without consent making it illegal No details of septic tank Ecology report does not reflect the scope of the project
How many staff will be in the staff room at one time and how will noise be managed
Application lacks detail Drawings are misleading to how close the buildings are to the Old Rectory No elevation drawings of former creamery building.
5.4 Of the 32 representations received 22 of these were letters of support. Local
letters of support were received from the following addresses:
Sibsey Road ‘Skirbeck Grange’ Hall Lane ‘Garden House’ Fen Road ‘Hornsland’ Swineshead Road: no.155 Pilleys Lane: no.14 Workhouse Lane: ‘Mazel Tov’ Thomas Middlecote Drive: no.55 Church Meadows: no. 12
5.5 A summary of their reasons for supporting the application are as follows:
Education needs are severely stretched with many schools for special needs being closed or are closing. This school will be closer to children with special educational needs thus reducing vehicle journeys
Proposal is an excellent use for our neighbour’s buildings and land The premises were once used as a school facility in Algarkirk when children
from the local school were walked up to the Coach House that was used as a gymnasium
The proposal will be used for 4-11 year olds for around 20-30 children with mild to moderate learning disabilities by a highly regarded specialist team with 20 years experience
The teaching will use the natural environment to enhance the potential of the children
The school will operate from 8.30am to 3.30pm Monday to Friday during term times
Such a small group of children cannot produce serious disruption or danger to neighbours or the general public and we are surprised about the objections
Parking provision is to be properly managed and a car sharing scheme is to be implemented
Car sharing and staff/pupil collection will be carried out largely by a minibus Arrivals could be staggered if necessary to manage parking The colour visuals have been prepared by a person with tremendous
experience and the understanding of pupils with special needs. The drawings were prepared in order to bring the plans of the proposal to life
The wider community of Boston will benefit from hosting such a centre of excellence
Working in special education and having been involved in supporting planning I understand the concerns from some residents of the village but must say that this usually comes from fear and lack of understanding.
5.6 The remaining 14 letters of support were from addresses outside the Boston area:
Anne Hayward Consortium, Angel Villa, Burlands Lane York Seers Bough, Wilton Lane, Bucks ‘Highland’ Northfield Lane, Wells-next-the-sea, Norfolk 21 Panmuir Road, London 108 Frinton Road, Holland on Sea, Essex 32 Old Station Way Shefford The Hollies, Millgate, Whaplode, Spalding 29B Edenham Road, Hanthorpe, Bourne 558A Garrat Lane, London South Cottage, West Pinchbeck, Spalding 39 Bickersteth Road, London
5.7 Some of the content within these letters of support also appear to be character
references for the existing school in London and for the applicant and future staff. It is my view that although these letters of support need to be considered they should attract slightly less weight than local letters of representation. A summary of their content is provided as follows:
I am a SEND education consultant working nationally and internationally in the field of children and your people with special education needs and disabilities and their families.
As a ‘SEND’ consultant I can state that the Chelsea Group are a highly regarded specialist organisation who work with children who have a diagnosis of Autism and communication/interaction needs and their work is exemplary.
The team are experienced, intuitive and achieve exceptional results with their children.
This school is much needed in the area given the increase in pupils with Autism and there is a real shortage in quality provision. This school will be set in the heart of the local countryside and will create a haven for children with special needs using the natural surroundings as the golden thread for their curriculum. I will quality assure the provision on a term by term basis.
The applicant will continue to take utmost care and consideration of potential disruptions to wildlife, trees and the surrounding community as these are the very core values and ethos they wish to build a beautifully planned, well thought out and most importantly desperately needed school in the area. The safety of children, staff and the community will be at the forefront of their plans.
I have witnessed the dedication of the Chelsea Group for many years and have nothing but admiration for the dedication of the applicant. We assist with children’s special needs and their disability and believe the proposal should be commended.
According to the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) this type of proposal is much needed in the area as Lincolnshire is poorly served creating a large shortfall in places leading to high levels of stress for affected families. Many families and their children are being failed which is a shocking injustice.
The proposal by the Chelsea Group is highly considered relying heavily on specialised advice in terms of the environment, security, safety and with a careful eye on the preservation of this rural community.
Concerns of noise from children have been raised but this proposal will provide space for children with mild to moderate learning disabilities as opposed to severe autism. The surrounding for this proposal will assist in giving the children a calming environment.
Also, this is not the first time these buildings have been used as part of an educational establishment.
It took two years to find the correct placement for our child which was 106 miles away from my home. This facility will be perfect for local families that need this type of schooling for their children.
After 3 years in my child’s current school he is very happy and thriving in their environment. This is testament to the facilities, therapies, specialist knowledge, training and ethos of the staff. There has never been a requirement to restrain my child and his ability to self-regulate and integrate with society has developed beyond our wildest dreams.
This proposal is another example of such a placement. The location is ideal with regards to providing a calm, happy and therapeutic environment. This is intrinsic to such a specialist approach to education and personal development of children with complex needs. The demand for places is far exceeding the places available and we urgently need more.
We thus plead with anyone considering objecting to such a placement, resist jumping to conclusions and seek further understanding.
With considerable experience and qualified at various levels which has shown me that it is always in the child’s best interest to be kept at home with their family as the trauma of being sent away to a residential school is incredibly damaging on their emotional wellbeing. The day school planned at the Willow School with give the children the high level of specialised support without having to be separated from their families to board long distances from home.
The demographic evidence shows the need for a special needs school in the area and they have an experienced special needs owner waiting to take on the task of providing the local care needed.
The Chelsea Group are a renowned special needs school in London with a good reputation and any school established under this name will be a success. Hey are also experienced at working in partnership with residents and organisations, which should be of comfort to residents living nearby.
Having 20 years experience in the teaching profession I can state that a nature-focused education programme will have the most benefit on a child’s mental, emotional, social behaviour.
The special needs provision in Lincolnshire and specifically in South Lincolnshire is woefully inadequate. Limiting the number of places within the school is critical to ensuring each child’s needs would be met and having a maximum of 30 pupils will achieve this.
Integrity, care and admiration is given to the applicant. Care has been taken to ensure the impact to local wildlife is minimal. We understand that this project will not extend the site of archaeological
interest. The organisers have stated that they are taking every step to protect the
existing plants and wildlife. Issues around building, drainage, electricity, septic tanks, surface water etc
need to be addressed at planning stage but the fact they are there does not prevent the project from being undertaken as long as they are satisfactorily resolved.
Every child deserves opportunities and what a great opportunity to learn through nature and through sensory play.
To object on the basis of disability is discriminatory and there is no evidence that the pupils will cause any local inconvenience.
It is a proven model that children with extra needs thrive in nature making this location ideal with interaction with nature and wildlife.
The school will provide local employment for the right staff. We urgently need more projects of this nature. This school will not only provide the students with the best possible start in life
but also provide a lifeline to their families future health, function and unity. The applicant has helped our family (we have a profoundly autistic son) and
basically ‘saved our lives’ and this scheme would be a wonderful addition to the area.
Family life is hard for families who have to travel a long way for special needs schools.
6.0 Consultations
6.1 Algarkirk Parish Council – Object on the following grounds:
Should the application be approved and the school closes in the future, can the Class D1 revert to residential and not remain commercial
Concerns still with regard to the transport issue and the narrow lanes to the site from all directions being extremely narrow and without a footpath or passing places.
6.5 Sutterton Parish Council – No objections.
6.3 Lincolnshire County Council (Highways) – No objections.
6.4 Lincolnshire County Council (Education) – No comments to make.
6.5 Historic England – Do not wish to make any comments.
6.6 Environment Agency – No objections but request a condition relating to a foul water drainage strategy.
6.7 Welland and Deeping IDB – No objections but advice given on potential consents that may be required from the Board.
6.9 Consultant Architect – The building is currently underused and the proposed changes will allow it to play a useful role in providing special facilities for a special school establishment. The changes indicated are sensitive to the character of the building.
7.0 Planning Issues and Discussions 7.1 The key considerations in respect of this proposal are as follows:
Principle of the change of use for the land and buildings Design and scale of the alterations to existing buildings Potential impact on the Grade I Church and the Scheduled Ancient Monument
as a result of the proposed paddock use
Impact to protected trees Impact to neighbours amenity Highway issues Ecological issues Equalities issues Flood risk issues
Principle of the Change of Use of the land and Buildings
7.2 The existing buildings that are to be converted will see some relatively minor
additions/alterations externally to accommodate the new use. These buildings are grouped together in a parcel of land that is situated between the dwellings known as The Old Rectory and Garden House with the plot having a long frontage (some 85m) with Hall Lane. These buildings are all set back over 50m from the highway with the land in between accommodating a garden area, which contains a group Tree Preservation Order (Algarkirk and Sutterton no.1).
7.3 The second parcel of land that is also included in the application is the change of use of the paddock land to allow the children the option of using the land to develop their social learning.
7.4 According to the applicant’s submitted information they state;
‘The Chelsea Group of Children runs a highly successful school for 47 primary aged children with ASC, MLD/SLCN and SPLD rated by Ofsted in 2016 as ‘good’. The school is oversubscribed and highly rated by the 11 Local Authorities (LAs), which it serves. The school has a strong therapeutic approach to all its work and employs a wide range of speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and a range of additional therapeutic approaches. This approach is embedded within the curriculum and is delivered by teachers and therapists together. Pupil outcomes are at least good with a strong emphasis on returning to mainstream schools wherever appropriate. The curriculum is innovative and the school prides itself on its range of specialist interventions via effective provision mapping and effective management of behaviour. The school is a strong community with parents, pupils and the local/regional communities. It has strong links with the University of Roehampton with an accredited teacher training programme being delivered in the school for university students.
The Director of the School and the Headteacher wish to establish an innovative primary provision in Lincolnshire for pupils with ASC/MLD/SPCN for local Lincolnshire children. The underlying theme for this provision will be to promote learning and teaching through nature, animals, gardening and using the local natural environment. The Chelsea Group of Children will follow a therapeutic based approach but the focus will be on ‘outside’ learning experiences and opportunities. They will build on their successful and proven model in London and base this new provision at Algarkirk, near Boston, Lincolnshire for local children and their families. The Chelsea Group of Children have chosen this geographical area not just because it is a beautiful setting but it is also the home of one of the parents of a child who was educated at the London school and who is passionate to see the land and buildings serving the needs of local children with complex needs. In addition, Boston has the highest % of children and young people with identified SEN in proportion to the numbers of school children in the district.
It is the ideal location for this rural special school. The map enclosed with this overview clearly demonstrates the location of the pupils with the various needs and the location of our proposed site. Our school is in the heart of the high SEN pupil population particularly between Boston and Spalding thus reducing pupil transport costs for the LA.’
7.5 The applicant’s submitted information goes on to state:
‘We feel this is the best and most natural use of the land, The Willow School will offer nature based education and, as such, completely embraces the preservation of the rural beauty and serenity. We feel our students deserve to experience and enjoy the natural environment, and in our research in our London school, a natural setting offers the best opportunities for engagement and joy for the mild to moderate special needs student. The beauty and wonder of nature is the basis of our entire curricula for the school.’
‘Our maximum enrolment will be 30 children, which is a small school, and our lessons will be taught in groups of not more than five students. Studying in a natural environment is much less noisy than on a tarmacked playground. Where appropriate, additional shrubs and trees will be planted to limit any acoustic impact on the surrounding area.’
7.6 The submitted information states that the school will be open on weekdays from
9.00am until 3.30pm for children although staff are likely to be arriving around 7am and leaving the site by 7pm. On occasion the school will need to stay open until 9pm in the evening for parents or training sessions, or events.
7.7 The school’s maximum enrolment of 30 pupils (aged 4 to 11 years) will be
achieved over a three-year period. 7.8 Policy ED6 of the Adopted Plan considers economic proposals that are within or
adjacent to settlements where they are considered to be small scale. Whilst this proposal is not for an industrial use it does have relevance to this scheme as this proposal may be considered to be commercial.
7.9 Although there is very little in the way of Adopted Plan Policy that specifically
deals with a proposal of this nature and limited guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 it recognised that it is now more commonplace to see proposals for changes of use in rural areas; indeed there are now permitted development rights that allow such changes to state-funded schools and registered nursery’s subject to satisfying the detailed criteria for such a proposal.
7.10 Notwithstanding the above this proposal is for a commercial venture to a special
needs school and it has to be assessed on its own merits. 7.11 This proposal appears to introduce a use that will predominantly take place on
weekdays with little activity taking place in the evenings and weekends. Given the type of school proposed and the limited number of students that are to attend the school on weekdays I do not consider that the proposed use would be at conflict with neighbouring uses.
7.12 However, there are other uses that fall within the same Use Class (D1) that may generate far more traffic and frequent evening and weekend use. For this reason if this application was to be approved a condition should be attached that removes any permitted development rights that could allow other uses within this Use Class such as clinics, health centres etc. Furthermore I consider that the school should be limited in size (maximum of 30 pupils) to ensure the Local Planning Authority can fully assess any increase in pupil numbers in the future and any potential impacts that may arise as a result of this.
7.13 To conclude I consider the principle of the proposal to be, subject to the two conditions suggested above, a facility that would benefit the surrounding area and some of the wider community and their children subject to all other matters being acceptable.
Design and scale of the alterations to existing buildings
7.14 The physical changes to the buildings within the site relate to the large garage
building. This structure is an existing two-storey building and this application seeks to provide a front extension with a footprint of 9.5m wide and 4.2m in depth. The height of this extension will measure 3.2m to the top of the parapet behind which will be a concealed flat roof.
7.15 This part of the proposal appears well thought out and the resulting design will not visually harm the appearance of this grouping of attractive buildings or adversely impact on the character and appearance of the area.
7.16 To the rear of the building exists a two storey element with a mono-pitched roof that extends beyond the main body of the building. This proposal seeks to raise the middle part of this roof to provide a long dormer with a flat roof with three windows. These windows allow light to the newly created WC/shower, stairwell and corridor area at first floor level. Another minor addition is the spiral fire escape that is to be positioned in the western corner of the building at the rear. There is an existing tall window that will be replaced by a doorway to allow access to this fire escape.
7.17 Based on the above it is considered that the physical alterations to the buildings would not harm nearby heritage assets or the general character and appearance of the countryside.
Potential impact on the Grade I Church and the Scheduled Ancient Monument as a result of the proposed paddock use
7.18 Whilst the physical alterations have been discussed above the paddock area use, which is a larger separate parcel of land situated on the other side of the neighbouring property known as ‘The Rectory’, is also a material consideration.
7.19 The paddock measures some 2.52 hectares with what appears to be a historic access positioned close to the north-eastern edge of the paddock off Hall Lane. Mature trees border most of the perimeter of this area although only the trees located along the northern boundary are included in the Algarkirk and Sutterton no.1 Tree Preservation Order (TPO). A small stable-type building also exists close to the northern edge of the site and a pond is located in the southern half of this area. The only other features of note are some post and rail fencing that is used to house goats.
7.20 Just over half of this paddock site is classified as a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) where the description states that it is a ‘Shrunken Medieval Village’. The area of protection covers the eastern half of this paddock area and the SAM also includes the whole of the recreation ground play area.
7.21 It should be noted that any new fencing proposed along the perimeter of the paddock or within the school area would need to be conditioned accordingly so that a soft appearance can be achieved that would ensure that no substantial harm arises to the setting of the Grade I Church or the SAM. Some elements of the fencing details currently submitted are unsatisfactory and, if this application was to be approved, final details of any fencing must be required by condition and any details approved must be to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. It should also be noted that the granting of this application does not remove the need for the applicants to apply for SAM Consent if required to do so.
7.22 A number of objectors have raised concern about the impact that this proposal will have will harm the setting of the listed building and cause damage to the SAM.
7.23 Within the paddock area itself this application does not propose any development. After reiterating this to a number of objectors I requested that the applicants submit a clear statement that clarifies what works are proposed within the paddock area. This was submitted as follows;
‘Paddock clarification;
The Client has confirmed that the paddock area will not change in any way if the application is approved. The planning application is limited to the proposed change of use only and no development (including paths, roads, bridges, etc) are being proposed at this time’.
7.24 Notwithstanding this statement there was still a concern that a car park was going
to be created in the paddock area. Although a hatched area is highlighted on the submitted plans, this relates to a turning area for the minibus to enter into the site and leave safely from the site in a forward gear, rather than being the size of a conventional car park. Any gates, fencing and surface material associated with the turning/parking area would need to be conditioned accordingly as the Local Planning Authority needs to be certain that any minor works proposed would not harm the SAM. There are known alternatives for conventional hard surfacing that could be used for a minibus that are considered less intrusive than the surface material used for the park apparatus found on the recreation ground to the south (also falling within the site).
7.25 Although the applicants have confirmed that no development is proposed within
the paddock area there are certain works that could be carried out that may be considered permitted development if planning permission is approved. It is therefore important to remove permitted development rights from the paddock area to ensure that no development takes place that may harm the setting of the church or the SAM. An appropriately worded condition should be attached to any forthcoming approval.
7.26 Subject to this condition the case officer considers that no harm would arise to the
setting of the Grade I church and the SAM would be unaffected.
Protected Trees
7.27 The applicants have submitted a full arboricultural report as part of their submission. This examines the full extent of the trees on site and provides appropriate protection for the trees for any works that are to be carried out.
7.28 This application proposes to remove two trees that are contained within the
Algarkirk and Sutterton no.1 TPO for the purposes of creating the car park area for the school. These relate to 1 no. Wild Cherry tree and 1 no. Yew tree. The remaining trees covered by the TPO will be unaffected by this proposal. The whole of the parking area, driveway and paths would be developed using ‘no dig’ construction techniques.
7.29 Normally trees that are removed that are the subject of a TPO would require
replacements to be planted and the report identifies the location of the two replacement trees.
7.30 In terms of the level of work that is to be carried out, which as stated uses ‘no dig’
construction techniques with detailed tree protection measures and mitigation in the report it is concluded that the granting of this proposal would not harm the collective amenity value that this group of trees hold.
Impact on neighbour’s amenity
7.31 Given the amount of information that has been submitted for this application and
the number of revisions that have had to be made to some of the plans and documents I requested that the applicant submit a clear statement that clarifies their intended opening hours for the school.
‘Confirmation of opening times;
As noted in section 1.5 of the Design and Access Statement, the opening times have been confirmed as follows. The school will be open on week days from 9.00am until 3.30pm for children although staff are likely to be arriving around 7am and leaving the site by 7pm. On occasion the school will need to stay open until 9pm in the evening for parents or training sessions/events. Any school fete’s, school plays and activities will be held during weekdays, during term times and during normal school hours.’
7.32 The Client has also confirmed that the school will not be open at the weekends.
7.33 A number of the objections received state that the granting of this proposal will cause significant harm to nearby neighbour’s amenity 7 days a week and they cite noise, disturbance, overlooking, pollution and impact to fitness as some of the criteria of why this proposal should be refused.
7.34 To clarify this proposal seeks the change of use of land and buildings to a special needs school for a maximum of 30 pupils. The submitted Design and Access Statement outlines that the school pupils would be aged between 4-11 years old and the school aims to teach pupils with mild to moderate learning difficulties and these pupils would attend between the hours of 0900 and 1530 Mondays to Fridays only. Staff may arrive as early as 0700 hours and leave as late as 1900 hours and therefore evenings and weekends will be unaffected by the proposed use.
7.35 It is my opinion that when the school is open for school children, any noise and
disturbance associated as a result of their activity is likely to be moderate at most. Any impact to neighbours amenity would be limited to moderate harm in the daytime from Monday to Fridays, and during school opening hours, when the children have left for the day and only some staff remain any harm would be considered to be minimal.
7.36 There is no proposed use of the school during late evenings or weekends and therefore the majority of time there will be no impact to neighbour’s amenity whatsoever.
7.37 There has been an objection raising concerns of overlooking as a result of
introducing 3 new windows in the western elevation at first floor level. However, these windows relate to a WC/Shower, a corridor and the stairwell and therefore these new windows are not to habitable rooms but are functional additions to allow light into these internal areas.
7.38 I do acknowledge that there will be an increase in vehicles that could be
noticeable and this may cause some minor impact to neighbour’s amenity around school opening and closing times for the school. However, the vehicle movements, potential noise and disturbance, pollution from the increase in vehicles etc could hardly be described as causing a high level of harm.
7.39 I have taken into account all of the concerns relating to the impact on neighbour’s amenity received in the letters of objection and consider that their concerns would not outweigh the merits of this proposal as it is the officer’s view that no substantial harm would arise to their amenity to a level that would warrant refusal of this application.
Highway issues
7.40 The applicants have submitted a Transport Statement as part of their submission
and this uses the recognised TRICS database to predict the number of vehicle movements for the use as a special needs school (D1). Although the applicants indicate that the maximum number of pupils (30) will take three years to achieve the data provided has used the worst case scenario using the maximum number of children in their calculations.
7.41 According to the report between 0830 hours and 0900 hours (peak time drop off
period) the forecast shows 25 car movements and between 1530 hours and 1600 hours (peak time pick up period) the forecast shows 30 car movements.
7.42 The above figures are stated as being a worst case scenario given the specialist
nature of the school. 7.43 In order to create a sustainable travel profile and reduced private vehicle trips the
school will introduce green travel measures including the implementation of minibus services for the picking up and dropping off pupils and staff, the implementation of a staff car sharing system and the active employment of local staff, whereby alternate modes of transport will be promoted. This would further reduce the dependency on the private car.
7.44 The parking provision within the site identifies 2 minibus parking spaces and 14 car parking spaces in total that will serve the staff and visitors. 12 cycle spaces are also to be provided.
7.45 As it is the intention of the applicant to utilise the paddock area for sensory learning and development for their students individual pupils/small groups of pupils would be ‘taxied’ to the paddock area by minibus. This removes the reliance on walking pupils along the highway verges when trying to access the paddock area.
7.46 Lincolnshire County Council acting as the highways authority has assessed this proposal in terms of the intended use as a special needs school taking account of vehicle movements, highway safety and the level of parking proposed within the site and raise no concerns regarding the proposal. Furthermore, no highways conditions are required to make the development acceptable. Their assessment is based on the number of pupils being limited to a maximum of 30.
Ecological Issues
7.47 The applicant submitted an Ecological Report that was carried out in 2015 as part of their submission. However, this report has now been updated (September 2018).
7.48 The report provides advice in respect of protected species which may be affected by the proposed works providing mitigation where necessary.
7.49 Within the recommendations of this report it concludes that no large scale mitigation is required in respect of bats. It states that the building is considered to have negligible potential to support roosting bats and that there is no requirement for a Natural England European Protected Species Licence, and it is not considered necessary to work to a method statement for bats.
7.50 The report acknowledges that since the site has potential to be used for nesting by several species of common bird, any site work should commence outside the active nesting season which typically runs from March to late August.
7.51 The survey does not raise any concerns although it is recommended that a condition be attached to any forthcoming approval that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the recommendations detailed within the Ecological Report.
Equalities issues
7.52 As stated earlier this proposal is for the change of use of the existing buildings and land to a special needs school for children so there are sensitive issues relating to equalities and diversity that need to be considered.
7.53 In the determination of this application, consideration and due regard has been given to Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 which seeks to: -
Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimization and other conduct prohibited by the Act;
Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
7.54 The Equality Act 2010 is a single legal framework that seeks to provide a clear
basis upon which to tackle disadvantage and discrimination. Most of the provisions of the Act came into force in October 2010, replacing and consolidating nine pieces of legislation. The Act seeks to ensure people are not discriminated against because they share certain ‘protected characteristics’, are assumed to share those characteristics or associate with other people that share a protected characteristic. It also aims to increase equality of opportunity and foster good relations between groups.
7.55 The Act covers both direct and indirect discrimination. The Act also extended
protection to those experiencing associative discrimination. This occurs when a victim of discrimination does not have a protected characteristic but is discriminated against because of their association with someone who does e.g. the parent of a disabled child. It also extended the concept of discrimination by perception, where a victim of discrimination is presumed to have a protected characteristic, whether they do have it or not.
7.56 Having ‘due regard’ means giving an appropriate level of consideration to
equalities issues. The Equality Act 2010 explains that having due regard for advancing equality involves: Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their
protected characteristics. Taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these
are different from the needs of other people. Encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in
other activities where their participation is disproportionately low. 7.57 The Act also states that meeting different needs involves taking steps to take
account of disabled people’s disabilities. It also describes fostering good relations as tackling prejudice and promoting understanding between people from different groups. Further, it states that compliance with the duty may involve treating some people more favourably than others.
7.58 It is clear from the Act that there is a duty in planning decision making that planning applications should not be refused based on the protected or unprotected characteristics of either individuals or groups. Members should thus maintain a clear mind when considering this proposal looking at the benefits that such a specialised school will offer balanced against the other planning issues.
7.59 During the life of this application the case officer received an enormous amount of information both in email form and letter form as well as numerous telephone calls that have communicated in a way that has given no regard to The Equalities Act (2010) or other equality/diversity issues in general and this lead to the Officer issuing a position statement on the website advising that neighbour representations and other third party representations could not be made available on the website due to some of the representations having discriminatory information contained with them.
7.60 Any comments that were made that may be considered discriminatory have not been given any weight in the determination of this application.
Flood Risk 7.61 The application site falls within zone 3 of the Environment Agency’s flood zone
maps and according to the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment parts of the site are identified as within a ‘danger for some’ category.
7.62 The Environment Agency did not object to this proposal but do provide advice to
the applicant on foul water issues and the potential for the requirement for a permit for the septic tank that has already been installed within the grounds. The granting of any planning permission of course does not automatically guarantee that a permit would be granted from the EA.
7.63 It is therefore agreed that a foul water strategy condition be included if the
application was to be approved and the applicant is urged to contact the Environment Agency for guidance at their earliest convenience.
8.0 Summary and Conclusion 8.1 This proposal seeks minor changes to existing buildings to facilitate the change of
use of the buildings and associated land to a special needs school.
The school would provide dedicated learning opportunities for mild to moderate children
The opening hours will be 0900 hours to 1530 hours Monday to Friday The school will be closed in the evenings (unless there is a parents evening) The school will be closed at the weekends No severe increase in traffic movements are likely to occur The school has 14 on-site car parking spaces and 2 minibus spaces No unjustified works will be carried out to the protected trees The ecology of the site will be protected No development is proposed in the paddock area
8.2 The recommendation has taken into account the extensive information received in
the letters of objection received. However, it is considered that the material planning consideration raised in these objections does not outweigh the merits of this proposal.
9.0 Recommendation It is recommended that Committee are Minded to Approve the application subject to the following list of conditions, and subject to no new issues being raised within any new information received prior to the expiry of the consultation period (24 October 2018).
Conditions
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 51 of the Planning and Complsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
And the accompanying Design and Access Statement ref: 120618 Rev P04.
Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved details and to accord with Adopted Local Plan Policy G1.
3. No development shall take place above slab level until details of the materials
proposed to be used in the construction of the external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that the new building is in keeping with the character of the area and to accord with Adopted Local Plan Policy G1.
4. The maximum number of pupils attending the school shall be limited to 30.
Reason: The Local Planning Authority wish to be in a position to fully assess any potential impacts that may arise in respect of any significant increase in vehicle movements and any significant harm to the amenity of nearby neighbours as a result of larger student numbers being allowed to use such a facility and to accord with Adopted Plan Policies G1 and G6.
5. No development shall commence above ground level until a Foul Water Strategy
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The use hereby approved shall not be commenced until the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved Foul Water Strategy.
Reason: To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding and to accord with the objectives of Local Plan policy G3.
6. Prior to the commencement of any works relating to roadway or pathway works
within the site final details of the surface materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall proceed fully in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: To ensure that appropriate materials are used in sensitive areas where ‘no-dig’ construction methods are used in accordance with Adopted Plan Policies G1, G3, G6 and the National Planning Policy Framework (2018).
7. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the
recommendations contained within the submitted Ecological Report prepared by Scarborough Nixon Associates Limited, dated 11
th September 2018.
Reason: To ensure that protected species and their habitats and other breeding birds are protected in Accordance with Adopted Plan Policy G2.
8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order) no fences, gates, hard surfacing, buildings or other permanent structures (other than those approved by this consent) shall be erected on the larger parcel of land within the application site known as ‘the paddock’.
Reason: To ensure the rural character and appearance of this attractive area is retained and to ensure that the setting of the Grade I Listed Church and the Scheduled Ancient Monument are appropriately protected in accordance with Adopted Plan G1 and the National Planning Policy Framework (2018).
9. The use hereby approved by this consent (Class D1 of the Town and Country
Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Order 2015) shall be restricted to the use of the land and buildings as a ‘special needs school’ only and no changes within this Use Class or other Use Classes shall be allowed.
Reason: The care and needs of the children attending the school are such that 1:1 care is likely for the majority leading to a different anticipated intensity of use compared to a traditional main stream school. The condition will also ensure other uses falling within the same Class D1 use, such as health centres, clinics, day centres, museums, libraries and other non-residential institutions, cannot commence without formal consent being obtained from the Local Planning Authority and it will allow the Local Planning Authority to fully assess any potential impacts that may arise from such a use. This condition accords with Adopted Plan G1 and the National Planning Policy Framework (2018).
In determining this application the authority has taken account of the guidance in paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 in order to seek to secure sustainable development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the Borough. Lisa Hughes
