Agenda item

Consideration was given to a report which sought planning permission to construct a special educational needs and disability (SEND) school with associated external spaces works, parking and new vehicular pedestrian access off Kitwood Road at land off Kitwood Road, Boston.  The school would replace the existing Boston John Fielding School which had become overcrowded and whose facilities were out of date to meet many modern day needs.  Redeveloping and expanding the existing school was not considered an option and so it was proposed to build a new school which would not only replace existing provision but also offer expanded and improved facilities to meet an identified demand.

Since the publication of the agenda, a further representation from a local resident had been received which was set out in the update circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting.  It was also reported in the update that Sport England no longer wished to maintain an objection to the application on the basis of the amendment set out in the update being made to condition 9.

Officers guided members through the report and set out the main issues to be considered in determination of this application.

Daran Bland, Executive Headteacher of John Fielding School, spoke in support of the application and made the following points:

·         There was part of a countywide strategy which had been in the making for three years, and John Fielding School formed part of that strategy as one of 21 special schools.  The school would not be able to contribute in the fullest way possible in its current state.

·         There were currently 64 pupils on roll, and the school was not able to admit any more.  This year 17 applications were received, but the school was only able to admit two.

·         The new school would give an all needs provision and would address several countywide issues.

·         It was also reduce the time that certain pupils were travelling to meet their needs.

·         There were currently two portable cabins being used, and the new building would be purpose built.

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the Executive Headteacher and the following was noted:

·         It was commented that this was fully supported and met a need within the community, and would also provide extra places.  There had been highways issues near other schools with people parking outside residents' houses.  It was queried what provision would be made to ensure that there were not the same issues.  Members were advised that the vast majority of pupils at the school were transported by local authority transport.  There were currently four pupils who were brought by their parents.  There would be a traffic management plan in place.  The school gates would be opened at a certain time (staff would be onsite prior to this time, it was also highlighted that not all the staff drive) and the children would come into the school site by minibus.  The gates would then close to allow the children off the buses.  Access to the site would be intercom.  There would be two points in the day when there would be vehicles arriving and departing.  At the end of the day, the minibuses would be allowed onto the site, the gates would close, the vehicles would be loaded and the gates would then be opened to allow the vehicles to exit the site.  It was expected that there would be sufficient parking on site for visitors.

·         Concerns were raised about the traffic and staff parking on site.  It was commented that staff should be able to park on site, and the number of staff was increasing from 57 staff to around 137, and there would only be 73 parking spaces.  There was concern about the shortage of parking spaces and the effect this could have on the locality.  Members were advised that the proposal was limited by the size of the land parcel available, and the concerns about parking were shared but this was the only piece of land available for this project, and the proposed building would be significantly better than the existing one.  There were currently 50+ staff but some of these worked part-time and all staff were not expected to be on site at the same time.

Councillor M A Griggs was in attendance as the local member and made the following points:

·         There were a lot of issues which he had discussed with residents, and the majority of issues were around the increased number of staff and potential parking issues.

·         It was acknowledged that the provision would be fantastic, but the proposed access was a concern.

·         The local member advised that his house was adjacent to the school site and his car had been blocked in on a number of evenings.

·         Whilst there may not be the full 137 staff on site at once, the majority of staff would drive to the school and so the amount of parking proposed would leave little room for overflow.

·         Kitwood Road was accessed from Church Road, and there had been discussions about access being via de Montfort Gardens instead.

The Committee was provided with the opportunity to discuss the application and information presented and some of the points raised included the following:

·         Most of the issues raised seemed to be related to highways and it was queried whether it would be beneficial to have highways officers in attendance at the Committee where highways were a major issue for an application.

·         Planning notices were put up around the site but the date for comments to be received was different to what was advertised on the website (17/10/19 on notices, and 10/10/19 on website).

·         It was commented that significant questions around parking and access on Kitwood Road and Close had been raised, therefore would it be suitable mitigation to look at parking restrictions around the school opening and leaving time.  It was commented that this would not be beneficial as residents did not have sufficient off-street parking and so would be negatively impacted.

·         A wide range of publicity was undertaken, and in relation to submitting comments, comments were invited until the date of decision.

·         In relation to parking, it was noted that one of the big factors which was taken into account was ensuring there was sufficient parking for all needs.  The staff would be a mix of full and part time staff and it was not expected that they would all be on site at the same time.  The general rule was one parking space for every two members of staff.  It was not expected that there would be an external impact in terms of parking.

·         Highways had recommended a condition to deal with construction traffic.

·         The test for refusal based on highways matters was quite high.

·         It was commented that the application was excellent in itself, but it was believed that it was in the wrong location.  It was thought that there could be a lot of inconvenience.   However, it was acknowledged that there were no known with the other schools under the Executive Headteacher's control.

On a motion by Councillor Mrs A M Newton, seconded by Councillor P A Skinner it was:-

RESOLVED (Unanimous)

That the Committee grant planning permission, subject to the amendment to Condition 9 as set out below:

Prior to the development hereby permitted being first brought into use, details of the maintenance/improvement works to be carried out to the retained playing field spaces falling within the Boston st Nicholas Primary School (as identified falling within the land edged blue on Drawing BJF-ALA-00-XX-DR-L-0009 Rev.P06), together with the timescale for implementation shall be submitted for approval of the County Planning Authority, in consultation with Sport England.  The approved works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved timescale.