Council and democracy

Agenda item

18/01709/FUL - Thurrock Rugby Club, Long Lane, Stifford Clays, Grays Essex RM16 2QH

Minutes:

The Principal Planner presented the report to the Committee. The application proposed the construction of a two storey building to be used as a new secondary school, with an intake of 120 students for September 2019 and 120 in addition for September 2020. The proposal also included an increased parking area and refurbishment of the existing Thurrock Rugby club facilities to be used in conjunction with the school. At the end of the 2 years the school, would have a permanent site, at which time the building would become a centre of sporting excellence for the Academy Schools, the rugby club and local people.

 

The Principal Planner advised that application site lies in the Green Belt and the proposal was not one of the forms of development considered deemed as acceptable in the NPPF or the Core Strategy. Accordingly the proposal represented inappropriate development, which is therefore objectionable in principle. However the applicant had put forward a number of matters which they consider to be the very special circumstances

 

On balance, it was considered that the matters put forward would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. It was considered therefore that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of the impact on the Green Belt.

 

The new school building would be a modern flat roof extension and the finishing materials and appearance of the building would be of a high quality and similar design the recently refinished William Edwards School. The rugby club would also be updated externally to match the new building.

 

In relation to parking the proposal was to uplift parking to 178 spaces along with 96 cycle spaces and 7 motor cycle spaces. The Highways Officer was satisfied with the level of provision and a travel plan was to be conditioned to be supplied as part of the approval.

 

The proposal had been considered by Sport England, who had raised no objections, but had recommended conditions relating to community use of the premises and details of the legacy use.

 

The Chair expressed the desperate need for schools within Thurrock, he asked Officers how the Council had allowed it to get to this, and wanted provisions in place to prevent this from happening in the future.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Public Protection informed the Committee that Officers were working closely with the Education Department to look at the immediate needs before the new Local Plan was adopted and in the long term with the significant need for growth in the borough.  The Local Plan would need to ensure that infrastructure was provided commensurate with the level of the population growth. It would need to be explored in the Local Plan however until it had been adopted there would need to be suitable provisions in place. 

 

Councillor Rice stressed how close the Lower Thames Crossing would be to the proposed building and raised concerns with children attending school in a polluted area. The Officers advised that the application was only temporary for the school intake for 2019 and 2020 and it would not be a permanent site for the school.

 

Councillor Rice understood the pressure for school places, however considered that as a Planning Committee they needed to be mindful of where the buildings were being built. If it was going to be a permanent school then it would need to be explored on another site as the Lower Thames Crossing would be within close proximity.

 

Councillor Hamilton asked whether the flat roof would ensure the rain would drain off. He also shared his concerns with the road access, the temporary school being in place only until 2020, the 30 minimum requirements (which were part of the Rugby Club requirements) which were not shared within the report and the Rugby Club was also facilitating community payback services which would be on the same site as the school.  Councillor Hamilton highlighted that he received an objection from a resident in regards to the road access.

 

The Officers addressed the concerns raised by Councillor Hamilton and advised the roofing was a standard modern design, the access road would be  wide enough for ongoing vehicles to pass and there were no objections from Highways. The site would be for temporary teaching classroom use, although the building would still be in use by the school and the Rugby Club. The Officers explained that the 30 minimum requirements were between the school and the applicant and are not relevant to the planning application.

 

Mr Taylor, Campaign to Protect Rural England Representative, wanted clarification on who owned the site where the proposed building was to be built as it seemed similar to another application (Aveley Football Club). The Officers confirmed it was owned by the Rugby Club.

 

Councillor Rice brought the Committees attention to the Lower Thames Crossing which would be built within close proximity to the school. He pointed out that when the Lower Thames Crossing was built they would be demolishing Gammon Fields Travellers site and the reconstruction period would begin in 2021. He felt unsure as to whether this was the best place to put a temporary school and expressed that he would be tempted to vote against the application as he would not want to put children at risk.

 

Councillor Hamilton asked whether there would be any access to the arena which was on the south of the site. The Officers said there had not been a proposed link to the arena, however this could be explored.

 

The Chair shared concerns with the access route as during school time there would be a number of children from different schools in the area leaving and arriving. He asked how the Council would prevent students taking short cuts to and from schools, and asked whether lighting and CCTV could be included in the conditions to ensure children would be safe when leaving the area. The Officer explained this would be difficult as the school was only temporary and it would depend on the cost of implementing these safety measures. He confirmed that a Travel Plan was one of the proposed conditions.

 

The Senior Highway Engineer suggested there are restrictions in place to avoid people stopping on Stanford Road as this would be a concern. Although the Chair did not want residents to be affected by the restrictions put in place.

 

The Chair also addressed the concerns regarding the community amenities at the Rugby Club; he asked if something could be added to the conditions to ensure the children are safeguarded. The Officers said that an informative expressing Members concerns could be added to the decision.

 

The Officers advised out that this was the most suited site for the temporary school to be located at this time.

 

The Chair mentioned that Tree Tops School in the area was also looking to expand and the new site would be located near a number of other schools and colleges including Palmers College.

 

Councillor Rice asked why the school could not be located at William Edwards as they had a considerable amount of land which could accommodate this temporary school. The Officers said all applications are determined on their own merits.

 

Resident, Mr Michael Gamble, was invited to the Planning Committee to present his statement of objection.

 

The Agent on behalf of SWECET and TRFC, Mr Stephen Munday, was invited to the Planning Committee to present his statement of support.

 

Councillor Hamilton said as the 30 minimum requirements were not shared he would be looking to refuse this application. He felt concerned after 2 years there were no commitments for the site to be used as a school.

 

The Agent, confirmed that when phase 2 began and if the application was to be approved the pitches would be protected which was looked at by the DfE.

 

The Chair was happy to support the application however he was concerned with phase 2 if the application was approved. The proposal could be a positive thing for the borough as there was a huge pressure on school places and if the Committee were looking to reject this application it would reduce the amount of school places available for children.

 

Councillor Rice was not in support of this application due to the previous concerns he raised.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Public Protection addressed the concerns raised by the Committee and highlighted that the Lower Thames Crossing had not yet been approved and it would be concerning if the Committee were to refuse an application on something that was not yet implemented. In terms of the access route, there had been no objections received from the Highways Authority.  He said whilst members may think there was an alternative location, this application was to be determined on its merits and he strongly suggested for the committee to be doing that. The proposed application was unique because of the nature of the scheme; government support for new state schools was clear from the National Policy Paper Planning for School Development which sets out a commitment to support the development in delivery of safe funded school in the planning system. The Governments belief was that the planning system should operate in a positive manner when dealing with proposals in authorisation for safe funded schools.

 

Councillor Lawrence agreed with the Assistant Directors previous comments as the Lower Thames Crossing was still being discussed. She mentioned that parents were struggling to find school places for their children.

 

The Vice-Chair discussed the access route and did not feel it would be a concern as there were other routes that could be taken to get into the school along with pathways. He did raise his concerns with the Rugby Club having a bar and this being within close proximity to the school despite this he would be voting in support of this application.

 

Councillor Holloway said it was not clear why this was not completed before 2019 and she felt the Committee were being pressured into approving this application otherwise children would be out of school places.

 

Mr Taylor, explained previous applications for temporary use were still in place such as Denholm Primary School. He agreed it would have been more suited for the temporary school to be built on its original land.

 

The Chair said although this application was not ideal, it can be explored in the Local Plan and be prevented in the future. Highways had also given their approval to the proposal. He questioned whether this was the right location for the proposal as it would be located next to Tree Tops school, he asked if a roundabout could be proposed at the top of King Edward Drive to alleviate the pressure. He raised concerns with the pitches at Thurrock Rugby Club.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Public Protection made the Committee aware that the Education authority was present and the concerns would be explored. He pointed out that all applications were to be determined on their merits, but the wider points would be explored.

 

It was proposed by the Chair, Councillor Kelly and seconded by the Vice-Chair, Councillor Liddiard that the application approved, subject to conditions,  and referred to the Secretary of State for consideration as it represents a departure in the Green Belt. 

 

For: (5) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Victoria Holloway, Angela Lawrence and Sue Sammons.

 

Against: (3) Councillors Graham Hamilton, David Potter and Gerard Rice

 

Abstain: (0)

Supporting documents: