Agenda item

[To determine the application]

The Committee received a report regarding application 16/00115/FUL, new two storey Primary School with parking, playgrounds, car parking and artificial mini-football pitch including floodlighting park.

Philip Walker, Planning Officer reported on the receipt of additional letters of objection from 37 different households and he summarised the issues raised in the new objections. He also reported that Transportation had agreed a slight change to the detailed recommendations.  They had asked that the school not open for one year following the receipt of the highway junction improvement commuted sum section 106 Agreement.

Tim Philpot, Lead Transportation Officer reported that a s106 Agreement to the value of £200,000 had been reached regarding the cost of improving the junction at Merridale Road, Gamesfield Green and Aspen Way. It was a detailed scheme which would take time to develop. Transportation had also asked for a year before the school opened to allow time to develop the scheme. He also reported that Centro had agreed to relocate the bus stop further along Merridale Road. Regarding parking and exiting the site, a detailed report was available on how these aspects would be achieved and Transportation were satisfied with the plans.

Cllr Linda Leach (Chair) reported that she had received correspondence in relation to the application.  She asked the Committee to keep an open mind and remain impartial during their consideration of the application and if they were unable to do so to respectfully they leave the room whilst the application was determined.

Some members of the Committee indicated that they had received and read correspondence in relation to this application but remained open-minded. Some members also expressed the view that there were material changes to the application compared to the previous report, including changes to the car parking plans at the site.  They queried why the changes had not gone out to 21-day public consultation. Clarity was also sought on whether the £200,000 for the highways improvements to the junction was a part or whole cost for the scheme, and if more funding would be required where it would come from; who would draw up the plans for the junction; whether it be a roundabout or traffic light operated junction as the solution would have different effects on highway traffic and the environment; that there could be other access points onto the site that could have avoided Merridale Road; and it was also felt that the section in the report addressing the highways issues was light and a response from Centro should be sought. In the light of these concerns it was suggested that the application be deferred pending a site visit to focus on the highways implications and other access points to the site.

It was also suggested that some of the 19 conditions in the detailed recommendations within the report should be reviewed and where possible included within the consents. Some members of the Committee also felt that a number of the issues raised at the previous meeting had not been adequately responded to.

In response the Planning Officer advised that the question of whether the changes to the application represented a material change had been considered.  It was the Planning Authority’s view was that the scheme itself was not substantially altered. He also advised that everyone who initially wrote in regarding the planning application had been written to informing them of the changes and inviting their comments thereon.

In response to the transport issues raised the Lead Transport Officer advised that, as and when appropriate, Transportation would work alongside consultants on the design of the highways improvement scheme to the junction. Whoever was used to design the scheme their costs would be charged to the scheme.  In terms of the costs, the £200,000 figure was the lower limit of the options.   Other sources of funding could be drawn on if other options were required.

Resolved:

          That the application be deferred pending a site visit and where necessary consultation with the residents who had responded to the original consultation on the application.