Agenda item

Change of use of part of the building to a school.

The Committee considered an application at Land and City Families Trust, Old Pheasantry, Merrywood Grove, Lower Kingswood for the change of use of part of the building to a school.

Ben Summers, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application, explaining that the application has been made for allowing a privately-owned commercial business to operate in a rural residential environment, as it has done without planning consent since 2019. The site was at the end of an unnamed, single track non-adopted access road, which passed through an AONB, over which residents have a right to pass for access to their properties and which they were responsible for maintaining. The site was in a designated ‘Area of Great Landscape Value’ (CS2 & NHE1) and adjoined an AONB (CS2 & NHE1) and a ‘Site of Special Scientific Interest’ (CS2 & NHE2). Prior to the unapproved change of use the area was very quiet and now there was a high volume of traffic and the timings and the impact of this increase were outlined. Cars parked on the footpath (photograph was shown). The application conflicted against various policies and was a breach of the protection provided by being in the green belt. The application was unsustainable and there had been no meaningful change in the travel plan to deal with the issues identified in a previous report which had recommended refusal.

Mr David White, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application stating that this application was withdrawn from February’s Planning Committee meeting when the Planning Officer recommended the application be refused on the grounds that it constituted inappropriate development in the green belt; the proposal was contrary to parts of the Council’s Core Strategy, sections of its Development Management Plan and some provisions of the NPPF and this remained the case. A new travel plan, which included the use of a minibus, had been submitted and it was questioned whether this was viable now and in the longer term, particularly when Highways England were to carry out the redevelopment of the Junction 8 roundabout. An overview of the route into the site was given in detail, with safety and environmental objections being raised.

Spencer Copping, the Agent, spoke in support of the application explaining that the site had been used since 1985 by Land and City Families Trust who were a registered charity that sought to provide accommodation for groups of people from deprived circumstances. In 2019, the charity started to lease a small part of the building to Merrywood House School, to be used as a Special Education Needs School and an overview of the offering here was given. Of the 16 pupils at the school, all travelled in by minibus except for one. Many staff also used the minibus to access the site and other modes of transport were outlined. There were provisions in place to encourage car-sharing and cycling amongst staff members, and a Travel Statement would be secured by way of condition. A former passing point along Merrywood Grove had been reinstated and would be secured via condition. The Planning Officers agreed that the vehicle movements to and from the school would not cause highway safety concerns, nor were there concerns regarding the free flow of traffic. The County Highways Authority raised no objection in relation to highway safety or capacity, and the County Rights of Way Officer also raised no objection. The site was in the green belt where the re-use of existing buildings was acceptable, provided the openness of the green belt was preserved. Various amendments had been made during the application process and these were outlined. The site also lay within an Area of Great Landscape Value and given the reduction in car parking and the well screened and contained nature of the site, officers confirmed that the impact of the change of use would not cause unacceptable harm to the character of the area, and the impact on local amenity was acceptable due to the distance of the site from neighbouring properties. The trees to be removed were of low quality and the proposal was to plant an additional 16 trees on site, this was alongside the additional landscaping already provided within the wider site. 

Jeff Harris, Joint Chairman of the Trust, spoke in support of the application explaining the reason this was a retrospective application and that an application was submitted as soon as it became aware this was required. Tree planting had taken place and a passing place was constructed, signs were placed about speed of vehicles and the School purchased a minibus. Car-sharing was encouraged as was walking and cycling by staff. This has had a dramatic impact on the access and egress to the site and parking within it. Two guaranteed off-site meeting places for the minibus were available. Neither had any implication for local people and both well away from the site. In the 40 years the charity had been in situ, no complaints had been received. Since the application was submitted, staff, children and parents have been subjected to criminality and these were being investigated by the police. Objections had been lodged, however many of these were misinformed. There was a need for SEN education in the area. The report included reference from a Planning Inspectors decision to uphold a similar application in the borough, which noted that for such vulnerable children, travel by public transport, walking and cycling was not an option. Overall, there was no impact on the green belt and County Highways Authority raised no objections on safety grounds.

Councillor Ashford, a ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the application stating this school had a big impact on local residents. The fact that this was a special needs school was of no relevance to the application itself. There had been an increase in traffic and people had been hit by wing mirrors. This was not an appropriate location for a school and a more sustainable location should be found to continue the great work the school undertook with its pupils. There was concern regarding the travel plan as it contained errors. There were an additional 350 journeys being taken per week along a bridleway. Since the officer’s original recommendation to refuse the application, the only change had been the submission of an inappropriate travel plan. This development was also in the green belt and an area of outstanding natural beauty.

Reasons for refusal were proposed by Councillor Walsh and seconded by Councillor Cooper, whereupon the Committee voted and RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED on the grounds that:

1.            The change of use of the building (part of) and associated land by reason of the of the increased levels of activity at the site, increased traffic and car parking (including the laying of hard surfacing) would cause greater visual impact and activity at the site would fail to preserve the openness of the green belt and conflict with purposes of including land within it.  The application therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  In the absence of very special circumstances to outweigh these harms the proposal is contrary to Policy CS3 of the Reigate and Banstead Core Strategy, Policy NHE5 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.            The proposed school use is in an unsustainable location where it is unsuitable and impractical to consider walking, cycling or using local bus services or other forms of public transport.  The new use would therefore be entirely reliant on car and an impractical minibus service for access and would therefore lead to an intensification of vehicle trips down what are narrow and unlit lanes.  The increased intensification of the use of site and resultant increase in traffic and off site parking would also result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents due to noise, disruption and inconvenience.  The application would therefore be contrary to policy CS17 of the Reigate and Banstead Core Strategy, policies DES1, DES9 and TAP1 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.