Agenda item

Application Proposal: The change of use of premises from Use Class C3 (residential dwelling) to Use Class D1 (independent day school for 26 young people) including the erection of 3 new classroom units.

The Specialist (Development Management) presented the application, and explained that the proposal was for a school for autistic children which would consist of five classrooms. He highlighted the parking provision, the estimated additional traffic movements generated by the proposal, and noted the key considerations. The officer recommendation was for approval of the application.

Four updates to the report since the agenda had been published were provided in the officer presentation including:

·         A further 8 letters of objection (making a total of 47) had been received repeating objections already outlined in the report – mainly highways issues and the suitability of the site as a whole.

·         County Highways had confirmed there was no requirement for a travel plan as the scheme was under the threshold for a travel plan

·         The parking provision had been amended from the 19 reported up to 21 car parking spaces including 3 disabled parking spaces, an additional mini-bus space plus cycle storage area. Still no requirement for a travel plan and no highways objection.

·         Due to the above the reference number of the block plan in condition 8 should be referenced 3A.

A representative of Fivehead Parish Council, a member of the public speaking on behalf of a large group of residents, plus four other members of the public spoke in objection to the proposal. Some of their comments included:

·         Feel the residual impact of traffic through the village has not been considered, only that directly entering and leaving the application site.

·         Concern about the visibility splay due to the hedge and it being in different ownership, and also the access onto the lane is located within the national speed limit.

·         There is no curriculum or pastoral need for this school in this location, and many of the pupils will be taxied in.

·         There have been many accidents in Fivehead but most not reported by Highways as there have been no injuries.

·         More parking spaces would probably be needed for staff parking etc.

·         Concerns about traffic. Long history of traffic issues in the village, many lanes are single track and very narrow in places, and there are many sections without a pavement.

·         The junctions with the A378 are dangerous – and this has been previously stated by a Planning Inspector regarding another application in the area.

·         The bus stop is located further away than stated by the officer.

·         Traffic monitoring in the area shows that around 80% of drivers exceed the speed limit.

·         No habitat or environmental impact surveys have been done for this proposal, and other local surveys have indicated protected species nearby.

·         Two historical buildings were nearby

The agent then addressed members and commented that the officer report was comprehensive. She reminded members that a letter had been circulated providing an update on highway concerns. Statutory consultees, including Highways, had not raised any objections. The proposal would be a specialist school, and there were already local children who having been referred for a special facility, were awaiting for one to be delivered.

Ward member, Councillor Malcolm Cavill, referred to Stowey Road and that it had very little pavement, was well used and was a promoted cycyle route. Applicants say pupils will be from the surround the area, but there is a poor bus service and so the majority of staff and pupils would likely travel by car or taxi. He noted that the traffic survey had been completed in July and hence was unlikely to have included school related movements. The visibility exiting Ridgeway towards Fivehead was poor, and in his opinion if the proposal had been for a new dwelling the sustainability would have been challenged.

During a brief discussion mixed views were expressed. One member noted that Highways couldn’t be expected to know the complexities of traffic issues in every village. Another member noted that must concerns raised were about highways but The Highway Authority had not raised any objection.

It was initially proposed to approve the application as per the officer recommendation, however this was not carried with 5 votes for and 6 against (the Chairman used his vote against the proposal).

It was then subsequently proposed to refuse the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, on the grounds of the impact of the increased traffic and highways safety. In response, the Specialist (Development Management) suggested the specific wording of the reasons for refusal, and these were accepted by members prior to taking a vote.  A vote was taken on the proposal to refuse the application, which was carried 6 votes in favour, 3 against with 0 abstentions.

(Voting: 6 in favour of refusal, 3 against, 0 abstentions)