Agenda item

In October 2010, the Government issued a consultation paper entitled ‘Planning for Schools Development’ which proposed changes to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as Amended).  The proposed changes aimed to free-up the planning system in relation to schools development thereby making it easier for promoters of new schools to find existing buildings which could be easily adapted for school use and when they do so, to facilitate that change of use by removing any unnecessary red tape.

Members were requested to adopt the changes and, if appropriate, add to the suggested responses detailed at paragraph 3.9 of the report.

The Chairman commented that school applications were significant items which raised concerns regarding parking, noise and traffic.  Consideration needed to be given to the fact that schools held open days and out-of-hours activities etc.  For the reasons given above, school applications should be subject to planning permission.

An error was reported in the response to question 10 (page 62) which was amended to read:-

'There is no planning reason for the proposals to apply to only one type of school.'

The Chief Planner stipulated that the consultation document primarily dealt with the use of buildings; it did not deal with any useful development which could go with it.

Councillor Reg Adams commented that the Local Authority had a duty  to respond to the questions.  He stated that the suggested responses appeared to frustrate the purpose of the report which was to make it easier for promoters of new schools to find existing buildings that can be easily adapted for school use and when they do so, to facilitate that change of use by removing any unnecessary red tape.

Councillor Adams went on to comment on various questions/responses as detailed below:-

•  Questions 1 and 2 - Agreed, the Local Authority should retain responsibility.

•  Question 3 - Retaining the right to revert to the previous use within a period of five years appeared to be a little disingenuous.

•  Question 6 - Each case should be treated on its own merits.

•  Question 11, paragraph 2 - The whole point of the Academies Act of July 2010 was that qualifying for a free school depended on whether there was a demand for it.  Councillor Adams recommended (and Members agreed) that paragraph 2 be deleted and replaced with: ‘The consultation document relates only to use of the buildings.  However, it is difficult to separate the use from the ongoing operational development which may be needed to support the use and this also needs to be addressed.’.

Councillor Mrs Anne Manning stated that although the consultation concerned the use of buildings, the Council was also concerned about operational use and this should be made clear in the response.

Referring to the first sentence of paragraph 3.6 which stated "Paragraph 16.  The government is keen to free up the planning system", Councillor Russell Jackson reported a contrary view from residents within his Ward who would like to see a stronger system implemented.

RESOLVED that the changes to the Planning for Schools Development document be adopted subject to the following:-

1)  The response to question 10 (page 62) should be amended to read: 'There is no planning reason for the proposal to apply to only one type of school.'

2)  Paragraph 2 at Question 11 (page 62) be deleted and replaced with: ‘The consultation document relates only to use of the buildings.  However, it is difficult to separate the use from the ongoing operational development which may be needed to support the use and this also needs to be addressed.’.