Agenda item

Description:

This application sought approval for the erection of a new school building, relocation of 2 floodlit sports pitches, demolition of the existing school building and associated landscaping.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager gave the following updates:

SuDS

A further consultation response had been received from the Lead Local Flood Authority raising no objection to the further drainage details provided, subject to the following conditions and informative:

1) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the design of a surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The design must satisfy the SuDS Hierarchy and be compliant with the national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS, NPPF and Ministerial Statement on SuDS. The required drainage details shall include:

a) Evidence that the proposed solution will effectively manage the 1 in 30 & 1 in 100 (+40%) allowance for climate change storm events, during all stages of the development (Pre, Post and during), associated storages volumes shall be provided using an infiltration based strategy (as per the SuDS pro-forma or otherwise as agreed by the LPA).

b) Detailed drainage design drawings and calculations to include: a finalised drainage layout detailing the location of drainage elements, pipe diameters, levels, and long and cross sections of each element including details of any flow restrictions and maintenance/risk reducing features (silt traps, inspection chambers etc.).

c) Details of how the drainage system will be protected during construction and how runoff (including any pollutants) from the development site will be managed before the drainage system is operational.

d) Details of drainage management responsibilities and maintenance regimes for the drainage system.

e) A plan showing exceedance flows (i.e. during rainfall greater than design events or during blockage) and how property on and off site will be protected.

Reason: To ensure the design meets the national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS and the final drainage design does not increase flood risk on or off site.

2) Prior to the first occupation of the development, a verification report carried out by a qualified drainage engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This must demonstrate that the drainage system has been constructed as per the agreed scheme (or detail any minor variations), provide the details of any management company and state the national grid reference of any key drainage elements (surface water attenuation devices/areas, flow restriction devices and outfalls).

Reason: To ensure the Drainage System is constructed to the National Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS.

Informative

If proposed site works affect an Ordinary Watercourse, Surrey County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority should be contacted to obtain prior written Consent. More details are available on our website.

If proposed works result in infiltration of surface water to ground within a Source Protection Zone the Environment Agency will require proof of surface water treatment to achieve water quality standards.

Representation

One additional late letter of representation has been received on behalf of a Group of Residents on Kingston Road in relation to the use of the pitches and noise, including a video clip of the current all-weather pitch in use.  The issues raised include:

• Existing pitches are often used beyond the conditioned hours.
• The noise from the pitches is in breach of the World Health Organisation guidelines for community use which states a 50dB upper noise limit in relation to residential properties.
• The noise report does not address cumulative noise impact associated with the 3 pitches (note: an amended noise impact has been submitted which has dealt with this).

Noise Issues

The submitted amended noise assessment has assessed noise associated with the new pitches and existing pitch compared with the existing situation and demonstrates that there will be no greater noise impact associated with the proposals.  The Environmental Health Department has no objection on noise grounds. 

Condition 13 amendment (page 100)

No demolition (aside from building EFAE) shall commence until a demolition method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The demolition works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved method statement.

N.B reference to site clearance or building operations removed.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Chas Patrick spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

• Welcome the application for the school to be rebuilt.
• Concern over the all-weather flood pitch
• Noise concerns – noise heard in the bedroom on Kingston Road
• There is a 60m buffer zone around the existing all weather pitch
• Traffic management

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Mary Gould spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:

• School has served the local population since the 1950s.
• School is central to the economy and social development for the wider population is Staines and the local community.
• 700 student on role; no increase to this in the near future
• Last 3 years has seen the best GCSE results ever
• The recent Ofsted report was “Good”
• The existing buildings have deteriorated significantly, are no longer fit for purpose and not economically viable to refurbish
• The proposals will create a better learning environment for students and staff
• The BREEAM is very good
• Has been designed to minimise the impact on local residents
• The floodlights use the latest technology/with less light spill

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• Most aspects of the proposal are not particularly contentions, the contentious aspect is near Kingston Road
• An informative should be added advising the school that a notice should be put up near the pitch advising that neighbours should be respected
• Discussion over whether the pitch could be relocated behind the school building or whether the larger pitch could be moved. 
• The pitch could not be positioned behind the school building as it will be on the Scheduled Ancient Monument
• Complaints about breach of current hours of use  - must be raised with the planning enforcement officers
• Discussion over whether noise is different on the all-weather pitch compared with the multi-use pitch
• Noise concerns
• No additional noise would occur

Decision:

The recommendation to approve was agreed, subject to the additions and amendments referred to above and the following informative:

The applicant is advised that following completion of the two pitches and before they are brought into use, appropriate signs should be erected asking that the amenity of the surrounding neighbours is respected.