Agenda item

Construction of new school buildings, sports centre, external sports pitches, landscaping, parking and access at Land North of The Avenue, Seaton Delaval and parking and access at former Whytrig Middle School Site, Western Avenue, Seaton Delaval (amendment to red line boundary 27.20.2022)

Land East Of Allenheads/Former Whytrig Middle School, The Avenue, Seaton Delaval, Northumberland

Construction of new school buildings, sports centre, external sports pitches, landscaping, parking and access at Land North of The Avenue, Seaton Delaval and parking and access at former Whytrig Middle School Site, Western Avenue, Seaton Delaval (amendment to red line boundary 27.20.2022)

Land East Of Allenheads/Former Whytrig Middle School, The Avenue, Seaton Delaval, Northumberland

R Laughton, Senior Planning Officer provided an introduction to the application.  An addendum report had been circulated to Members in advance of the meeting which provided details of a revised recommendation,  information received from the County Ecologist following the submission of additional information and additional conditions to be attached to any permission given.  The recommendation was now:

“That Members grant planning permission subject to referral to the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021 and the conditions listed in the main report and those listed in the addendum report. “

A Coxon addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       The Design and Access statement which formed the basis of the planning application considered access to the school from The Avenue with all parking on site.  It rejected that proposal and stated that access from Prospect Avenue was acceptable with an off-site car park. That was not a fair and valid comparison as access through Prospect Avenue would not be viable if all parking was on site, but access from The Avenue would be viable with an off-site car park. A true and fair appraisal of the two options should have been done with each having the same parking arrangements.

·       School children walking towards the entrance at Prospect Avenue would be at risk from residents driving to work out of blind junctions; delivery vehicles accessing both the glaziers and the residential properties; parents using Manners Gardens as a drop-off point; glaziers loading glass panels onto their vans across a footpath used by the children; and vehicles entering and leaving the school.

·       The double yellow lines proposed along Prospect Avenue would not stop the loading and unloading of vans and lorries and the proposed waiting restrictions did not guarantee a clear access for a coach.

·       The funeral directors prepared a 3 limousine funeral cortege directly outside their premises several times each week and restrictions should not be imposed outside these premises.

·       There was no alternative parking for the 16 or so vehicles belonging to residents which would be displaced by the parking restrictions.

·       It would be unrealistic to think that parents would detour onto Western Avenue to the car park as they would just drop children off wherever they could.

·       Access from The Avenue with full parking on site could be provided without the need for a mass tree felling operation. Most of the cars entering the school would be those belonging to staff and parents and therefore specific arrival intervals could be allocated with the flow of traffic managed and the flow of vehicles out of the site could be managed by traffic lights or a barrier control.

·       The Department for Transport road traffic statistics for 2020 clearly illustrated the difference in the volume of daily traffic on the two different roads with The Avenue having 6,539 vehicles and Astley Road 14,505 vehicles.

Councillor G Eastwood addressed the Committee speaking on behalf of Seaton Valley Council.  His comments included the following:-

·       Whilst Seaton Valley Council (SVC) supported the principle of the development, it had concerns that the application had not been informed by sufficiently robust information and assessments. The main concerns related to issues of highway and pedestrian safety, impact on residential amenity, impact on the significance of the Seton Delaval Conservation Area and its setting as well as the character of the landscape.  SVC had provided detailed comments on those issues which did not appear to have been considered through the assessment.

·       In regard to highway and pedestrian safety SVC considered that the proposal did not meet the requirements of Northumberland Local Plan (NLP) policies TRA1 and TRA2. There were inadequate assessments regarding the impact of the development on key junctions, increased use of pedestrian crossings on traffic flow and impacts caused during poor weather when more children would be dropped off by car. SVC also believed that no consideration had been given to the impact of the development on local businesses, particularly as a result of the conflict with additional pedestrians and traffic.  There were a lack of safe routes to school and lack of a safe crossing point at the top of The Avenue. There was also a need for a comprehensive parking management plan which should include additional parking restrictions, residents only parking scheme, the reduction of speed limits and the employment of school crossing patrol operatives.

·       SVC expressed concerns about the noise generated from the sports pitches and the impact on residential amenity with the noise assessment suggesting that there would be a 10-15db increase in noise expected in the Manners Gardens/Allenheads areas.  SVC had requested that consideration should be given to the installation of acoustic fencing, however this appeared not to have been assessed and as a result the proposal did not accord with the requirements of the NLP policies QOP3 and POL2.

·       The development would impact on the significance of the conservation area.

Councillor E Chicken, addressed the Committee speaking as the Ward Councillor.  Her comments included the following:-

·       Whilst she supported the provision of a new school, she mirrored the concerns of SVC, and she supported the residents in their opposition to the proposed access. 

·       Astley Road was already backed up from about 2.30 pm and the increase in traffic that an additional 1,000 students would create could impact journey times on one of the main routes to the NSEC hospital.            

·       There was insufficient mitigation as to the risks for the residents and businesses in the area. 

·       If access from The Avenue was of sufficient size for delivery and refuse wagons then it should be of a sufficient size for buses and other traffic to access the site that way as the access off Astley Road through Prospect Avenue was not suitable.  It was a small road between 2 houses.

·       The provision of double yellow lines would impact residents with no alternative parking provision being provided.  Whilst it was realised that there was no legal right to be able to park outside your property residents needed to be able to park somewhere.

J Patterson addressed the Committee speaking on behalf of the applicant in support of the application.  Her comments included the following:-

·       It had been identified by the Council’s Education team that replacement schools in Seaton Delaval were essential to ensure that local children continued to receive the highest possible standard of education within appropriate facilities. The development would provide significantly enhanced education provision for Astley High and Whytrig Middle School as well as facilities for community use; this was supported in planning policy at national and local levels.

·        Detailed consideration of the requirements for the new schools determined the existing site was undersized and did not meet Department for Education or Sport England requirements. This resulted in the requirement to identify a new site. Thorough consideration was given to alternative sites within the school catchment area but the selected site was found to be the most suitable and sequentially preferable.

·        The principle issues the team had sought to address throughout design development and through the consideration of the planning application had related to impact on Green Belt and very special circumstances; design, scale and impact on heritage and landscape; highways; amenity; ecology and sustainability.

·       In relation to the Green Belt location of the site and proximity to designated heritage assets, the proposals were designed to ensure minimal impact on the surrounding landscape. The buildings were well designed and limited to two-storey in height.  The site was lower than The Avenue, allowing the buildings to sit below the tree line, reducing visibility and impact.  The need for the new schools and the provision of new teaching facilities together with the provision of the high-quality sporting facilities available for the local community to use amounted to very special circumstances and outweighed harm to the Green Belt.

·       In relation to amenity and highways impacts, the school buildings were over 100m from the nearest housing and the proposals included landscaped mounds and planting to provide screening and a natural buffer between the properties and the site. Public protection had no objection in relation to noise. 

·       The application was supported by a robust transport assessment and travel plan, both prepared in consultation with the schools and with the Council’s Officers, who had confirmed the proposals were acceptable.  Measures to minimise impacts, include traffic regulations in the form of single and double yellow lines; time limited waiting restrictions; changes to the speed limits along key roads in and around the site access points; a new signal controlled crossing at the Astley Road/Prospect Avenue junction; school coach access via Prospect Avenue; onsite staff parking spaces, gated and controlled via an intercom system; an offsite car park, for drop-off/pick-up and for the park and stride and a car park management plan would be put in place to control the onsite and offsite parking.   Separate refuse collection and service delivery access would be via The Avenue.

·       Close working with the Council’s Ecologist would ensure that the proposals provided appropriate mitigation for Great Crested Newts and to secure biodiversity net gains on site.

·       The buildings had been designed to achieve net zero carbon in operation. This would enable the council to lead the way in sustainability, and presented opportunities to educate pupils about sustainability and climate change.

·       The new school proposals would deliver significantly enhanced educational and community facilities and contribute to all three dimensions of sustainable development and she respectfully asked members of planning committee to vote in favour of the officer recommendation to approve the planning application.

J Barnes, Headteacher of Astley High School addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       The current state of the buildings were shambolic and pupils deserved better. The cost of repairs to these buildings was significant with money being spent on these that should be spent on education.

·       The children of Seaton Valley Federation deserved the proposed wonderful new facilities, far too many other areas have had chances before them and he now wanted this new building for the children and the community.

·       Staff deserved an opportunity to teach in the very best environments and these new buildings would able them to not just teach but inspire the children.

·       New facilities would be provided for the community, which could not be offered at the current time.  The new building would allow everybody to access the facilities.

·       This was a once in a lifetime opportunity not just for the children, staff and community but also for those children who weren’t born yet.  He strongly recommended the new building and hoped that the Committee would agree to approve the application.

In response to questions from Members of the Committee the following information was provided:-

·       It was proposed that 20mph zone be created and flashing signs be installed as a reminder during peak school drop off/pick up times.  The Travel Plan Co-ordinator had liaised with the applicant to assess where the pupils would be travelling from and these most used routes had been used to assess where pedestrian crossings were required.  There was currently a pedestrian crossing near the proposed off-site car park and another was to be provided at Prospect Avenue. An amendment to the condition requiring a School Travel Plan (STP) to be submitted could be made to ensure that it was kept under review and any further requirements assessed as natural desire lines for accessing the school evolved.

·       The car park on the school site would provide drop off facilities for SEND pupils arriving by taxi, accessible parking and some staff parking, all other parking provision was provided at the off-site facility.  No parents would be able to access the school site to drop off children. As part of the Council’s school transport responsibilities, a bus was also to be provided for SEND pupils. The STP would promote sustainable travel such as walking or cycling.

·       Condition 33 required details of traffic management to be provided.  It was proposed that a TRO would be agreed which would include the use of double yellow lines, single yellow lines, weight restrictions etc.   All relevant parties would be consulted as part of the TRO process.  There was no compelling evidence that the new railway station would either increase or decrease vehicular movements around the area and the information submitted did not flag any issues that could not be met by a TRO or design of the scheme.  Enforcement of parental behaviour would be required as part of the STP and the use of the Council’s mobile parking enforcement van could also be used to monitor behaviour. 

·       No details had been provided in relation to any charges to be imposed at the off-site car park.

·       A Community Use Agreement as required by Sport England would be provided detailing information on the times and costs for use of the sports facilities and this  also included the use of indoor facilities.

·       The referral to the Secretary of State was not in relation to whether the site was acceptable, it was to seek agreement that it was right that the Council made a decision.  If this agreement was not provided, then the application would need to be referred to the Planning Inspectorate for a decision.

·       The proposal for an off-site car park would minimise the intrusion into the Green Belt and minimise impact on the nearby Heritage Asset of Seaton Delaval Hall with the benefit that there would be fewer vehicles on the school site. 

Councillor Flux proposed acceptance of the revised recommendation as outlined in the addendum report and above with an amendment to condition 38 point 3 to include an analysis of pedestrian movements with the precise wording to be delegated to the Director of Planning and Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee.   This was seconded by Councillor Hutchinson.

Members expressed their support for the fantastic investment into education within Seaton Valley which would help children reach their full potential.  Whilst most were in support of the application, some still had reservations in relation to the off-site car park, the increase in traffic on Astley Road, the main access to the school being via a small street between houses and effect that indiscriminate parking by parents dropping off their children would have.  It was acknowledged that all the potential sites had problems, however this site on balance was preferred for its location within Seaton Delaval itself. 

A vote was taken on the proposal to approve the application as outlined above as follows:- FOR 10; AGAINST 1; ABSTAIN 0. 

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED subject to referral to the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021 and with the conditions listed in the main report and those listed in the addendum report and amendment to Condition 38 point 3 to include an analysis of pedestrian movements with the precise wording to be delegated to the Director of Planning and Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee.