Further Evidence Report

Transcription

1 Farnborough Village Society Further Evidence Report Planning Appeal Reference: APP/G5180/W/16/ Farnborough Primary School, Farnborough Hill, Farnborough Village, Orpington, Kent, BR6 7EQ

2 Index 1 Summary 2 Background Original Planning Approval Planning Application 3.12,.2015 Refused Planning Application Deferred Planning Application Following Deferment Refused 3 Highways Safety and Transport Grounds for Refusal Severe Impact Overflow Parking Safe and Suitable Access Mitigation Measures 4 Educational Need Educational Evidence 5 Green Belt Openness of the Green Belt Inappropriate Development Absence of Very Special Circumstances Disproportionate Size of the Proposed Development Green Belt Status Confirmed 6 Planning Comparators Planning Inspectorate Appeal: APP/G5180/W/16/ Absence of Suitable School Comparators LBB Planning Application: DC/16/00699/FULL1 LBB Planning Application: DC/14/02730/FULL1 7 Statement of Case Report by Nexus Education Schools Trust Farnborough Village Society s response to the Statement 8 Conclusion from Farnborough Village Society Appendix 1 - Clarification of Evidence Report Appendix 2 WYG Environmental Planning Transport Report Appendix 3 Farnborough Village Conservation Area Map

3 1 Summary 1.1 Farnborough Village Society is a local community group representing the residents of Farnborough Village whose purpose is to preserve the integrity of the Village and promote local community events. Farnborough Village is unique in Bromley with a history dating back 862AD with origins as Fearnbiorginga meaning ferns on the hill, an indication of its rural location. St Giles Church was in existence before the Domesday Book was compiled in The Village became particularly important in 1749 with the introduction of the turnpike road; the Conservation Area of the Village reflects this ancient heritage. References to the Village s historic past are scattered throughout from the Manor in the 1200s to the Victorian railway cottages in the Prime Minister roads. Farnborough Village has an historic past with many heritage assets still in existence today. The Village has a great sense of community and attracts many visitors who come to enjoy the historic location, Village atmosphere and the open countryside. 1.2 A very large number of residents are strongly opposed to the proposed plan as it will harm the Village by restricting the openness of the Green Belt, damage the Conservation Area, and significantly increase traffic congestion and on-street parking with consequential impacts on highways safety. The proposal will place an unreasonable burden on the Village and affect the lives of the whole Village community. 1.3 This Report seeks to provide additional comprehensive evidence regarding the application to further develop the Farnborough Primary School site and should be read in conjunction with the Clarification of Evidence Report previously submitted by Farnborough Village Society. (Appendix 1) 1.4 Farnborough Village Society on behalf of residents are AGAINST the appeal proposals for the above site for the same reasons as given by Bromley Local Planning Authority, and in particular: The impact of the additional traffic and parking demand created by doubling the size of the school would have on the surrounding highway network with consequent residual impacts on highway safety and residential amenity. Mitigation measures are not viable. Educational need justifying very special circumstances to sanction sacrifice of Green Belt Land is not valid. The proposed two-storey extension is 124% larger than the original building and is therefore, a disproportionate addition to the original building. The proposed two-storey extension is 237% larger than the single storey extension to be demolished, therefore it is materially larger than the one it replaces. The vast size and scale of the proposed building is considered to be inappropriate development in and is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. The proposal will restrict the openness of the Green Belt and have an overbearing visual dominance within the landscape. In addition, the site is within the Farnborough Village Conservation Area and the proposal will cause significant harm to this valuable heritage asset. Page 3 of 47

4 2 Background Original Planning Approval The original planning approval was for a single storey building with a gross internal floor area of 1,054 m2. Conditions were placed on the original approval as follows: Provision of designated parking spaces as development without adequate parking or garage provision is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and to be detrimental to amenities and prejudicial to road safety. Boundary enclosure erected and maintained to protect the privacy and amenities of local residents. To ensure that as many trees as possible are preserved in the interests of amenity. Landscaping in order to secure a visually satisfactory setting. Ensure that the proposal does not prejudice the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety along the adjoining highway. Parking bays shall measure 2.4m x 5m and there shall be a clear space of 6m in front of each space to allow for manoeuvring. Planning Application Refused 2.2 The proposed development is considered to be detrimental to highways safety and residential amenity by virtue of increased traffic congestion, inadequate on-site parking provision and increased levels of on-street parking contrary to policy T18 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. Planning Application Deferred 2.3 Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED without prejudice to future consideration to seek the following: Clarity of data provided in the Transport Assessment in relation to traffic and parking figures. More detailed information on traffic solutions being proposed. Planning Application Following Deferment - Re-Considered Refused 2.4 Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is considered to be detrimental to highway safety and residential amenity by virtue of increased traffic congestion, inadequate on-site parking provision and increased levels of on-street parking contrary to Policies T18 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006). Page 4 of 47

5 2. The development of this site as proposed is considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. The substantial level of harm that would arise from the development by way of harm to the openness of the Green Belt, is not clearly outweighed by any educational or other benefits that would arise. Very special circumstances therefore do not exist. As such the proposal is not sustainable development and is contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policies 7.16 of the London Plan (2015) and G1 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006). 2.5 In response to the deferment request for clarity and more detailed information the Appellant submitted one page of information citing sections of the original Transport Assessment. The data in this Transport Assessment lacks validity and is out of date by virtue of the fact that it does not take into account the further parking restrictions made by the Local Authority in the close vicinity of the School in June The validity of some of the on-site parking spaces offered also remains unclear. The Appellant did not address the second deferment point at all, namely, the request for more detailed information on traffic solutions being proposed. Page 5 of 47

6 3 Highways Safety and Transport Grounds for Refusal 3.1 There are several issues that have been raised but not resolved regarding the severe impact of the proposed plan on Farnborough Village. This section should be read in conjunction with the Clarification of Evidence Report (Appendix 1). Severe Impact 3.2 The NPPF, paragraph 32 states: Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of developments are severe. 3.3 It has been clearly evidenced that the residual cumulative impact of insufficient on-site parking and the additional burden placed on on-street parking would have a harmful effect on the flow of traffic on the only viable access road into and out of the Village and would have a further harmful effect on the safety of pedestrians and drivers. There is no evidence that mitigation measures would be viable, therefore, the highway problems would be extreme and can be judged as severe and this runs counter to NPPF policy. 3.4 The impact of the current parking burden on Farnborough Hill is already severe and any additional on-street parking burden created by the development would make traffic congestion far worse, with attendant dangers, delays and impedance to emergency vehicles, public transport and other vehicle users. 3.5 The Local Authority deferred their decision on the proposed plan in July 2016 and required the Appellant to provide further information on the clarity of data provided in the Transport Assessment in relation to traffic and parking figures. The data in the Transport Statement was gathered in March 2015 and July At the deferment meeting in November 2016, some 20 months later, Councillor Evans reported that the transport data had not been updated; neither the Local Authority s Highways Engineer, nor the Appellant challenged this statement. This point is recorded in the minutes of the Plans Sub Committee No 2 Item The Transport Statement is outdated and was produced a considerable length of time before new parking restrictions in the High Street, a few yards from the school, came in to force. This discrepancy was also reported in Appendix 1, Page The Appellant confirms that there will be some impact in terms of congestion and parking on the surrounding road network but these impacts will not be for a significant part of the day and will be for a very short period of time. The Appellant originally suggested two brief sessions of 15 minutes each in the Grounds for Appeal Statement, December Point 6.8. Without explanation, this figure was subsequently changed to 20 minutes in the replacement document Statement of Case, Point 6.10 issued by the Appellant in February Whichever time frame the Appellant uses this view lacks supporting evidence and is inaccurate as the Transport Assessment is out of date and it does not account for the new parking restrictions now in place in the vicinity of the School, nor does it account for the fact that new overflow on-site parking spaces offered in the plan are already in use throughout the day and it does not reflect the requirement for parking generated by all school staff throughout the day. Page 6 of 47

7 3.8 The figures for on-site parking facilities are based on numbers of teaching staff, office staff and a pro-rata figure for classroom assistants only. There will clearly be a demand for on-street parking for extended periods of time throughout the school day for canteen staff, midday supervisors, site staff and visitors and this fact has not been reflected in the claim that transport impacts will be concentrated into short periods of the day. 3.9 The increase in traffic and the additional parking burden would also have a further severe impact on the safety of pedestrians, particularly on the North side of Farnborough Hill where footpath provision is extremely narrow. Vehicles will be forced to mount the pavement even more regularly in order to make progress and to keep the traffic flowing. Photographic evidence is available at the end of this Report and also in Appendix The lack of on-site parking will create a material increase in parking demand and will result in unbroken parking demand on Farnborough Hill. When the line of parked cars extends any distance down Farnborough Hill drivers from both directions are unable to establish whether oncoming traffic is already in this section of highway; thereby committing to entering an area where they cannot pass, creating a significant potential risk of collision for both oncoming vehicles and pedestrians using the narrow footpath. The increased on-street parking burden will exacerbate this problem; evidenced in Appendix It should be noted that the Victorian terraced houses in the Prime Minister roads: Gladstone, Palmerston, Peel, Pitt and Cobden, do not have garages; thereby creating a substantial requirement for on-street parking for the majority of the roads in the centre of the Village. Parking availability in these roads is understandably at saturation point already with many residents requiring 2 parking spaces per property with only 1 available outside each dwelling. Overflow Parking Spaces 3.12 The proposed plan offers 7 overflow spaces, these are new spaces offered to increase on-site parking facilities for the new development. These overflow spaces are already fully utilised on a daily basis; evidenced in Appendix 1, Page 25. As these spaces are already in full use they cannot be counted as additional spaces for the new development There is an outstanding concern regarding the validity of the overflow spaces as they may compromise access for fire appliances in contravention of LFEPA GN25 regulations. The overflow spaces are located in the access road inside the school gates. The Local Authority s Highways Engineer has confirmed that the use of these spaces may also preclude large vehicles getting onto the site. (Appendix 1, Page 9). The Appellant has not addressed these concerns or provided any evidence to confirm that these places are compliant with LFEPA regulations. It should also be noted that large vehicles can only reverse in to the site as there is no turning space within the grounds In the unlikely event that the overflow parking spaces are deemed compliant their inclusion is still insufficient to protect the highway from an additional parking burden adding to the already severe impact on traffic flow through the Village. Page 7 of 47

8 Safe and Suitable Access 3.15 The NPPF, paragraph 32 further states that decisions should take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people Safe and suitable access to the site has been raised as a concern. The introduction of 7 overflow parking spaces taking up space on the right-hand side of the only access road into and out of the site has been challenged. If the spaces are not compliant with LFEPA GN25 regulations the safety of everyone on site is compromised as suitable access for emergency vehicles is inadequate The Local Authority s Highways Engineer has confirmed that the use of these spaces may also preclude large vehicles getting onto the site. (Appendix 1, Page 9). The Appellant has not responded to any of the evidence provided despite concerns being first raised in July Mitigation Measures Not Viable 3.18 The Appellant s information on mitigation measures comprises a series of generalised assertions and omits cogent and substantive evidence Evidence was presented to Plans Sub-Committee 2 in July 2016 clearly specifying why all of the mitigation measures are not viable and should be discounted. (Appendix 1, Section 5, Pages 13-18) The Local Authority s Highways Engineer has already evidenced that a zebra crossing/flat top speed table would not be approved. (Appendix 1, Page 17) 3.21 The Local Authority s Highways Engineer has already clearly ruled out signage as ineffective and fundamentally against Policy. (Appendix 1, Page 14) 3.22 The Local Authority s Highways Engineer has already expressed the opinion that yellow lines would not mitigate the problems. (Appendix 1, Pages 14 & 16) The Local Authority s Highways Engineer has already expressed the opinion that the introduction of a footway in Tubbenden Lane South would not mitigate the problems. (Appendix 1, Page 18) 3.24 There is no evidence to suggest that the Appellant has control over agreement for any of the mitigation measures and no evidence has been provided to show that the suggestions would prevent severe congestion or indeed make congestion and safety substantially worse The mitigations proposed would not be suitable for the surrounding roads in the Village and would have a severe impact, and be contrary to the policies in the Framework as its residual cumulative transport impacts would be severe The Appellant has not provided any evidence of costings for the mitigations merely a suggestion that 3,000 would be enough Councillor Evans reported to the Plans Sub-Committee in November 2016 that he was unaware of any traffic mitigation that will improve traffic movement through the Village which is severe at peak times. There was no challenge to this statement. Page 8 of 47

9 3.28 In the absence of any viable mitigation of the residual cumulative transport impacts, the proposed development would have an unacceptable harmful effect on the flow of traffic, and as a result would harm highway safety on the surrounding highway network. Walking Bus as a Mitigation Measure 3.29 Parents of pupils at Farnborough Primary School have reported that they have been consulted on a Walking Bus option. The suggested location for a drop off point is the Car Park of Frankie and Benny s restaurant situated on the main A21. This location lies outside the built area known as Farnborough Village. The Walking Bus would presumably walk along the A21 until it reached the alleyway that leads back into the Village; walk past the shops, cross Tubbenden Lane South then cross Farnborough Hill to reach the School. The walking journey time is indicated at 10 minutes. Presumably this location has been chosen to primarily serve pupils who live outside the Village In order to offer this option as a viable mitigation measure it would be reasonable to expect that an agreement with the parent company ie The Restaurant Group plc has been negotiated and is in place. The sustainability of the provision would obviously be reliant on the same Company remaining at the site Furthermore, a condition was placed on the original planning permission for the site in 2009 which states only customers and employees are permitted to use the car park. Presumably the Local Authority have been approached and agreed to waive this condition; having had the opportunity to consider the impact on the A21 the increased number of cars entering and exiting the car park at 8.30 am and 3.25 pm would have - in particular those wishing to exit in the direction of Orpington against the oncoming traffic. In addition, the restaurant s current opening time is 9.00 am so an application for a change to operating times for the site might be required In conclusion, hard evidence is clearly required to support the offer of a Walking Bus as a viable option to mitigate highways safety and traffic concerns. Page 9 of 47

10 4 Educational Need Educational Evidence 4.1 The information in this section provides evidence in order to justify the decision that in terms of an educational need very special circumstances do not exist. Background 4.2 Bromley Local Authority chose to explore the expansion of existing Primary Schools in the first instance before pursuing entirely new school sites. The Local Authority are now moving on to the second phase of provision ie exploring sites for new schools. The Local Authority have identified 21 sites in Bromley that have the potential to provide appropriate land for educational purposes. In seeking to locate new schools preference will first be given to sites ranked A. There are 2 sites in EPA 5 which have been classed as Group 1 A sites and a further two sites ranked as B. (PSDLP 5.1). 4.3 The main primary school need for additional places has been identified as EPA s 1-4. (PSDLP ). Education Planning Area 5 Bromley Common & Keston 4.4 The Farnborough Primary School site lies within Education Planning Area 5. This area is extensive covering three Bromley Wards containing 10 existing Primary Schools. Farnborough Primary School is in the Farnborough and Crofton Ward. Education Planning Area 5 - Demand for Primary School Places 4.5 To date, the Bromley Plans Sub-Committee, when considering the planning applications for Farnborough, have not received detailed data on the additional need for places specifically in Farnborough. It has generally been reported that there is a need for primary school places countrywide, within the Local Authority and within the local area. 4.6 The Primary School Development Plan (PDSP) reports that the Local Authority have employed a Consultant to work on strengthening pupil place planning data and intelligence; as a result, school census data at Ward level is now available. Specific data relating to Education Planning Area 5 has been published in the Review of the Primary School Development Plan , School Places Working Group report to the Local Authority s Education Policy and Development Scrutiny Committee on Page 10 of 47

11 4.7 Education Policy and Development Scrutiny Committee, Agenda Item 3, reports that since 2007 the whole of EPA 5 has seen a 21% increase in the number of reception age residents. When broken down into ward areas the percentage increases are as follows: Location Increase in Reception Age Residents Planning Area 5 All Wards 21% Petts Wood & Knoll Ward 45% Bromley Common & Keston Ward 20% Farnborough & Crofton Ward 1% 4.8 The development site is within the Farnborough and Crofton Ward which has only seen a 1% increase in the number of reception age residents since Furthermore, within the Local Authority as a whole the Farnborough and Crofton Ward has the lowest increase in reception age residents of all wards in Bromley. 4.9 Further analysis of the 2015 data for Farnborough and Crofton Ward revealed that: 53% of reception age pupils did not live in the Farnborough Crofton Ward 1% came from out of the Borough Just 46% were Ward residents 4.10 Additionally, the 2015 GLA projections have reduced the future forecast pupil rolls in Planning Area 5 by 0.5 FE in the period from 2018 to 2021 reducing further to -3 FE (minus 3) by 2031 compared to the GLA 2014 projections. Based on current development plans this could lead to a surplus of places in excess of 2 Forms of Entry. Unfilled Primary School Places in Bromley 4.11 The School Capacity in State-Funded Primary Schools by Local Area Authority in 2015 reports that of Bromley s 76 primary schools 43 had unfilled places. (Table A2) 4.12 The total number of primary school places available is reported as 27,461 with the total number of unfilled places reported as 2,131 creating a surplus of 7.8%. (Table A2) The forecast for primary school places in Bromley for the period is reported as follows: (Table A5) Year 2015/ / / / /20 Forecast 26,410 27,100 27,610 27,850 27, Bromley Local Authority have planned for these additional places over a threeyear period as follows: (Table A7) Year 2015/ / /18 Planned Increase 1, Page 11 of 47

12 4.15 Following the 2015 round of school development planning the Local Authority decided to uplift the GLA projections by 5% to provide a margin for growth and to enhance parental preference. (LBB - Report No ED16009). The Local Authority actually achieved a 7.8% over capacity in LBB Education Portfolio Plan 2016/ Bromley s Education Portfolio Plan Aim 3a is for the implementation of the Primary School Development Plan to provide additional school places with focus on the following areas of concentrated demand: Beckenham, Central Bromley, Cray Valley and Penge and Anerley Aim 3b is to work with the Education Funding Agency to support the creation of free schools where they address basic need or diversity of provision The current aim to create new free schools is clear, along with the identification of areas with the most need for additional places. Whilst real initiatives are taking place to provide additional school places there can be no justification for the sacrifice of Green Belt land or the award of very special circumstances. LBB Education Portfolio Plan 2015/ The 2015/16 Plan indicated the need for additional reception places for September 2016 and beyond in the following Planning Areas: 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8. Farnborough Primary School is within planning Area 5. Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan November Bromley s Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan was approved by the Executive in June 2016 before the Local Authority took the decision to refuse planning permission in November Clearly, only the approved Proposed Submission Draft Plan could be presented for consultation therefore, due to timing factors, Farnborough Primary School remained in Tables 3 and 4 which contained proposals to meet primary need. It should be noted that these tables contain proposals only. However, in order to report the more up to date information the Local Authority provided additional evidence as a supplement to the Proposed Submission Draft Plan in the form of the Education Background Paper Autumn 2016 (Appendix 2 Primary Education Tables Consideration of Existing Primary Schools within the Green Belt Table 13) which acknowledges and records the fact that planning permission has been refused for the expansion of Farnborough Primary School. Furthermore, the Local Authority have received more than 170 requests requiring this anomaly to be addressed and to remove Farnborough Primary School from the Draft Local Plan as this option has already been found non-viable and continued inclusion of this proposal could be seen as misleading. Page 12 of 47

13 4.21 The Local Authority s Planner, Planning Strategy and Renewal, has clarified the current situation with regard to Farnborough Primary School and how it is referred to in the Draft Local Plan as follows It is not proposed as a site for development within this document, rather it is subject to a parallel process which forms part of the wider context of education provision The Local Authority s Planner further reports The Draft Local Plan and supporting Education Background Paper, set out the projected need for education places and, as appropriate, propose re-designations from Green Belt and some allocations for wholly new schools. However, Farnborough Primary School does not feature as a site in Policy 29 Education Site Allocations, since the draft plan neither proposes the re-designation of Farnborough Primary School from the Green Belt nor allocates it for a new school. The Planner confirms that The Primary School Development Plan does not confer planning permission and any proposals are subject to the usual planning processes. (E Mail LBB Planner to FVS Chairperson dated ) The Local Plan s approach to meeting need reports that Bromley s preference for providing additional school places was to encourage the extension of existing schools in the first instance (3.3.9). In taking this decision Bromley reasonably applied the standard required for new schools set out in the London Plan Policy 3.18 (D) to any extension of existing schools namely, that they should only be refused where there are demonstrable negative local impacts which substantially outweigh the desirability of establishing a new school/(extension) which cannot be addressed through the appropriate use of planning conditions or obligations The Local Plan acknowledges that as options to expand the existing infrastructure are reaching exhaustion attention should turn to assessment of alternatives such as new policy compliant sites and re-designation of the Green Belt. ( ) The Local Plan reports that site assessment undertaken demonstrates that new sites are the most sustainable locations for school development (3.3.35) Furthermore, the site assessment process highlights the necessity to fully explore all potential policy compliant sites before other sites are considered, particularly where these involve release of Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land, which require the demonstration of exceptional circumstances (3.3.37). Local Authority Reports to the Schools Adjudicator & 30.06/ The School s Adjudicator reports annually to the Government on the Local Authority s pupil admissions process. In 2015 and 2016 the Adjudicator has reported that new Free Schools were not in co-ordination with the Local Authority s system resulting in children receiving double offers. The Adjudicator further reports that had the Free Schools been in co-ordination the Local Authority would not have had to include bulge classes at nearby schools. The Local Authority continues to encourage new Free Schools to open within the Borough offering additional places over and above the current allocations, another demonstration of the lack of very special circumstances for Green Belt sacrifice. Page 13 of 47

14 LBB Education PDS Committee Statement of Executive Decision The Education PDS Committee were informed that the Portfolio Holder for Education, has made the following executive decision: PRIMARY & SECONDARY SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Planning Area 5 Wards: Bromley Common and Keston, Petts Wood and Knoll, Farnborough and Crofton To keep school organisation and size in the area under review and to consider medium term options for enlargements. It is of note that other planning areas where the same conclusion was reached actually identified specific schools for consideration and how much they should be expanded by there was no such recommendation in Planning Area 5 for any school. Therefore, there was no recommendation to investigate, with Governors, the feasibility of increasing capacity by 1 FE to 2 FE at Farnborough Primary School to meet the needs in the medium term. Current Performance of Farnborough Primary School 4.29 It is of concern that the current performance of Farnborough Primary School in terms of achievement does not match its historic OFSTED rating awarded in 2012 whilst the School was under the control of the Local Authority, before Academy status Key Stage 2 results in July 2016 are officially reported as: Pupils Progress Descriptor Assessment Method Maths Below National Average Bottom 20% of all schools in England Test Reading 2.4 National Average Score (0-4.8) 60% of all schools in England Test Writing 3.7 Well above national average ( ) Top 10% of all schools in England Teacher Assessed Combine d Maths Reading Writing 48% 52% of pupils failed to achieve the nationally expected standard Page 14 of 47

15 4.31 In terms of KS2 performance for maths, reading and writing combined Farnborough ranked 57 th out of the 65 Bromley schools who published results. ( The performance of Farnborough Primary will understandably be a consideration for the Local Authority as it reports on the need to ensure sufficient school places and the quality of those places and their efficient organisation is a priority within the Council s strategy Building a Better Bromley and contributes to the strategy to achieve the status of An Excellent Council. This policy also contributes to key targets within the Education Portfolio Plan. (Report No ED16009, , Policy Implication 4.1). Farnborough Village Nursery Closure 4.33 As a further demonstration of local need, it is of relevance that the main Nursery provision for Farnborough Village was forced to close in 2014 as the lack of nursery age children locally meant that there were insufficient numbers to sustain the provision. Conclusion 4.34 In conclusion it is clear that the Local Authority has an on-going programme to plan for additional school places which is far from nearing completion. The evidence for Farnborough and Crofton Ward is conclusive with official data reporting just a 1% rise in reception age children since 2007 and 53% of reception age children in 2015 not living within the Ward. The reported poor performance of Farnborough Primary School does not make it an ideal choice for expansion. On balance the evidence suggests it would be difficult to justify the existence of very special circumstances on educational terms. Page 15 of 47

16 5 Green Belt 5.1 The proposed development is in conflict with at least 4 of the 5 stated purposes of the Green Belt, namely: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) describes green belts as a buffer between towns, and town and countryside. Openness of the Green Belt 5.2 The NPPF provides clear guidance regarding protecting green belt land under Section 9, paragraph 79: The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The policy s purpose includes the need to check unrestricted sprawl of urban areas, safeguard the countryside from encroachment and preserve special settings and character. 5.3 The proposed development would clearly restrict the openness of the Green Belt and have an overbearing visual dominance within the landscape due to its size and bulk. The proposal is 124% larger than the original building. Evidenced in Point Inappropriate Development 5.4 The NPPF reports on inappropriate development under paragraph s 87 and 88: As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 5.5 The proposal will clearly harm the green belt in terms of the two-storey building s visual dominance, restriction to the openness of the green belt and encroachment by volume. To add to this, the temporary classrooms require tarmac hardstanding and this area will not be returned to green space. It will remain as tarmac. 5.6 The increase in volume of traffic and on-street parking will be harmful to the historic centre of Farnborough Village and the roads surrounding the School forming the edge of the green belt. Page 16 of 47

17 Absence of Very Special Circumstances 5.7 The proposal does not warrant a very special circumstances designation. The Local Authority have an on-going plan to provide sufficient school places for the whole of Bromley and new options are being explored, therefore it would be premature to decide that sacrifice of the green belt is justified when alternative solutions are still currently being pursued. 5.8 Furthermore, whilst the Local Authority are required to provide sufficient school places for all pupils in Bromley the need in Farnborough and Crofton Ward has been evidenced and the increase in ward residents of reception age has risen just 1% since In 2015, 53% of reception places went to children who lived outside the Ward. (Points 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9). 5.9 The GLA projections for future pupil rolls in Planning Area 5 now forecast a reduction in demand of 0.5 FE commencing in 2018 with a further substantial reduction of minus 3 FE by Based on current development plans this could provide a surplus of 2 FE. Therefore, it would be fair to conclude that expansion in this area is not essential and does not warrant sacrifice of the green belt. (Point 4.10) Disproportionate Size of the Proposed Plan 5.10 The NPPF gives guidance on buildings considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt under paragraph 89: A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are: The extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; and The replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. Disproportionate Additions Over and Above the Original Building 5.11 From the table below it can be clearly seen that the building is a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. Original Building Gross Internal Floor Area 1,054 m2 Total Proposed - Gross Internal Floor Area 2,365 m2 Source: The Appellant s proposed plans Schedule of Areas 2.3) 5.12 The total proposal is 124% larger than the original building It is noted that whilst there is no definition of disproportionate the proposal is so colossal in relation to the original building it can be judged disproportionate. Page 17 of 47

18 5.14 The footprint of the building is also a disproportionate addition over and above the original building. Original Building Footprint 1,139 m2 Total Proposed - Footprint 1,901 m2 Source: The Appellant s proposed plans Schedule of Areas 2.3) 5.15 The proposed footprint of the building is 67% larger than the original building. Again, whilst there is no definition of disproportionate it would seem reasonable to assume that an increase of this size would be seen as disproportionate. Materially Larger Than the One It Replaces 5.16 If the double storey extension is considered to replace the single storey read extension (DC/05/01128) from the table below it can be clearly seen that the proposed new building is clearly materially larger than the one it replaces. DC/05/01128 To be demolished Single Storey Rear Ext 2 Classrooms & Store DC/16/01965/FULL1 Replacement building Two Storey Rear Extension 12 Classrooms 304 m2 947 m2 Source: The Appellant s proposed plans Schedule of Areas The proposed new building is 237% materially larger than the single storey extension it replaces. Height of the Proposed Building 5.18 The original building is single storey - the proposed building is two-storey with a flat roof. In addition to the increased height of the building the proposed plans include 12 large aluminium ventilation units on top of the roof. Whilst there are no dimensions in the plans for these units they appear to be of a considerable size on the scale drawings provided by the Appellant. (Drawing evidence in Point 5.20) The units will appear as a dominant feature on top of flat roof of the proposed double storey building and will have a large visual dominance. These substantial industrial units will clearly impact on the visual amenity of the landscape. Part of the School site is in the Farnborough Village Conservation Area which will be impacted by such a discordant feature. The proposal reports that the units will operate at night but gives no indication of the impact this will have on nearby residential properties. Page 18 of 47

19 Proposed Double Storey Extension with Ventilation Units 5.20 The proposed building is: 124% larger than the original building The footprint is 67% larger than the original building 237% materially larger than the extension it replaces Includes 12 large aluminium ventilation units on top of the flat roof Green Belt Status Confirmed 5.21 The Local Authority took the opportunity to review Green Belt designations through the preparation of their Local Plan. The Local Authority assessed all schools within the Green Belt for the impact that re-designation would have on the integrity of the Green Belt boundary. The Proposed Local Plan confirms that the Farnborough Primary School site should retain its Green Belt status as it does not meet the criteria for re-designation. Conclusion 5.22 In conclusion, the site remains in the Green Belt, part of the site is also in the Farnborough Village Conservation Area the incongruous, visually dominant nature of the proposed double storey building will restrict the openness of the Green Belt causing harm. There is no evidence to warrant very special circumstances on education grounds. The building is clearly disproportionate in size to the original building and materially larger than the one it replaces. The site acts as a buffer between town and countryside preventing urban sprawl, neighbouring towns and villages merging into one another, it safeguards the countryside from encroachment and the site helps to preserve the setting and special character of the historic Village of Farnborough. Page 19 of 47

20 6 Planning Comparators 6.1 In November 2016 Bromley s Planning Committee resolved to reject the planning application regarding the development of the Farnborough Primary School site due to the substantial level of harm that it would cause to the openness of the Green Belt. The Planning Committee s decision in this regard is as follows: The development of this site as proposed is considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. The substantial level of harm that would arise from the development by way of harm to the openness of the Green Belt, is not clearly outweighed by any educational or other benefits that would arise. Very special circumstances therefore do not exist. As such the proposal is not sustainable development and is contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF (2012) and Policies 7.16 of the London Plan (2015) and G1 of the UDP (2006). 6.2 In order to ensure a fair and open system is maintained it would be helpful to be aware of decisions made and precedents set in the local area. Planning Inspectorate Appeal No: APP/G5180/W/16/ July In July 2016 the Planning Inspectorate considered an appeal regarding an application to erect a single storey shed by a local resident whose property shares a boundary with Farnborough Primary School. 6.4 The main issues were: i. Whether the proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt; ii. iii. iv. The effect of the proposal on the openness and character and appearance of the Green Belt; The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of a neighbouring property with particular regard to outlook and visual dominance. Whether the harm caused by inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations sufficient to amount to very special circumstances to justify the development. 6.5 The Planning Inspector s conclusions on the main issues were: i. The proposal amounts to inappropriate development and is contrary to saved UDP Policy G1. ii. The proposal would reduce the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to UDP Policy G1, although the degree of harm would be small. (NB the proposal is for a single storey shed). Page 20 of 47

21 iii. iv. The proposal would result in material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Church View, with particular regard to outlook and visual dominance and would conflict with saved UDP Policy BE1, which amongst other things, requires that development should respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings. I have found that harm would be caused through inappropriateness, which in itself carries significant weight. There would be some small harm through loss of openness, and harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Church View. Bearing in mind the substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, there are no other considerations which clearly outweigh the harm that I have found. 6.6 The Inspector s final conclusion states: The environmental and social harm that I have found means that the proposal fails to satisfy these dimensions of sustainable development. For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the appeal should be dismissed. 6.7 The dismissal of this appeal for a single storey shed in a garden of a neighbouring property to the School site is significant. The proposal for Farnborough Primary School is for a two-storey building of considerable length and height forming a substantial unbroken mass of far greater visual dominance than a single storey shed. Absence of Appropriate School Comparators 6.8 Farnborough Village is unique in the Borough and an appropriate school comparator in a similar location does not exist. 6.9 The Village is reliant on the B2518 as the only viable road to offer entry and exit to the Village. On a regular basis, this road becomes blocked with vehicles unable to pass and consequently traffic ceases to flow. If an accident occurs on the A21 and traffic diverts through the Village the B2518 comes to a standstill within minutes, the Village simply cannot cope with any increase to traffic. The reliance on a single road for access to all properties and businesses in a Village location is unique in the Borough The Local Authority conducted a review through its Draft Submission Local Plan and determined that the Farnborough site should retain its Green Belt Status, other Schools in the Green Belt are indicated for re-designation to Urban Open Space Farnborough Primary is situated in the Farnborough and Crofton Ward which has had the lowest increase in reception age residents in Bromley since 2007 increasing by just 1%. Furthermore, 53% of reception pupils in 2015 did not live in the Farnborough and Crofton Ward Farnborough Conservation Area includes part of the School site. The heritage of Farnborough Village is extremely important to residents and visitors alike and it is vitally important to preserve the Village s heritage assets for future generations. Page 21 of 47

22 LBB Planning Application: DC/16/00699/FULL As a comparator for planning purposes the Appellant has cited Oaklands Primary Academy with Farnborough Primary School. (Statement of Case 6.41) The use of Oaklands Primary Academy as a comparator to Farnborough Primary is a poor choice. The two schools and their planning proposals bear no resemblance to each other on all relevant points The Appellant reports that the Council have also permitted to expand Oakland s Primary Academy from a 2FE to a 3FE. This is statement is not correct. Oaklands is allocated to operate as a 3FE Primary School but is currently operating as a 2FE partly due to the current condition of the existing buildings. Oaklands sought planning permission in order to allow the school to operate effectively as a 3FE primary school Comparisons on the relevant points are shown in the table below: Relevant Point Farnborough Oaklands Planning Area 5 9 Planning Request Two Storey School building Single Storey School building plus MUGA pitches and associated sports facilities for use by the local community Existing School 1FE 3FE Expansion Size 2FE No expansion remains 3FE Increase in % of Reception Age Ward Residents 1% 86% Since 2007 Location Green Belt Status On Site Vehicle Drop-Off Facilities Roof Concerns regarding Highways Safety Number of Other Primary Schools in Planning Area Rural Village location. School situated on the only viable access road for the whole of the Village. Green Belt Status Confirmed in Bromley s Draft Submission, Local Plan None Flat roof to double storey with 12 large aluminium natural ventilation units on top Severe highways impact Mitigations not viable Nine Residential location with plenty of entry and exit roads within the local road network Re-designation to Urban Open Space indicated in Bromley s Draft Submission Local Plan Two on site Drop Off Zones accessed via the two separate vehicle entry and exit points Green roof No highways concerns or mitigations deemed necessary Three Page 22 of 47

23 LBB Planning Application: DC/14/02730/FULL As a comparator for planning purposes the Appellant has cited Edgebury Primary School with Farnborough Primary School (Statement of Case 6.39 and 6.41) There are very clear differences between the evidence to expand Edgebury Primary and Farnborough Primary. The points that carry the most significant weight can be easily identified. The exceptionally small increase in reception age pupils in Farnborough and Crofton Ward since 2007 (1%) in comparison to the much higher increase in the Chislehurst and Mottingham Ward (32%) and the presence of two alternative Group 1, A rated sites offering potential for significant policy compliant developments in Planning Area 5 and no alternative Group 1 sites being available in the Chislehurst and Mottingham Ward are factors that carry substantial weight. The difference in the highway situation and the ability to drop off on site are also conflicting. Clearly the two schools are not relevant comparators. Relevant Point Farnborough Edgebury Planning Area 5 6 Planning Request Two storey school building Two storey school building Existing School 1FE 1 FE Expansion Size 2FE 2FE Increase in % of Reception Age Ward 1% 32% Residents since 2007 Location Green Belt Status Rural Village location. School situated on the only viable access road for the whole of Farnborough Village Residential frontages and parking restrictions. Green Belt Status Confirmed in Bromley s Draft Submission, Local Plan Access Roads to site One Two Residential area close to Chislehurst Town Centre. No residential frontages on local access road ample parking. Several optional routes for access. Re-designation to Urban Open Space indicated in Bromley s Draft Submission Local Plan On Site Vehicle Drop-Off Facilities None Two on site Drop Off Zones accessed via the two separate vehicle entry and exit points Floorspace increase 947 m2 992 m2 Alternative Group 1 sites identified in Bromley s Draft Plan Two None 6.19 Neither the Oaklands site nor the Edgebury site has any relevance in the proposal for the Farnborough site. Page 23 of 47

24 7 Response to the Statement of Case 7.1 This report seeks to clarify the information in the Statement of Case document produced by Robinson Escott on behalf of Nexus Education Schools Trust and provide further evidence, where relevant, in order to ensure the most comprehensive information is available. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Statement of Case (1.1) 7.2 The Appellant states that their Statement of Case document has been prepared following the decision to amend the planning appeal procedure from written representations to a Hearing. It is unclear to residents whether this document replaces the Appellant s Grounds of Appeal Statement dated December Farnborough Village Society, on behalf of residents requested a copy of the Appellant s Grounds of Appeal Statement and received it on 25 January Subsequently, it would seem the contents of this document were altered and a new document entitled Statement of Case was posted on the Bromley website on 8 February Interested parties have not been officially made aware that this second document exists; a Village resident viewing the Bromley website spotted the change by chance. It is of great concern that the Appellant has made a new/altered submission and interested parties have not been officially informed. Statement of Case (1.2) 7.3 The Appellant gives details of planning application DC/16/01965/FULL which was deferred in July 2016 and refused in November Statement of Case (1.3) 7.4 The Appellant lists documents supplied to the Planning Inspectorate in December The Grounds for Appeal Statement dated December 2016 is not listed. Statement of Case (1.4) 7.5 The Appellant gives details of planning application DC/15/03456/FULL1 which was refused in December The Appellant states the only difference between the two applications was that in the second application some car parking spaces were added on site. The second application offered 5 additional car parking spaces plus one disabled bay. Statement of Case (1.5) 7.6 The Appellant gives details of actions taken following the first refusal in Page 24 of 47

25 Statement of Case (1.6) 7.7 The deferred application was considered by the Plans Sub-Committee on 3 November The Appellant submitted a one page document to address the points of deferment. Regarding this deferment information, Farnborough and Crofton Ward Councillor, Robert Evans, reported that the Appellant had not updated the transport data and the second reason for deferment had not been addressed at all - no further information had been submitted; consequently, the reasons for the deferment had not been addressed by the Appellant. These facts were accepted without challenge by the Plans Sub-Committee. 7.8 After full consideration by the Committee the application was subsequently refused on the two grounds stated. Statement of Case (1.7) 7.9 The Appellant queries the Green Belt being raised as a ground for refusal stating despite no concern being raised by Members of the Committee in regards to the Green Belt for the original application. This statement is incorrect at the Plans Sub Committee held in November 2015 Councillor Robert Evans first raised the Green Belt as a concern with the full Committee. The Plans Sub Committee meeting held in November 2016 identified the Green Belt as a main issue. To suggest that concerns regarding the Green Belt were not raised, did not exist and were not justified in the decision-making process is incorrect, highly unlikely and might be viewed as somewhat disingenuous. Statement of Case (1.8) 7.10 The Appellant accepts the reasons for refusal relate to highways safety and residential amenity and the development s harm to the Green Belt. Statement of Case (1.9) 7.11 The Appellant states the intention to provide information on various aspects of the development and evaluations of planning policy. THE APPLICATION SITE/CHARACTER APPRAISAL Statement of Case (2.1) 7.12 The Appellant reports Farnborough Primary School s historic OFSTED rating awarded in 2012 whilst the School was under the control of the Local Authority and before the School became an academy. Primary School pupil performance at the end of Key Stage 2 (Year 6) in July 2016 has been reported by the Government and is available to view on their website. Farnborough Primary s results are reported as -2.6% in maths which falls in the below national average category ie the bottom 20% of all schools in England. The Bromley average for maths is reported as +1.9%. The combined data for reading, writing and maths for pupils at Farnborough who achieved the nationally expected standard is 48%, therefore 52% of pupils failed to reach the nationally expected standard. Page 25 of 47

26 7.13 The Appellant s description of the area surrounding the site lacks essential information. Significantly, the site is situated on the only viable access road for entry in to and out of Farnborough Village. The site lies within the Green Belt and adjoins Farnborough Village Conservation Area to the west, with a small part of the playing field lying within the Conservation Area. Farnborough Hill is a bus route accommodating the 358 and 402 services. Houses close to the School on Farnborough Hill do not have access to the main drain and therefore require regular access for cess pit tankers. The School has a single narrow access road with no other means of entry or exit. The southern boundary of the site adjoins Church Road, a narrow country lane with no pavement and unsuitable for large vehicles. The boundary with Church Road is a sheer drop and is unsuitable for use as an emergency escape route. Statement of Case (2.2) 7.14 The Appellant s description of the School building lacks detail. The building is currently single storey. Statement of Case (2.3) 7.15 The Appellant s description of the location of the site lacks detail. In addition to being Green Belt land the site adjoins Farnborough Village Conservation Area with part of the playing field lying within the Conservation Area. The Conservation Area exists to protect the historic centre of Farnborough Village. The School site is on the very edge of open countryside and acts as a buffer for urban sprawl. Statement of Case (2.4) 7.16 The Appellant describes a mature boundary of trees concealing the site within the surrounding landscape. Unfortunately, the boundary trees have been somewhat depleted, particularly on the eastern boundary in the vicinity of a residential property. Representations to the School have been made by residents about the depletion of the trees and this situation remains unsatisfactory. The vast majority of the trees are deciduous and consequently do not conceal the site in the winter months. THE APPEAL SCHEME Statement of Case (3.1) 7.17 The Appellant reports the Appeal Scheme seeks to expand Farnborough Primary School to a 2FE when in fact the proposal is for the addition of a substantial two-storey building to the site. Statement of Case (3.2) 7.18 The Appellant describes the location of the new two storey block as broadly in the same location as an existing extension but gives no further details. The use of the term broadly is an extremely poor descriptor and somewhat misleading. The existing single storey extension houses 2 classrooms and a small store room the proposed building houses 12 classrooms in a two-storey block. It is hard to imagine how the new 12 classroom proposal will fit broadly over the same surface area as the 2 classroom extension as the footprint of the new building is 67% larger. Inevitably the much larger block will eat into Green Belt land. Page 26 of 47

27 Statement of Case (3.3) 7.19 The Appellant judges that the proposal will have a minimal impact on the playing fields and playground. The two-storey block will have a significant visual dominance in the landscape. The block will be clearly visible from the Conservation Area within the School grounds and from neighbouring properties. Statement of Case (3.4) 7.20 The Appellant reports on other ancillary proposals for the site, including the loss of green space to tarmac thereby changing the visual landscape permanently. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY Statement of Case (4.1) 7.21 The Appellant reports on the planning history of the property but does not give details of the size of the original building or the additions which are as follows: Original Building with gross internal floor area of 1,054 m2 DC/04/02424 DC/05/01128 DC/10/01118 Single storey main entrance extension for admin space Singe storey rear extension two classrooms and storage Single storey eastern boundary extension additional classroom These three extensions add a total of 1,418 m2 to the original building. PLANNING POLICY Statement of Case (5.1) 7.22 The Appellant alleges that the Local Authority s decision to refuse the development conflicts with national and local policies as follows: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Protecting Green Belt Land Statement of Case (5.2) 7.23 NPPF, Section 9, Paragraphs 79 and 80 regarding openness and permanence of the Green Belt are not in conflict with the Local Authority s decision. All 4 of the relevant purposes of the Green Belt under paragraph 80 apply to the Farnborough site. Page 27 of 47

28 Statement of Case (5.3) 7.24 NPPF, Section 9, Paragraph 88 regarding harm to the Green Belt is not in conflict with the Local Authority s decision as very special circumstances do not exist as evidenced in Section 4, Educational Need, of this Report. Statement of Case (5.4) 7.25 NPPF, Section 9, Paragraph 89 regarding inappropriate development of the Green Belt is not in conflict with the Local Authority s decision. On the first exception criteria the extension or alteration of a building The Local Authority s, Planning Appeals Section, Planner has responded to this point as follows: I can confirm that paragraph 89 of the NPPF allows for proportionate additions in the Green Belt. Whist the NPPF does not define what might be proportionate, I do not consider it unreasonable for the Council to argue (in the absence of very special circumstances) that the proposed extension to Farnborough Primary School, given its size and location, is disproportionate and hence inappropriate in the Green Belt. Whilst there are some inconsistencies between the UDP and the NPPF regarding Green Belt development, I do not consider that this matter engenders one of those inconsistencies. I therefore do not agree with the appellant s agent s argument. (E mail to Portfolio Holder for Planning, LBB from Planner, Planning Appeals Section, LBB dated 6 February 2017). The proposed development is 124% larger than the original building On the second exception criteria limited infilling or partial redevelopment the plan cannot be classed as limited infilling due to the openness of the space, the surrounding open countryside and the Conservation Area status. The two-storey block would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and therefore does not meet the criteria for a partial redevelopment of a previously developed site. London Plan Statement of Case (5.5) 7.27 London Plan s Policy 7.16 is not in conflict with the Local Authority s decision. The policy outlines that the strongest possible protection should be given to London s Green Belt, in accordance with national guidance. Furthermore, the Local Authority have recently assessed the development site as part of a review of their Local Plan and concluded that the site does not warrant re-designation and therefore maintains its Green Belt designation and should be given the strongest possible protection. Bromley Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Statement of Case (5.6) 7.28 Bromley Unitary Development Plan, Policy BE1, is not in conflict with the Local Authority s decision. In particular, the development does compromise residents amenities and will impact on neighbouring occupiers privacy. In addition, certain aspects of desirable design that are currently present on the site will be removed in order to facilitate the provision of additional parking spaces. Page 28 of 47

29 Statement of Case (5.7) 7.29 Bromley Unitary Development Plan, Policy T18 is not in conflict with the Local Authority s decision. The impact of additional parking on Farnborough Hill and other local roads will be significant. Road safety in this area is already a concern. Cars parked on Farnborough Hill cause buses and large vehicles to mount the pavement in order to maintain traffic flow through the Village. Pedestrian and vehicular safety is compromised on a daily basis. The police have identified Farnborough Hill as an area of particular concern regarding highways safety; the police give 3 pledges to each Ward and a police watch on Farnborough Hill has been nominated as a main pledge for the past two years. The local officer has just completed a training course on the use of specialist equipment in order to be able to prosecute drivers - one of just three officers qualified in this regard in the whole of Bromley in the past 18 months. However, it should be borne in mind that there is just one police officer assigned to the whole Ward and this is a prevention initiative rather than a solution to the overriding problem. Statement of Case (5.8) 7.30 The Appellant states Policy G1 is inconsistent with National and Regional policies. This matter has already been raised by the Appellant and subsequently addressed in Point 7.2 above. Statement of Case (5.9) 7.31 The Local Authority have considered planning policy objectives set out in the National Planning Policy Framework as well as those outlined in the London Plan and Bromley UDP. The Local Authority are aware of relevant Government guidance. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Statement of Case (5.10) 7.32 The Ministerial foreword explains that the Government s focus is promoting sustainable development which is about change for the better. It states our natural environment is essential to our wellbeing and our historic environment which includes landscapes and villages can better be cherished if their spirit of place thrives, rather than withers. The Framework states that planning should find ways to enhance and improve places in which we live our lives. and should be a collective enterprise to include people and communities. The NPPF Framework cites a guiding principle within The UK Sustainable Development Strategy Securing the Future as living within the planet s environmental limits. The Framework acknowledges an environmental role in sustainable development, namely contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment The proposal would therefore be contrary to the principles of the framework of sustaining and enhancing heritage assets and would also be contrary to UDP Policy BE11 which seeks to protect and enhance the significance of Bromley s historic and built heritage. Page 29 of 47

30 Statement of Case (5.11) 7.34 A Core Planning Principle within the Framework is clearly stated as the protection of the Green Belt and protection of communities: To take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it The Appellant s plan included the removal of existing desirable design features with no plans to replace them conflicting with the Core Planning Principle in the Framework regarding a high standard of design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants. The plan recommended the removal of all the planters in the car park to facilitate the provision additional parking spaces. This plan is also in conflict with Bromley UDP Appendix II Parking Standards Parking Design 1.4. More detailed information on this point is available in the Clarification of Evidence Report (Appendix 1, Page 8). Promoting Sustainable Transport Statement of Case (5.12) 7.36 The Appellant reports that NPPF, Paragraph 32 indicates that permission should be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. The existing development is already having a severe impact on highways safety and traffic flow through the Village and the proposed development will further exacerbate this severe impact. Evidenced in Appendix 1, Clarification of Evidence Report Paragraph 32 also states that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people. At present, there is an outstanding query regarding the viability of the overflow parking spaces that may restrict access to the site for emergency vehicles and other large vehicles. The LA s Highway Engineer states There are also 7 overflow spaces shown on the access road. However, these can only be used short term as they block in other spaces and may also preclude large vehicles getting onto the site. (Planning Applications notes Section 2 Consultations). For more detailed information on this point see the Clarification of Evidence Report, Appendix 1, Points 3.2 & It should also be noted that the overflow spaces are currently in daily use and therefore cannot be counted as new spaces for the additional demand that will be created, and indeed they may not be viable at all. Evidenced in Appendix Paragraph 32 further states that plans should take account of whether opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up. At present, from the parking burden directly generated by school traffic, it would be reasonable to assume that sustainable modes of transport have not been taken up. Page 30 of 47

31 Statement of Case (5.13) 7.40 Paragraph 34 states developments should be located where the need to travel will be minimised. It should be noted that 53% of reception age pupils in 2015 did not reside in the Farnborough and Crofton Ward. It would seem reasonable to assume that by increasing the intake further this will inevitably lead to an increase in the catchment area and the out of Ward resident figure would also increase necessitating the need to travel rather than minimising it. Statement of Case (5.14) 7.41 The Appellant reports that Paragraph 36 advises that a Travel Plan will be required. The Appellant has not to date submitted an updated Travel Plan. Statement of Case (5.15) 7.42 The Appellant reports that Paragraph 37 recognises the need to minimise journey lengths for education activities. Again, with 53% of reception age pupils not residing in the Farnborough and Crofton Ward and the likelihood of this figure increasing with increased pupil numbers conflicts with the need to minimise journey lengths for education activities. Statement of Case (5.16) 7.43 The Appellant reports that Paragraph 38 states that key facilities such as primary schools should be located within walking distance. At the risk of repetition, 53% of reception age pupils in 2015 not residing in the Farnborough and Crofton Ward makes the achievement of this aim unlikely. Promoting Healthy Communities Statement of Case (5.17) 7.44 The LA have an established policy for the review and strategic planning of school places and related school organisation. The need to ensure sufficient school places, the quality of those places and their efficient organisation is a priority within the Local Authority s strategy The LA have taken extensive steps to ensure compliance with Paragraph 72 regarding sufficient choice of school places. The LA have planned for a margin of 5% above agreed Greater London Authority projections. The provision of additional places with a margin for choice has been successful. In 2015 the LA achieved an over capacity of 7.8% resulting in 2,131 unfilled primary school places The LA s strategy to meet additional demand is a combination of bulge classes, permanent expansion of existing schools and new free schools. The LA reported that this provides the necessary flexibility to ensure that the demand can be met whilst remaining sensitive to the preferences expressed by parents. (LBB Report No: ED16009). Page 31 of 47

32 Statement of Case (5.18) 7.47 Paragraph 216 states that weight should be given to the extent that there are unresolved objections to relevant policies in emerging local plans. The LA consultation regarding their proposed submission draft local plan closed on 31 December There were 170 objections raised to the inclusion of Farnborough Primary School in the draft local plan. The Local Authority have confirmed that comments have been registered and will be analysed A Local Authority Planner, Planning Strategy and Renewal has clarified the current situation with regard to Farnborough Primary School and how it is referred to in the Draft Local Plan as follows It is not proposed as a site for development within this document, rather it is subject to a parallel process which forms part of the wider context of education provision The Planner further reports The Draft Local Plan and supporting Education Background Paper, set out the projected need for education places and, as appropriate, propose re-designations from Green Belt and some allocations for wholly new schools. However, Farnborough Primary School does not feature as a site in Policy 29 Education Site Allocations, since the draft plan neither proposes the re-designation of Farnborough Primary School from Green Belt, nor allocates it for a new school. Ms Slater confirms that The Primary School Development Plan does not confer planning permission and any proposals are subject to the usual planning processes. (E Mail: Planner, LBB to the Chairperson, FVS dated ). London Plan Statement of Case (5.19) 7.50 London Plan, Policy 3.18 is not in conflict with the Local Authority s decision. The Local Authority continues to explore ways to ensure sufficient provision and choice for primary school places. Bromley UDP Statement of Case (5.20) 7.51 The Appellant alleges conflict between Policy C7 and National and Regional Plan Policy. This matter has already been dealt with under Point 7.24 above The Appellant correctly identifies that many schools across the Borough lie within the Green Belt. A review of School designations as part of the Draft Local Plan has been carried out and Farnborough maintains its Green Belt Status. A number of other schools are recommended for re-designation to Urban Open Space Bromley UDP, Policy C7, states that educational facilities are not appropriate uses in the Green Belt and proposals for new buildings or extensions associated with educational uses will therefore have to show that very special circumstances exist. The LA s strategy to meet additional demand for school places is currently on track with a substantial number of unfilled primary places in The LA continues to explore new sites and encourage new free schools to the Borough therefore all possibilities have not been exhausted and Green Belt sacrifice for this development is not justified. Page 32 of 47

33 7.54 Bromley UDP, Policy C7, indicates a crucial factor in considering future school provision is that new or expanded school facilities should provide improved safety for pedestrians and cyclists. There are already concerns surrounding the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and indeed vehicle users in this location. Increasing the parking burden on the local road network will significantly decrease the safety of pedestrians and road users alike. Bromley Draft Local Plan Proposed Submission Statement of Case (5.21) 7.55 The Local Authority s consultation on their Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan closed on 31 December The Local Authority are currently considering all of the comments received. Statement of Case (5.22) 7.56 The Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan sets out the vision and objectives for the Borough to the 2030s. Statement of Case (5.23) 7.57 The Appellant references Table 2 of the Local Plan as identifying the need for the whole of the Borough of Bromley up to 2030/31. (3.3.38) Statement of Case (5.24) 7.58 The Appellant references Tables 3 and 4 of the Local Plan (3.3.40) which offer proposals to address the five year supply of primary school places and provision over the Local Plan period. Table 4 of the draft Plan indicates Farnborough as a proposed site for an additional form of entry. The Appellant states that Farnborough Primary School has been allocated an additional form of entry; it must be stressed that the draft Plan contains a proposal not an allocation. The Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan was approved by the Executive in June 2016 before the Local Authority took the decision to refuse planning permission in November Clearly, only the approved Proposed Submission Draft Plan could be presented for consultation therefore Farnborough Primary School remained in Table 2 and Table 13 due to timing factors. However, in order to report the more up to date information the Local Authority provided additional evidence as a supplement to the Proposed Submission Draft Plan in the form of the Education Background Paper Autumn 2016 (Appendix 2 Primary Education Tables Consideration of Existing Primary Schools within the Green Belt Table 13) which acknowledges and records the fact that planning permission has been refused for the expansion of Farnborough Primary School. Furthermore, the Local Authority have received more than 170 requests requiring this anomaly to be addressed and to remove Farnborough Primary School from the Draft Local Plan as this option has already been found non-viable and continued inclusion of this proposal could be seen as misleading The Local Authority s Planner, Planning Strategy and Renewal, has acknowledged concerns and has clearly confirmed that Farnborough Primary School is not proposed as a site for development within the Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan - evidenced in Points 7.47 and 7.48 above. Page 33 of 47

34 Department Communities Local Government Policy Statement Planning for School Development August 2011 Statement of Case (5.25) 7.60 The Appellant cites the Government s policy statement on Planning for Schools Development and reports, amongst other criteria, that the Government wants good schools to expand. This policy statement conflicts with the latest information reported to the Government. Farnborough Primary School s Key Stage 2 results in July 2016 for mathematics have been reported as below national average falling within about the bottom 20% of all schools in England. The combined result for reading, writing and mathematics in July 2016 has been reported as 48% of pupils achieving nationally expected standards. Statement of Case (5.26) 7.61 The Appellant reminds planning decision makers to be consistent with their statutory obligations. THE APPELLANT S CASE Statement of Case (6.1) 7.62 The Appellant confirms the two grounds for refusal. Statement of Case (6.2) 7.63 The Appellant confirms separate assessment of the two grounds. Highway Safety and Residential Amenity Statement of Case (6.3) 7.64 The Appellant confirms the Local Authority s ground of refusal regarding highway safety and residential amenity. Statement of Case (6.4) 7.65 The Appellant identifies paragraph 32 of the NPPF as relevant. The Appellant acknowledges that Policy T18 forms part of the Local Authority s decision notice. Statement of Case (6.5) 7.66 The Appellant reports that the original Transport Statement was amended and that a supplementary statement was provided following deferral. The Appellant reports no objections from the Highways Department. Page 34 of 47

35 7.67 As previously reported in points 3.5 and 3.6 above; the data in the Transport Statement was gathered in March 2015 and July At the deferment meeting in November 2016, some 20 months later, Councillor Evans reported that the transport data had not been updated; neither the Local Authority s Highways Engineer, nor the Appellant challenged this statement. This point is recorded in the minutes of the Plans Sub Committee No 2 Item In addition, the Transport Statement was considered out of date as it was produced a considerable length of time before new parking restrictions in the High Street, a few yards from the school, came in to force. This discrepancy was also reported in Appendix 1, Page 12. Statement of Case (6.6) 7.68 The Appellant reports that their Highway s Consultant will be attending the hearing to provide further clarification and justification for the project on highways matters alleged in the ground of refusal. It is noted that the Appellant s Highways Consultant has not provided any further or new information in the Statement of Case. Statement of Case (6.7) 7.69 The Appellant cites paragraph of the NPPF which seeks to ensure that travel is minimised. Unfortunately, this is not the case with Farnborough. As previously evidenced 53% of reception age pupils in 2015/16 did not live in the Farnborough and Crofton Ward, therefore whilst the School is situated in the middle of a community pupils are travelling in to the school from much further afield The Appellant identifies the behaviour of drivers, in particular late arrivals, who seek to get as close as possible to the school gates, and can display unsociable driving and parking behaviour and believes this behaviour can be addressed in a low-key manner. The School have informed residents that they have spoken to parents and addressed the issue of anti-social driving and parking behaviour particularly in relation to the elderly residents in Chartwell Drive. To date residents have seen no improvement in behaviour from this thoughtful low-key manner and a significant risk to pedestrians and road users alike remains The Appellant agrees that pedestrians should be protected wherever possible. The Appellant goes on to report that appropriate and feasible mitigation measures have been agreed with the Highway Authority. Residents are unaware that any such agreement has been reached on any physical mitigation measures and no such agreement was reported at the Plans Sub Committee meeting in November 2016 where the proposed application was refused. As mitigation measures suggested could directly affected many residents properties it would be appropriate to assumed that the Highway Authority would carry out consultations with residents before any agreement is reached. No such consultations have taken place. Statement of Case (6.8) 7.72 The Appellant reports only on peak parking demand and states that there is sufficient and adequate on-site parking provision; from evidence already presented it is clear that the overflow spaces intended to relieve pressure from the new development are already in use on a daily basis by the current staff cohort. The Transport Statement pre-dates new parking restrictions in the close vicinity of the School. The Appellant has not addressed the concerns surrounding the overflow spaces blocking the only access Page 35 of 47

36 road into the School. The Transport Statement presents unrealistic figures for future demand and takes no account of the very high percentage of pupils already attending the School who do not live in the Farnborough and Crofton Ward and therefore the increasing number of additional pupils who would live outside the Ward and inevitably travel to School by car. Statement of Case (6.9) 7.73 The Appellant reports that some mitigation measures have been supported by the Council s Highways Officer these measures seem to be an S106 agreement, a construction management plan and a revised School Travel Plan all expected and required options for new development not real solutions to the problems. All practical mitigation measures have been found non-viable as evidenced in Appendix 1, Proposed Mitigation Measures Section 5, Pages The Appellant reports that an agreement to formalise the S106 funding has yet to be reached with the Council. Statement of Case (6.10) 7.75 The Appellant reports that staff parking will be accommodated on site (teaching staff, a pro rata figure for support staff and office staff only) this assertion is reliant on the pro-rata members of staff not being present at school at the same time. Furthermore, no account has been taken of catering staff, midday supervisors, site staff or visitors. Clearly catering staff and midday supervisors will increase the on-street parking demand during the late morning to afternoon adding to the all-day on street parking burden The Appellant initially reported a short period parking demand of 15 minutes twice a day in the original Grounds of Appeal Statement this has been altered without explanation to 20 minutes in the Statement of Case document. The parking burden created by the School already extends far beyond these times with cars arriving as early as 7.30 am for the before school club through to 6pm for the after-school club, in addition to the arrival and departure of other staff and visitors throughout the day The Appellant apportions the blame for the traffic problems on unsociable parking behaviour of a very small proportion of parents not the lack of on-street parking. A somewhat unjust observation when the real problems are the inadequate width of the highway when cars are parked on Farnborough Hill leading to the inability of buses and other large vehicles to pass; the parking burden in roads surrounding the School already at saturation point; the unique road layout of Farnborough Village ie single access road. A more just observation might be drivers behaving in an unsociable manner due to the lack of parking in the vicinity of the School The Appellant reports that any perceived impact on residential amenity will be therefore within reasonable limits ; a point that hundreds of residents of Farnborough Village strongly contest. Page 36 of 47

37 Statement of Case (6.11) 7.79 The Appellant concludes that the residual cumulative impact cannot be defined as severe. A point contested earlier in this Report under Section 3, Highways Safety and Transport Grounds for Refusal The Appellant concludes that mitigation measures are in accordance with the NPPF. Viability of mitigation measures has been evidenced in this Report under Section 3, Highways Safety and Transport Grounds for Refusal. Green Belt Statement of Case (6.12) 7.81 The Appellant alleges that the Case Officers report represents an out of date assessment of Green Belt Policy as well as a misinterpretation of exception criteria outlined in the NPPF The most up to date policy on protection for the Green Belt contained in Section 9 of the NPPF, sets out the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy under paragraph 79: The Government attached great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics if Green Belts are their openness and permanence. Statement of Case (6.13) 7.83 The Appellant alleges policy inconsistencies and flawed conclusions by the Council. The points raised have already been covered in this Report Under paragraph 89 of the NPPF it is made clear that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate for the Green Belt. The exceptions criteria listed do not apply to the development site, points of particular relevance are: 1. The proposed plan increases the size of the original building by 124% which would result in a disproportionate addition. 2. The footprint of the proposed new building is 67% larger than the original building. 3. The proposed new extension is 237% larger than the single storey extension to be demolished which would result in a building materially larger than the one it replaces. The temporary classrooms are not included in any of the above. The tarmac area created to house the classrooms would not be returned to grass when the classrooms become redundant. Page 37 of 47

38 Statement of Case (6.14) 7.85 The Appellant identifies the need to: 1. assess whether the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt 2. If the proposal is found to be inappropriate whether very special circumstances apply (i) Appropriate Development? Statement of Case (6.15) 7.86 The Appellant identifies paragraph 89 of the NPPF as relevant. Statement of Case (6.16) 7.87 The Appellant identifies paragraph 80 of the NPPF as relevant. Points considered below: Statement of Case (6.17) To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas: 7.88 The proposal does encroach on to part of the site that has not been built on before. The temporary classrooms will be cited on part of the site that has not been built on before and once redundant that part of the site will not be returned to its former state. Statement of Case (6.18) To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another: 7.89 The site acts as a buffer between built development and the open countryside beyond; any encroachment into the Green Belt on this site will inevitably move the built environment closer to neighbouring villages and towns. Statement of Case (6.19) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: 7.90 The site acts as a buffer between the built environment and the countryside and should be safeguarded as Green Belt to save the countryside from encroachment. Natural habitat will be removed at the site in order to provide a tarmac area for the temporary classrooms; this area will not be returned to its natural state Statement of Case (6.20) To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns: 7.91 A portion of the site does lie within Farnborough Village Conservation Area. The Conservation Area was created to preserve the setting, special character and historic nature of Farnborough Village. The highways impact of the proposed development will have a severe impact on the whole of the Conservation Area, particularly the historic heart of the Village. Page 38 of 47

39 Statement of Case (6.21) 7.92 The Appellant concludes that the site makes a limited contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt Local Authority carried out a detailed review of Green Belt sites in the preparation of their Draft Submission Local Plan and decided that this site does not warrant re-designation and as such forms an important part of the Green Belt and should be preserved. The site has clearly been judged worthy of Green Belt status and is therefore entitled to the protection that status affords. Statement of Case (6.22) 7.94 The Appellant reports on the footprint of the proposed building which represents the lower end of recommended area ranges in BB103. It is of concern that the proposed footprint is 67% larger than the building it replaces and as such is in conflict with NPPF Paragraph 89. Statement of Case (6.23) 7.95 The Appellant describes the proposal as broadly on the footprint of the existing single storey modular block. The term broadly is not helpful or quantifiable as already evidenced in Point The proposed double storey extension is cited in a different position to the existing single storey block and has a footprint 67% larger than the existing block. The quantifiable measurements are clear the new block is over three times the size of the extension is broadly replaces at 947 m2 in comparison to 304 m The Appellant quotes measurements for the footprint of the block when making a judgement on the openness of the Green Belt. The addition of a double storey block 124% larger than the original building would have been a fairer measure on whether the openness of the Green Belt is restricted The Appellant reports that the two-storey extension would not be very visible from the street scene. Again, the use of the word very is not helpful or quantifiable. The two-storey extension will be clearly visible to surrounding residential properties, particularly Arcadian on the eastern boundary and it will be clearly visible from the Conservation Area within the School grounds. No hard evidence has been presented to define the visibility from the street scene. Furthermore, there is no mention of the 12 substantial aluminium ventilation units being on top of the roof of the two-storey building adding to the overall height and enormity of the proposal and increasing the visual dominance. Statement of Case (6.24) 7.98 The Appellant reports that the Green Belt will not be impacted as school drop-off and pick up will take place at the entrance of the school. This is a surprising statement, it is difficult to imagine 420 pupils all being delivered to the entrance of the school with no effect on the surrounding area. The traffic and parking burden generated by the school is already impacting on the Green Belt in particular at Church Road, the historic heart of the Conservation Area. Page 39 of 47

40 Statement of Case (6.25) 7.99 The Appellant reports on the quantum of the proposed development and confirms that the footprint is 67.2% larger than the original building. The Appellant further reports that this figure does not include the temporary classrooms. Statement of Case (6.26) The Appellant reports that there is no definition of a disproportionate addition to a building and feels that the proposed extensions represent a proportionate addition. The evidence remains that the proposed building is 124% larger than the original building and the footprint is 67% larger than the building it replaces. It is a question of judgement on whether additions of such magnitude can be deemed disproportionate. Statement of Case (6.27) The Appellant makes a judgement that the site makes a very limited contribution to the Green Belt and the proposed two-storey building will preserve the openness and permanence of the Green Belt The proposed development is in conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt, paragraph 80 of the NPPF and does not meet the exception criteria in paragraph 89. (ii) Very Special Circumstances Statement of Case (6.28) The Appellant acknowledges that the Inspector may not consider his conclusions on Green Belt Policy to be valid. The Appellant acknowledges that very special circumstances would need to exist which clearly outweigh any potential harm to the Green Belt. Statement of Case (6.29) The Appellant identifies educational need as a very special circumstance. The Council does have a statutory duty to ensure that there are enough available school places to meet the needs of pupils in its area. The Local Authority does have an ongoing plan to achieve this requirement. Currently the Local Authority is on target with provision exceeding expectations (+7.8% in 2015). The Local Authority has identified numerous sites for new schools and continues to explore new opportunities for provision as a second phase of their plan. It should be noted that the Farnborough and Crofton Ward had the lowest increase in Reception age pupils of all wards in Bromley in 2015 at just 1%. Statement of Case (6.30) The Appellant reports that information on educational need is to be expanded upon in the Statement of Case. Page 40 of 47

41 Statement of Case (6.31) The Appellant reports on Bromley s geographical school planning areas and states that Farnborough Primary School is in Planning Area 5. Statement of Case (6.32) The Appellant identifies the Local Authority s policy to expand schools and support the creation of new schools. The Appellant reports an increase of 594 reception class pupils for the period for the whole of Bromley. The Appellant does not report on Bromley s success in providing an overcapacity of places; 7.8% in 2015 resulting in 2,131 unfilled places. Statement of Case (6.33) The Appellant cites Trinity School as an expansion in EPA 5 to in-part meet demand for the major housing development at the Blue Circle site on Bromley Common. The Appellant reports that the Local Authority have decided to allow Bromley Youth Music Trust to remain at their site at Southborough Primary School, a compliant site within a reasonable distance of the Blue Circle site. The Local Authority identified the BYMT site as Group 1 A rank but it would seem this is not required for essential educational need - a factor to consider when justifying very special circumstances. Statement of Case (6.34) The Appellant reports on the catchment area for Farnborough Primary School. Official data for the Farnborough and Crofton Ward reports that 53% of reception age pupils did not reside in the Ward in Statement of Case (6.35) The Appellant reports on the need for school places across the Borough; this is not specific to Farnborough. Statement of Case (6.36) The Appellant cites information in Tables 3 and 4 of the Draft Plan. This point has been covered in Point Statement of Case (6.37) The Appellant reports that within the Draft Submission Local Plan the school has been identified to meet educational need. The Planner, Planning Strategy and Renewal for Bromley Council has reported that Farnborough is not proposed as a site for development within this document. Evidenced in Points 7.47 and Statement of Case (6.38) The Appellant reports that the information submitted in the Statement of Case and the original planning application is sufficient to demonstrate need for school places at the school and within the area. Page 41 of 47

42 7.114 This assumption is incorrect, Section 4 of this Report regarding Education Need provides hard data to evidence that the Appellant s conclusion is incorrect. Significant weight could be attributed to the very small increase in reception places required in the Ward (1%) combined with 53% of reception age pupils not residing in the Ward. It would seem the criteria for very special circumstances is unlikely to be met given these evidenced factors. Additionally, the Local Authority is continuing to work on providing additional places via new schools and this work on-going. Statement of Case (6.39) The Appellant has identified Edgebury Primary School, Chislehurst, as a comparator for Farnborough Primary School, Farnborough Village. For a detailed comparison of information see the table of evidence in Section 5, Planning Comparators, Point Statement of Case (6.40) There are very clear differences between the evidence to expand Edgebury Primary and Farnborough Primary. The points that carry the most significant weight can be easily identified. The exceptionally small increase in reception age pupils in Farnborough and Crofton Ward since 2007 (1%) in comparison to the much higher increase in the Chislehurst and Mottingham Ward since 2007 (32%) together with the presence of two alternative Group 1 A sites in the Farnborough and Crofton Ward/EPA 5 and no alternative Group 1 sites identified in the Chislehurst and Mottingham Ward/EPA 6 are factors that carry substantial weight. The difference in the highway situation and the ability to drop off on site are also conflicting. The intention to redesignate the Edgebury site to Urban Open Space and the intention to retain the Farnborough site as Green Belt has been clearly indicated in the Bromley Draft Local Plan which is in its final stage of completion. Clearly the two schools are not relevant comparators. Statement of Case (6.41) The Appellant reports that the Council have also permitted to expand Oakland s Primary Academy from a 2FE to a 3FE. This statement is not correct. Oaklands is allocated to operate as a 3FE Primary School but is currently operating as a 2FE partly due to the current condition of the existing buildings. Oaklands sought planning permission in order to allow the school to operate effectively as a 3FE primary school The use of Oaklands Primary Academy as a comparator to Farnborough Primary is a very poor choice. For a detailed comparison of information see the table of evidence in Section 5, Planning Comparators, Point The two schools and their planning proposals bear no resemblance to each other on all relevant points. In particular, the 86% increase in reception age pupils in EPA 9 for Oaklands and the extremely low 1% increase in EPA 5, Farnborough and Crofton. Oaklands requested a single storey building with green roofs; Farnborough requested a double storey building with 12 aluminium ventilation units on the roof. The inclusion of an MUGA at Oaklands for use by the School and the Community and the excellent drop off facility via the two entry and exit points at Oaklands in comparison to no such facilities at Farnborough combined with the unique restricted road layout of the Village and severe highways issues differences could not be clearer. Page 42 of 47

43 7.120 Oaklands is an extremely poor comparator to Farnborough making it difficult, if not impossible to see any relevance in this case. CONDITIONS / S106 AGREEMENT Statement of Case (7.1) The Appellant cites Statement of Case, Appendix 2 as containing a list of conditions. These conditions are standard expected conditions for a large development. The do not contain any reference to an S106 agreement. Statement of Case (7.2) The Appellant cites Statement of Case, Appendix 2 as containing a list of conditions. These conditions are standard expected conditions for a large development. The do not contain any reference to an S106 agreement The Appellant reports a willingness to agree to the content of a legal agreement relating to the original planning application. The original application was rejected. The Appellant has reported that the Council has not responded to the request to formalise the S106 agreement (Statement of Case 6.9) No evidence has been provided on the cost of any of the ideas put forward, nor is there any evidence of an approach to the appropriate Local Authority Department to tentatively check whether funding is likely to be available Regarding an S106 (CIL) agreement. In the Appellant s Statement of Case, Appendix 2, Comments from Consultees (conclusion), - locations may emerge where it would be beneficial to introduce sections of waiting restrictions. It would therefore be helpful if the applicant would lodge a sum of money, say 3,000, with the Council and, if it is not used within 5 years, it would be returned. There is no costed explanation for this figure or a reference to an S106 agreement In the Statement of Case, Appendix 2, Conclusion it is reported that the applicant has agreed a contribution of 3,000 towards future works for any waiting restrictions considered necessary in areas that may become problematic. This would be secured through a S106 legal agreement prior to a decision being issued It is noted that expenditure of S106/CIL funding is not within the control of the Planning Department. The Development Control Committee (DCC) have reported that they are unable to recommend the use of CIL funding for educational purposes. The Chairman of the DCC considered it was not within the remit of the DCC to determine how CIL funds should be spent. The onus was on specific Council departments to apply through Resources. The CIL would be operated through the Local Plan with funds being allocated to various community services. Therefore, whilst an S106 agreement has been mentioned funds have not been directly agreed to meet the specific conditions identified, the funds would have to be applied for. The Chief Planner explained that a plan would be formalised indicating how CIL funds would be spent; that is was possible that infrastructure costs may amount to more than the Council collects. (DCC Minutes , Point 20). Page 43 of 47

44 APPEAL CONCLUSION Statement of Case (8.1) The Appellant sets out reasons why they judge the proposal as policy compliant. Statement of Case (8.2) The Appellant makes a judgement on appropriate development in the Green Belt. Page 44 of 47

45 8 Conclusion from Farnborough Village Society 8.1 The proposed development is considered to be detrimental to highway safety and residential amenity by virtue of increased traffic congestion, inadequate on-site parking provision and increased levels of on-street parking. Proposed mitigation measures are not viable. 8.2 The proposed development is considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. The substantial level of harm that would arise from the development by way of harm to the openness of the Green Belt, is not clearly outweighed by any educational or other benefits that would arise. Very special circumstances therefore do not exist. As such the proposal is not sustainable development and is contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. 8.3 The proposed development is considered to be detrimental to the Farnborough Village Conservation Area by virtue of its visual dominance in the landscape. 8.4 On the basis of the evidence provided it is therefore respectfully requested that the appeal is dismissed. Report Date: 19 February 2017 Page 45 of 47

46 Farnborough Hill - Monday 30 January 2017 Highways safety on Farnborough Hill is already severely compromised. Parking on the Hill leads to a decrease in the width of the highway and creates a situation whereby buses and large vehicles cannot pass; resulting in large vehicles mounting the pavement to maintain traffic flow. Farnborough Hill is the only viable access road allowing entry and exit to the Village. Page 46 of 47

47 Pedestrians Safety Severely Compromised Pedestrians squeezed out. Bus continuing to travel on very narrow pavement Page 47 of 47