Agenda Item No: 5 Democratic Services PO Box 136 County Hall Northampton NN1 1AT Development Control Committee Minutes: 6 December 2010 Venue: Council Chamber, County Hall, Northampton (Meeting held in public) PRESENT:- Councillor Michael Clarke (Chairman) Councillor George Blackwell Councillor Dennis Meredith Councillor Don Edwards Councillor Ron Pinnock Councillor Graham Lawman Councillor Rupert Reichhold Also in attendance (for all or part of the meeting) Councillor Bob Seery Councillor Ben Smith Roy Boulton Chief Planner Debbie Carter Highways & Planning Manager, Legal Services Jenny Rendall Committee Assistant (minutes) Phil Watson Development Control Manger 9 members of the public also attended. 93/10 Apologies for non-attendance Apologies were received from Councillors David Hugheston-Roberts & Alan Wright. 94/10 Notification of Requests from Members of the Public to Address the Meeting Notifications were received detailed below: Item 6a – Erection of a 1.8metre high security fence including a boom barrier at Helmdon Primary School, Station Road, Helmdon, Brackley, NN13 5QT Ms Clare Hedley, Helmdon Primary School Item 7a - Extraction of sand and gravel mineral reserves to enable the construction of a 100 berth marina basin for recreational and leisure use at Lilford Lodge Farm, Lilford, Oundle, Peterborough, PE8 5SA. Stephen Rice, Fischer German Councillor Bob Seery 95/10 Declaration of Members’ Interests Item Councillor Type Nature 6c George Blackwell Personal Grendon is part of the Earls Barton Application: Division. 10/00073/CCD 7b George Blackwell Personal Member of Borough Council of Application: Wellingborough, Earls Barton 10/00066/EXT Parish Council and resident of Earls Barton. 7a Rupert Reichhold Personal Member of Nene Valley Association There was no declaration of whip. 96/10 Chairman’s Announcements On behalf of the Development Control Committee, best wishes were sent to Committee Assistant, Barbel Gale on the birth of her son. 97/10 Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 November 2010: The minutes of the meeting held in public on 1 November 2010 (copies of which were previously circulated) were agreed as a true and accurate record of the meeting. The minutes of the meeting held in public on 1 November 2010 (copies of which were previously circulated) were agreed as a true and accurate record of the meeting. County Council Planning Applications: 98/10 Erection of a 1.8 metre high security fence including boom barrier at Helmdon Primary School, Station Road, Helmdon, Brackley, NN13 5QT (10/00052/CCD & S/2010/0943/RG3): The Chairman invited the DCM to introduce the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) who highlighted the following: Many school sites now included security fences, many of which did not require planning permission because they were below 2 metres in height and did not face on to a public highway. The Parish Council had objected to the application and a photograph was included in the report of how the boom barrier might appear which would be 1.2metres high when closed and 6metres when open. Concerns raised by South Northamptonshire District Council (SNDC) had also led to a change in the design of the fence to a bow top design. SNDC and Helmdon Parish Council had also voiced concerns about the intrusion of the barrier on the street scene. Whilst SNDC were happy with the new design Helmdon Parish Council still felt the fence created a prison-like approach to the school. They also queried the need for the fence as the school had not experienced problems in the past and it was not a requirement of Ofsted. Many schools aspired to improve their security. The Committee were provided with a copy of an e-mail from the Clerk to Helmdon Parish Council in which their objections were outlined as well as the fact they would have appreciated an invitation to speak at the meeting. The Chairman noted that whilst it was helpful for speakers to register their intention to speak, it was not necessary. The DCM confirmed he had written to Helmdon Parish Council inviting them to the committee as was the normal practice to all those objecting to an application. This invitation had been repeated by e-mail that morning. The Chairman then invited Ms Claire Hedley to address the Committee who stated: As Bursar of Helmdon Primary School she represented staff, parents, pupils and residents of Helmdon Village. She had raised the issue of security over 5 years previously as a new parent and particularly as the school had a large playing field. Parents had regularly voiced concerns about security as well as staff who were concerned about children being taken from the school field. The school was sited on the main road in the village and experienced a large number of buses and traffic including large lorries coming to and from a nearby saw mill. Concerns were raised that the school’s special needs pupils could easily become involved in an accident. The school worked as closely as possible with neighbours and village groups and the design of the boom barrier had been amended in response to concerns raised by the Parish Council. An Ofsted inspector had been asked for advice and recommended the boundary in Station Road be fenced to safeguard children. There had been an incident of a child in the past running out of the car park entrance on to the road in front of a vehicle as well as some near misses. The perimeters of the school had been carefully considered and the western and southern boundary would be fenced whilst retaining most of the hedging. The fence would not be in front of the school buildings up to the car park entrance, but this area was out of bounds for children and more easily supervised than the other boundaries. The DCM provided further clarification as follows: The existing hedgerow would not have to be removed to erect the new fence. A condition had been included that no machines should be used to erect the fence and that post holes should be hand dug to minimise the impact on the hedgerow and trees. Bow top fencing had been used successfully at other school sites including one that was located in an area of conservation. Whilst the barrier was an unusual feature the gradient on the site made it difficult for gates to swing open. A gate set to swing inwards would also restrict movement in the small car park. In answer to queries on the report the following was confirmed: Councillor Meredith’s comments that such a fence was a good way of maintaining security and ensuring pupils remained within the school were noted. To Councillor Meredith’s suggestion that there be further negotiations between the school and parish council it was noted a meeting between the 2 organisations had taken place. The fence would be screened by vegetation and the plans had been amended following the parish council’s original objection. To Councillor Pinnock it was noted the exact position of the fence had been considered but it was felt setting it back within the school grounds would create an area between the fence and road that would be difficult to maintain. Condition 5 of the proposed planning conditions requested a method statement for the erection of the new fencing and risk assessment of the potential for damage to the existing tress prior to commencement of works. As part of the method statement consideration to setting the fence slightly back to avoid damage to existing vegetation might be necessary. To Councillor Pinnock it was confirmed the current proposal was to site the fence along the line of the existing fence which was missing in places. In some areas the vegetation was quite thick but in other areas there were gaps. A landscaping condition could be required to fill gaps and replace any damage that might be caused. SNDC had also suggested vegetation could be allowed to grow through the fence and a condition for landscaping would help to secure this. Councillor Blackwell’s comments that safety of the pupils was paramount were noted. To Councillor Edwards it was confirmed all properties surrounding the school had been notified of the application. None of these had objected. No parents had objected to the application. Councillor Reichhold’s concerns that the Parish Council’s objections did not include adequate planning grounds for rejecting the application were noted. Councillor Lawman agreed with the report and suggested that condition 3 included a requirement that no construction traffic should be permitted to enter or leave the site during regular pupil arrival and departure hours. This should be added to the proposed planning conditions. RESOLVED by a vote of 5 in favour and 1 against that: the Development Control Committee granted planning permission subject to the conditions specified in Appendix A along with the following additional conditions: a) That the area around the fence be landscaped to enable vegetation to grow in front and through it; and b) that construction traffic should not be permitted to enter or leave the site during the times when pupils arrive and leave the school premises. 99/10 Erection of a single storey extensions to provide 6 new classrooms, DSP unit, new hall, WC’s, stores, office and staff room, internal and external refurbishment works to the existing school and associated external works including a new covered play areas, MUGA, car parking and a new vehicle access off John Clark Way at Denfield Park Junior School, Victoria Road, Rushden, NN10 0DA (10/00057/CCD: ENC Ref: 10/01574/NCC): The Chairman invited the DCM to introduce the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) who highlighted the following: Denfield Park Junior school was currently located on 2 sites, the one in the application having room for expansion.