POLICY PC15: EDUCATION FACILITIES

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 22381

Received: 18/03/2019

Respondent: Sport England

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Objection is made to criterion (c) of part A of the policy as it would allow in principle the change of use or redevelopment of an educational playing field if it could be demonstrated that the area of the site is in excess of Government guidelines for playing field provision. This approach is contrary to both the Council's evidence base and Government policy in paragraph 97 of the NPPF.

Objection is also made to the policy as while the reasoned justification
encourages education providers to share their assets with the community, this is not reflected in the policy itself.

Change suggested by respondent:

To address these objections, the following amendments should be made to the policy:

* Criterion (c) of section A is replaced with a criterion along the lines that that playing fields are either retained for community use or replaced in accordance with policy BE23;
* An additional criterion is added to the policy which expects new educational establishments to be planned and designed to allow use by the community when not required for educational use and which encourages developments on existing establishments to facilitate new or increased community access.

Full text:

Objection is made to criterion (c) of part A of the policy as it would allow in principle the change of use or redevelopment of an educational playing field if it could be demonstrated that the area of the site is in excess of Government guidelines for playing field provision. This approach is contrary to both the Council's evidence base on playing fields and Government policy in paragraph 97 of the NPPF.

As demonstrated by the Council's new Playing Pitch Strategy, the education sector provides the largest proportion of the community's playing fields in Brentwood Borough and the community is dependent on the retention of educational playing fields for meeting needs. As set out in the strategy's action plan, the strategy seeks to protect existing sites and increase/secure community use on educational playing fields. Criterion (c) of the policy would be contrary to the recommendations of the Playing Pitch Strategy as it would potentially allow educational playing fields to be redeveloped for other uses if they were surplus to educational requirements. No account or reference is made to the community use of playing fields in this criterion. The Government guidelines on playing field provision referred to (the DfE's Building Bulletin 103 at present) do not account for community use of school playing fields as they are entirely focused on educational needs and they represent DfE guidance rather than Government planning policy and are not referred to in the NPPF.

Government planning policy in paragraph 97 of the NPPF does not distinguish between public and educational playing fields and does not allow for educational playing fields to be disposed of if they are surplus to educational needs. It should be emphasised that current Government policy on the protection of playing fields has been strengthened since the 1990s in response to school playing fields being disposed of that were surplus to educational requirements but important for meeting community needs. Sport England was also made a statutory consultee by the Government in order to police the Government's planning policy in response to this. The retention of criterion (c) could potentially result in valued dual use playing fields being unintentionally lost if applicants made the case the proposals accord with this policy despite being contrary to the Council's evidence base, policy BE23 on open space and the NPPF.

Objection is also made to the policy as while the reasoned justification in paragraph 7.95 encourages education providers to share their assets with the community, this is not reflected in the policy itself. Given the importance given by the Government in paragraph 92 of the NPPF to planning policies planning for the provision and use of shared spaces and the importance attached to this in the Council's evidence base (e.g. recommendation 3 of the Playing Pitch Strategy) expecting new educational facilities to be planned and designed to facilitate shared use and encouraging greater shared use of existing facilities would be justified.

In its current form Policy PC15 would not be justified by the Council's current evidence base and would not accord with Government policy in the NPPF. The approach would therefore not meet the 'justified' and 'consistent with Government policy' tests of soundness.

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 22411

Received: 18/03/2019

Respondent: Essex County Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Policy PC15 F as currently proposed allows for provision of educational facilities in Green Belt to be looked upon favourably.

Chelmsford City Council's (CCC) Local Plan EIP Inspector's view that education and community use is inappropriate development in Green Belt generally accepted.
CCC suggested Main Modification (Examination Hearing Statement - Matter 9 - The Environment) to comply with NPPF (paragraphs 143 & 145), which deleted the criterion and amended the supporting text.

Recommend criterion F of Policy PC15 be deleted and supporting text is inserted/amended within Green Belt section of Local Plan.

Change suggested by respondent:

Delete criterion F of Policy PC15, and insert the following wording after paragraph 7.103 -

The Council acknowledges that due to the extent of the Green Belt in Brentwood there may be instances where new buildings related to community or educational uses may be proposed e.g. a new village hall, ancillary buildings related to an existing school. In accordance with the NPPF, these types of uses will be considered inappropriate development. However, the locational need for these types of uses will be given appropriate weight when considering whether there are very special circumstances that weigh in favour of the proposals.

Full text:

4. Consistent with National Policy.

Policy PC15 F as currently proposed allows for the provision of educational facilities in the Green Belt to be looked upon favourably.

During the EIP for Chelmsford City Council's (CCC) Local Plan the Inspector's view that education and community use is inappropriate development in the Green Belt was generally accepted. As a result CCC suggested Main Modification to comply with the NPPF (paragraphs 143 & 145). This is set out in the Examination Hearing Statement - Matter 9 - The Environment, as follow -

Proposed changes:
Delete criterion A. (iv) of Policy CO2.
Amend the text of paragraph 8.49 of the Reasoned Justification to:

The Council acknowledges that due to the extent of the Green Belt in Chelmsford
there may be instances where new buildings related to community or educational uses may be proposed e.g. a new village hall, new ancillary buildings related to an existing school. In accordance with the NPPF, these types of uses will be considered inappropriate development. However, the locational need for these types of uses will be given appropriate weight when considering whether there are very special circumstances that weigh in favour of the proposals.

It is recommended that criterion F of Policy PC15 be deleted and supporting text is inserted/amended within the Green Belt section of the Local Plan.

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 23867

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Brentwood School

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Unnecessary to have the additional wording that relates to the ECC's Developer's Guide to Infrastructure Contributions. If the proposals are clearly associated with educations requirements which will be a matter of fact and degree then there is no need to turn to other schedules. Furthermore the link to the Essex County Council document does not provide a clear schedule of criteria to which the decision maker or applicant can turn. It is confusing and should be deleted. In addition, Under Policy B, delete the word 'demonstrable' before need.

Change suggested by respondent:

The link to the Essex County Council document does not provide a clear schedule of criteria to which the decision maker or applicant can turn. It is confusing and should be deleted. In addition, under Policy B, delete the word 'demonstrable' before need. We would recommend that the policy should now read "Where there is a need for new educational facilities, planning permission will be granted for appropriate and well-designed proposals."

Full text:

Chapter 7 Community Infrastructure Policy PC15:Education Facilities
It is recommended that there is minor changes to the wording within the Policy. Under Policy B delete the word demonstrable before need. It is also considered unnecessary to have the additional wording that relates to the ECC's Developer's Guide to Infrastructure Contributions. If the proposals are clearly associated with educations requirements which will be a matter of fact and degree then there is no need to turn to other schedules. Furthermore the link to the Essex County Council document does not provide a clear schedule of criteria to which the decision maker or applicant can turn. It is confusing and should be deleted. We would recommend that the policy should now read "Where there is a need for new educational facilities, planning permission will be granted for appropriate and well-designed proposals."
As explanation for such minor change it will generally be the education provider whether independent school, religious order or County Education Authority who will know what is needed to improve their overall education facilities either through direct education floorspace or ancillary or associated floorspace.
Comment is also made on Policy PC16: Buildings for Institution Purposes In Policy A delete demonstrable before need. The Policy now reading "A. Where there is a need for the facilities.........." Comment is also made in relation to the general text of paragraph 7.105. This is an unnecessary inclusion within the Plan. There may from time to time be need for minor loss of existing residential accommodation to facilitate a bigger objective of educational community facilities. An example given is the recent redevelopment of the Brentwood Prep School Site where the demands for new form of entry and enlarged educational facilities necessitated the loss of an existing caretakers house. The Local Plan will not be effective with respect to the policy issue raised as it creates an unnecessary hurdle by reference to using the word demonstrable and is confusing and not necessary to relate to another document such as the Essex County Council Developers Guide to Infrastructure Contributions. I have set out the modification to PC15 Education Facilities above but for ease of reference repeat here:
B. "Where there is a need for new educational facilities, planning permission will be granted for appropriate and well-designed proposals."

The provision of educational facilities is an important part of the Local Plan and subject to any response of the Local Authority the point is best made orally.

Attachments: