Planning (Regulatory) Committee

Date: Friday, 05 January 2018 Time: 10:00 Venue: Edwards Room, County Hall,

Martineau Lane, Norwich, Norfolk, NR1 2DH

Persons attending the meeting are requested to turn off mobile phones.

Membership

At meetings of this Committee, members of the public are entitled to speak before decisions are made on planning applications. There is a set order in which the public or local members can speak on items at this Committee, as follows: • Those objecting to the application • District/Parish/Town Council representatives • Those supporting the application (the applicant or their agent.) • The Local Member for the area. Anyone wishing to speak regarding one of the items going to the Committee must give written notice to the Committee Officer (committees@norfolk.gov.uk) at least 48 hours before the start of the meeting. The Committee Officer will ask which item you would like to speak about and in what respect you will be speaking. Further information can be found in Part 4.4 of the Constitution.

For further details and general enquiries about this Agenda please contact the Committee Officer:

Mr C Foulger - Chairman

Mr S Askew Mr W Richmond

Mr R Brame Mr M Sands - Vice-Chairman

Mr D Collis Mr E Seward

Mr D Douglas Mr C Smith

Mr D Harrison Mr M Storey

Mr B Long Mr A White

Julie Mortimer on 01603 223055 or email committees@norfolk.gov.uk

1

When the County Council have received letters of objection in respect of any application, these are summarised in the report. If you wish to read them in full, Members can do so either at the meeting itself or beforehand in the Community and Environmental Services Department, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich.

Under the Council’s protocol on the use of media equipment at meetings held in

public, this meeting may be filmed, recorded or photographed. Anyone who wishes to

do so must inform the Chairman and ensure that it is done in a manner clearly visible

to anyone present. The wishes of any individual not to be recorded or filmed must be

appropriately respected.

2

A g e n d a

Chris Walton Head of Democratic Services County Hall Martineau Lane Norwich NR1 2DH Date Agenda Published: 27 December 2017

1. To receive apologies and details of any substitute members attending

2. To confirm the minutes of the Planning (Regulatory) Committee meeting held on 1 December 2017.

Page 6

3. Declarations of Interest If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting and that interest is on your Register of Interests you must not speak or vote on the matter. If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting and that interest is not on your Register of Interests you must declare that interest at the meeting and not speak or vote on the matter In either case you may remain in the room where the meeting is taking place. If you consider that it would be inappropriate in the circumstances to remain in the room, you may leave the room while the matter is dealt with. If you do not have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest you may nevertheless have an Other Interest in a matter to be discussed if it affects - your well being or financial position - that of your family or close friends - that of a club or society in which you have a management role - that of another public body of which you are a member to a greater extent than others in your ward. If that is the case then you must declare such an interest but can speak and vote on the matter.

4. Any items of business the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency

5. Y/2/2017/2009: Agricultural field at the junction south of Back Street and east of Winch Road in Gayton Report by the Executive Director of Community and Environmental Services.

Page 8

3

If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Customer Services on 0344 800 8020 or 18001 0344 800 8020 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.

4

STANDING DUTIES

In assessing the merits of the proposals and reaching the recommendation made for each application, due regard has been given to the following duties and in determining the applications the members of the committee will also have due regard to these duties. Equality Act 2010 It is unlawful to discriminate against, harass or victimise a person when providing a service or when exercising a public function. Prohibited conduct includes direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation and discrimination arising from a disability (treating a person unfavourably as a result of their disability, not because of the disability itself). Direct discrimination occurs where the reason for a person being treated less favourably than another is because of a protected characteristic. The act notes the protected characteristics of: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. The introduction of the general equality duties under this Act in April 2011 requires that the Council must in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:

• Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by this Act.

• Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not.

• Foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not. The relevant protected characteristics are: age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation. Crime and Disorder Act, 1998 (S17) Without prejudice to any other obligation imposed on it, it shall be the duty of the County Council to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area. Human Rights Act 1998 The requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 must be considered. The human rights of the adjoining residents under Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of the First Protocol, the right of enjoyment of property are engaged. A grant of planning permission may infringe those rights but they are qualified rights, that is that they can be balanced against the economic interests of the community as a whole and the human rights of other individuals. In making that balance it may also be taken into account that the amenity of local residents could be adequately safeguarded by conditions albeit with the exception of visual amenity. The human rights of the owners of the application site may be engaged under the First Protocol Article 1, that is the right to make use of their land. A refusal of planning permission may infringe that right but the right is a qualified right and may be balanced against the need to protect the environment and the amenity of adjoining residents.

5

Planning Regulatory Committee Minutes of the Meeting Held on Friday 1 December 2017

at 10am in the Edwards Room, County Hall Present:

Mr R Brame Mr W Richmond Mr D Douglas Mr M Sands Mr C Foulger Mr E Seward Mr A Jamieson Mr C Smith Mr B Long Mr M Storey

1 Apologies and Substitutions

An apology for absence was received from Mr D Collis.

2 Election of Chairman

Mr B Long proposed, seconded by Mr M Sands that Mr C Foulger be elected Chairman of the Planning (Regulatory) Committee for the remainder of the ensuing year.

There being no other nominations, it was RESOLVED that

Mr C Foulger be elected Chairman of the Planning (Regulatory) Committee for the remainder of the ensuing year.

Mr C Foulger in the Chair.

3 Election of Vice-Chairman

Mr C Smith proposed, seconded by Mr E Seward that Mr M Sands be elected Vice-Chairman of the Planning (Regulatory) Committee for the remainder of the ensuing year.

There being no other nominations, it was RESOLVED that

Mr M Sands be elected Vice-Chairman of the Planning (Regulatory) Committee for the remainder of the ensuing year.

6

4 Minutes from the meeting held on 31 March 2017

4.1 The minutes from the Planning (Regulatory) Committee meeting held on Friday 31

March 2017 were agreed as a correct record by the Committee and signed by the Chairman.

5

Declarations of Interest

No declarations of interest were made.

6 Urgent Business

There was no urgent business.

7 Nominations to Serve on the Planning (Regulatory) Urgent Business Sub-Committee.

7.1 The Committee was asked to nominate five Members of the Committee to serve on the Planning (Regulatory) Urgent Business Sub-Committee (3 Conservative, 1 Labour, 1 Liberal Democrat). The Terms of Reference for the Sub-Committee are “To exercise all the powers of the main Committee where a decision is required urgently (having been agreed as such by the Head of Democratic Services and relevant Chief Officer)”.

7.2 The Committee RESOLVED to appoint the following Members to serve on the Planning (Regulatory) Urgent Business Sub-Committee:

Chairman – Mr C Foulger Vice-Chairman – Mr M Sands Conservative – Mr B Long Conservative – Mr R Brame Liberal Democrat – Mr E Seward

The meeting concluded at 10.10 a.m.

Chairman

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 or Textphone 0344 8008011 and we will do our best to help.

7

Planning (Regulatory) Committee Item No.

Report title: Y/2/2017/2009: Agricultural field at the junction south of Back Street and east of Winch Road in Gayton

Date of meeting: 5 January 2018

Responsible Chief Officer:

Tom McCabe - Executive Director, Community and Environmental Services

Proposal and applicant: Change of use of agricultural land to school / nursery use. Erection of new 210 place pupil (1FE) primary school, hard play area, sports pitch provision and erection of 52 place nursery with associated car parking area and associated works. (Director of Children’s Services)

Executive summary Full planning permission is sought for the change of use of agricultural land and the erection of a new school and nursery to replace the existing school currently located on Lynn Road, Gayton. The application site, relates to an unallocated greenfield site, outside but on the edge of the development boundary identified for Gayton.

44 letters of objections have been received raising concerns relating to site selection, design, flood risk, sewerage, highway safety and amenity issues. 43 representations in support of the proposal have also been received. Whilst no objections raised, the statutory consultees expect the planning issues to be resolved and, if granted suitably worded conditions imposed, where necessary.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the application is being reported to the Planning (Regulatory) Committee because of the level of objection received, and a departure therefore cannot be dealt with under delegated powers. The key issues are the impacts of the development of this greenfield site outside the development boundary, in an area of flood risk. It is considered that the proposal would not be in accordance with the policies contained within the development plan and constitutes a departure. Significant weight is afforded to the need for an enhanced education provision which outweigh the harm caused by developing the site the subject of this application.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Executive Director of Community and Environmental Services be authorised to:

I. Delegate powers to Officers to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in section 13 and subject to no new matters raised by the Environment Agency.

II. Discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted.

III. Delegate powers to officers to deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

8

1. The Proposal

1.1 Full planning permission is sought for the change of use of agricultural land and the erection of a new 210 place (1 form entry) pupil school and the erection of a 52 place nursey, car parking and associated works. This is to replace the existing school currently located on Lynn Road, Gayton, which built in the early 20th century currently accommodates 152 pupils (on roll as at October 2016) and due to the age, condition and cost of maintenance is no longer fit for purpose.

1.2 In summary, the proposed scheme consists of:

• The change of use of agricultural land to educational use

• Erection of a new single storey school building with pedestrian access off Back Street

• Provision of 7 classrooms, group rooms, school hall, staff room, main office, library, kitchen, plant room and stores

• Single storey standalone nursery building to accommodate 2 classes for pre-school children

• Car parking provision with vehicular access off Winch Road

• Cycle parking

• External hard and soft play

• External lighting to the buildings and car park

• Hard and soft landscaping

• Off-site highway improvements

1.3 The main pedestrian access to the school would be taken from Back Street, with vehicular access to the car park and nursery building to the west of the site off Winch Road. In terms of boundary treatments, trees and fencing would bound the school site.

2. Site

2.1 The site is located outside the development boundary for Gayton, but on the southern edge of the boundary. The application site relates to a rectangular shaped piece of agricultural land owned by the Gayton Estate, approximately 1.6ha in size, located at the junction of Back Street and Winch Road in the village of Gayton. Drains bound the site to the north, south and west.

2.2 The site is approximately 0.7miles from the existing school, situated to the north-east of the development boundary.

2.3 Residential properties are situated opposite the application site to the north and west; the dwellings consist of a mix of single and 2-storey, red brick, or render external walling with pitched tile roofs and are within the defined development boundary. Open fields lie immediately to the east and south, outside of the defined boundary.

3. Constraints

3.1 The following constraints apply to the application site:

• The application site lies outside the development boundary for Gayton

• Identified within flood zone 3 and at risk of surface water flooding on the Environment Agency flood map

9

• Located within the Internal Drainage Board (IDB) Area and adjacent to IDB drains

• Adjacent to public right of way (PROW) Gayton FP6

• Grade 3 agricultural land

4. Planning History

4.1 The planning history for the application site held by the County Council is as follows:

4.2 Y/2/2016/2005: Change of use of agricultural land for school use. Erection of new 210 pupil place (1FE) primary school, Multi Use Games Area (MUGA), sports pitch provision, car park and associated works. Application withdrawn on 5 July 2017

5. Planning Policy

5.1 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan – Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Plan (2016)

• DM1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

• DM2: Development Boundaries

• DM9: Community Facilities

• DM15: Environment, Design and Amenity

• DM17: Parking Provision in New Development

• DM21: Sites in Areas of Flood Risk

5.2 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local Development Framework – Core Strategy (2011)

• CS01: Spatial Strategy

• CS02: The Settlement hierarchy

• CS06: Development in Rural Areas

• CS08: Sustainable Development

• CS11: Transport

• CS12: Environmental Assets

• CS13: Community and Culture

• CS14: Infrastructure provision

5.3 Gayton Neighbourhood Plan Gayton was designated as a neighbourhood area on 8 May 2017

5.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

• 1: Building a strong competitive economy

• 4: Promoting sustainable transport

• 7: Requiring good design

• 8: Promoting healthy communities

• 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change

• 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

• 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

10

5.5 • DCLG Ministerial Statement – Planning for schools development (2011)

6. Consultations

6.1 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council

: Supports the community facilities subject to: a review of the design of the building; satisfactorily resolution of the flood risk issues; satisfactory resolution of issues in regards to transport and the need to take into account traffic movements in association with the recently permission 18 dwelling site on along Back Street; and the inclusion of suitable school drop-off points

Re-consultation: No further comments to add. Refer to previous consultation response.

6.2 Gayton Parish Council

: Does not object to the application, however the following issues should be addressed before the application is considered: flood risk; Anglian Water - sewerage issues; highways; location of development; number of school places; street lighting; vehicle access; building materials; design; and footpaths and footways

Re-consultation: The consultation period has expired and no response was received at the time of writing this report.

6.3 District Emergency Planning Officer (Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk)

: Because of it’s location in an area at risk of flooding and in line with best practice in business continuity, it is suggested that the occupiers: sign up to the Environment Agency flood warning system; install services at high levels to avoid the impact of flooding; and prepare a flood evacuation plan Re-consultation: The consultation period has expired and no response was received at the time of writing this report.

6.4 Environmental Health Officer (Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk)

: Environmental Quality: No comment to make regarding contaminated land or air quality.

Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance: Whilst a construction management scheme has been included within the submission, it lacks detail in a number of areas, and is rather brief in nature. No objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of condition and formatives on any grant of planning permission to control the use of the site and afford protection to the residential amenity of occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.

11

Re-consultation: Environmental Quality: No comment to make regarding contaminated land or air quality

Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance: No objections raised subject to a condition relating to the hours of construction / deliveries, being imposed on any grant of planning permission.

6.5 Natural England

: No objections

Re-consultation: No objections.

6.6 Environment Agency (EA)

: No objection to the application. The modelling report accompanying the application has concluded that the site sits within Flood Zone 1. Until an ‘evidence based review’ is submitted, the site will remain in flood zone 3 on the EA flood map. Re-consultation: Further to the LLFA consultation response the picture of the culvert contradicts what has been assumed in the flood model reviewed as part of the planning application. We have contacted our modelling team to find out what impact this reduced culvert capacity will have on our initial model review and will inform you. We would appreciate if you could hold off on your decision until we have been able to look at this.

6.7 Water Management Alliance - Internal Drainage Board (IDB)

: The IDB has put the following concerns to the applicant: • Is it not feasible to have a lower discharge rate than 5l/s? That looks to be broadly equivalent to a 30-year greenfield event for the proposed developed area, and may well be higher than the Board is prepared to accept (this will not be established until a formal “consent to discharge” application is submitted and considered). • Having the system outfall at the same invert level as the existing pipe under the highway is likely to mean that the outfall is submerged most of the time (probably almost all the time). • Confirmation of what areas form the 0.631ha of total proposed impermeable surface, for clarity. Consent from the Board for the culverting of the water course, access over the watercourse and discharges into the water course will be required. Re-consultation: The IDB make the following comments:

12

• There are two Board-maintained watercourses adjacent to this site – Middleton Stop Drain, to the south of the site, and Pilkingtons Drain, which runs along the western side of the site.

• The board agrees in principle to accepting flows from the development that have been attenuated to 1.7l/s.

• We are also unaware of the riparian owned culvert that directs Pilkington’s Drain under the highway to the north having received any maintenance in the last 25 years (other than the removal of debris from the culvert inlet by ourselves). As such we are unable to state whether this culvert is structurally sound and/or capable of receiving and conveying all flows to the Board’s downstream network and therefore requests that if the applicant maintains the need to utilise this asset that they undertake an appropriate camera survey of the structure to determine its suitability for conveying a formalised surface water discharge from the site.

• A number of consents are required from the IDB.

• Some works and assets are currently proposed within 9 metres of the edge of a Board maintained drain. We note that the implementation of the current layout is dependent upon the Board approving these features. Currently no application has been submitted to the Board for consideration. The principle of the approach is acceptable to the Board however certain technical details will be required through the consenting process.

• The proposed culverts within the IDB area would need consent from the Board. No application has currently been made however, we have previously stated that the IDB would be willing to adopt the culverts subject to the construction details being approved by the IDB before construction commences, and the payment of the commuted sum – which would be invoiced 50% on approval of the culverts and 50% on completion of construction.

6.8 Lead Local Flood Authority (NCC)

: Given the reliance of the drainage strategy on the acceptance by the IDB of the connection to their

13

network, the LLFA strongly recommend that the application should not be determined until this information has been submitted and therefore object to this planning application.

Re-consultation: The LLFA make the following comments:

• Request the EA be formally consulted to ensure the culvert has been appropriately represented in the fluvial flood risk modelling.

• Welcome the discharge rate of 1.7l/s.

• Remove previous objection subject to the imposition of appropriate drainage conditions being imposed on any grant of planning permission.

6.9 Highway Authority (NCC)

: The Highway Authority is satisfied that the proposals satisfactorily deals with highway network and safety issues. It is recommended that conditions and informatives relating to the access, parking provision, construction traffic, off-site highway works and travel plan be imposed on any grant of planning permission. Re-consultation: No further comments to make.

6.10 Anglian Water

: The consultation period has expired and no response was received at the time of writing this report.

Re-consultation: The consultation period has expired and no response was received at the time of writing this report.

6.11 Norfolk Historic Environment Service (NCC)

: There are not likely to be any significant archaeological remains on the site, therefore does not recommend that any archaeological conditions are placed on the application. Re-consultation: The proposed development will not have any significant impact on the historic environment and we do not wish to make any recommendations for archaeological work.

6.12 Ecologist (NCC)

: No objections or concerns with the application with regard to ecology. Re-consultation: The amendments to the proposed development will not raise any additional issues relating to ecology.

6.13 Senior Arboricultural and Woodland Officer (NCC)

: Concerns raised relating to the no-dig specification; planting within the root protection zones and insufficient planting aftercare plan.

Re-consultation: Holding objection. Planting within

14

the Root Protection Areas (RPA) is not appropriate.

Re-consultation: Satisfied the amendments made address the majority of the concerns raised. In the absence of an updated AIA, should planning permission be granted it is recommended that a landscape (including tree maintenance) condition be imposed and the applicant’s attention is drawn to the arboricultural watching brief in the AIA.

6.14 Green Infrastructure Officer (NCC)

: The principle of the development in terms of landscape is considered acceptable. However, clarity is required on the following: details of existing / proposed underground services and utilities; design of pedestrian entrance; detailed landscape scheme and colour and finish of boundary treatments. Re-consultation: Comments have been addressed except for the watering and positioning of trees within the RPAs of trees.

6.15 Sport England : Wish to advice that new sports facilities should be designed in accordance with Sport England, or the relevant National Governing Body, design guidance notes. Re-consultation: Refer to previous consultation response.

6.16 Norfolk Fire and rescue Service (NCC)

: The consultation period has expired and no response was received at the time of writing this report.

Re-consultation: The consultation period has expired and no response was received at the time of writing this report.

6.17 UK Power Networks : No comments to make with respect to this application.

Re-consultation: The consultation period has expired and no response was received at the time of writing this report.

6.18 Crime Prevention Design Officer

: The consultation period has expired and no response was received at the time of writing this report.

Re-consultation: The consultation period has expired and no response was received at the time of writing this report.

6.19 County Councillor (Mr Graham Middleton)

: The consultation period has expired and no response was received at the time of writing this report.

15

Re-consultation: The consultation period has expired and no response was received at the time of writing this report.

6.20 Representations

The application was advertised by means of neighbour notification letters, site notices, and an advertisement in the Eastern Daily Press newspaper.

6.21 44 letters of concerns / objections were received, raising the following issues:

• Safety of children, parents teachers and the general public

• Vehicles parking on pavements and grass verges causing obstruction

• Increase in traffic – on both Back Street and Winch Road

• Increase in flooding - the site is in flood zone 3

• Issues with access

• Issues with sewerage – properties regularly backs up with sewerage causing problems

• This latest proposal does nothing to mitigate the concerns of flooding, access and sewerage and to amplify the problems extra facilities have been included

• This site is not suitable for the location of a new school - an alternative more suitable site should be proposed and needs further investigation

• Back street is a very narrow road that is not suitable for such an increase in traffic and the parking of cars of parents dropping children off at the school and nursery

• The field is also prone to being waterlogged at times of heavy rain and the drains in East Winch Road also cannot cope now when there is a lot of water

• Don't understand why the field at the back of the current school could not have been used, the school could have been built on the current school field and the playing field could have been put on the field behind the school

• This current application has clearly not taken into account previous objections regarding, already ongoing, water and sewage facilities being inadequate, nor the suitability of the site from a traffic safety point of view

• Health and safety of all children to attend the school is always a priority and this proposal will put all of them in great danger from fast moving traffic as Back Street is already used as a Rat Run at both ends of the day and is Winch Road

• What is at present a quiet place to live with stretching views across farmland will turn into a noise polluted neighbourhood

• Wildlife will be disturbed and move on elsewhere

• The school is a Church of England school so should it not be located near to the church where there is a large plot of unused land

• Parts of Back Street do not have any pedestrian paths so this will be a safety issue for some children

• The design of the proposed school is not in keeping with any of the surrounding buildings

• Gayton needs a new school especially with an influx of children expected

16

in the future, but not built on this soggy, dangerous corner plot of agricultural land

• Cars bringing children to school will increase dramatically traffic flow in Winch Rd and Back St.

• Where the new primary school is planned is a village lane unsuitable for the increased traffic that would be generated there

• This application shouldn't be pushed through as quickly as possible

• The present school is in, what I feel, a dangerous location for the children

• Although the village needs a new school the capacity of 210 children will not be enough for the development already agreed for the village

• I cannot see how it will be safe for children attending school to safely use their bikes

• Back Street and Winch Road with other traffic as well will be badly congested

• Additional demands for the provision of utility services, such as water, electricity and sewerage disposal

• Agricultural vehicles – large tractors with trailers use both roads. A track runs along the eastern boundary of the site chosen for the school

• The despoiling of the rural aspect in the area

• Back Street, Winch Road and The Willows will become waiting and parking areas at drop off time and collection from the school

• A further 57 houses approved in Back Street will add extra traffic and should be considered in decision making

• Cycling to school would be hazardous

• Back Street is used as a rat run

• There has been 3 unrecorded incidents at the junction in the last few years

• Appendix A: sequential test to land adjoining current school re comments used for justification recent refusal for 50 houses, ref 16/000647/M were not relevant when site was originally deemed unavailable. A new school would not have the same visual impact near the church as 50 houses

• The land would be more expensive to CPO compared to the nominal cost of the land chosen that has many constraints and the long term may have higher maintenance costs

• The new school site might not be large enough with 9 metres lost around the perimeter and will always be surrounded by deep ditches and open water

• Property will be overlooked

• Light pollution on a naturally dark landscape / open agricultural land

• Loss of privacy

• The width of the carriageway in certain places and lack of footpath means children and parents must walk on the road

• With the numerous developments under proposed planning and construction for the village the school will not be large enough for the growing population

• Parking, congestion, speed and traffic flows

• Why is it that this site still seems to be the favourite location when other sites have better foot access from all directions for the children to access therefore reducing the cars coming too close to the actual school, also the other sites have no deep water filled dykes around the site

17

• Noise and disturbance resulting from the site

• Layout, density / adverse impact / over bearing / form and character

• Over-looking / loss of privacy

• Light pollution

• Incorrect calculation of pupil concentration

• Public health – kitchen and bin beside a dyke are a great attraction for vermin

• Materials of construction not in keeping with area and excessive use of slate

6.22 43 letters of support were received, comments summarised below:

• We badly need a new school and therefore fully support this application

• This development is a great opportunity for improvement of the wonderful primary school in Gayton

• Norfolk County Council treat Gayton primary school as a real priority in the next few months and our children and the teachers are given the facilities they deserve

• The school has outgrown its present building and with Gayton being a growing village a new school is a priority

• The proposed location for the new school and nursery is perfect

• Its a great school but more space is very much needed for the kids already attending not just the children that are going to attend in the future

• Gayton is a popular and lovely village and I believe it deserves the investment

• The village is getting bigger. More children and babies born and bigger families we need a updated and more equipped school for our kids

• The current site footprint is simply too small for a 7-class school. The current 6 classrooms are at capacity in terms of space and whilst continuing to grow the schools number on role has not reached the maximum allowable, the current site does not have the space to accommodate 210 pupils without further reduction in the outdoor space for play and activities which will impact severely on the ‘school experience’ for the children of Gayton

• The school design and proposed site which now formally includes the Gayton Goslings preschool will be an amazing development for the Gayton community

• Detailed consultation and extension of the re-submitted plans beyond simply the school building will also ensure a safer route to school for children, onsite parking will minimise inconvenience to those living locally. The carefully considered design of the building will match the village character and provide the much-needed class room and outdoor space the current school site so desperately needs

• Support this application to give an amazing school the facilities it needs and deserves to help this and future generations of school children

• It will make a great school even greater and give so many more children the chance to experience a truly lovely and brilliant school

• I believe the current proposal is the only viable option within a sensible timescale and hence has my full support for the sake of the current and

18

future children of our village school

• We are bursting at the seams & need our new school as soon as possible

• I feel strongly that the school’s current site is becoming less able to accommodate the increasing numbers of pupils on roll. The village is fast expanding and it’s time a decision is made to build another school that is fit for purpose now and for the future

• The buildings and site it occupies are not fit for purpose for 21st century education

• The positives of this application and of having a new school far outweigh the negativesP a new school with great facilities will be an asset to the village as a whole, not just parents

• Having a new school is such a great opportunity for the Children of Gayton to thrive and progress well in their future

• Our present school is excellent with fantastic staff who deserve up to date facilities in which to continue their excellent level of teaching. We are lucky to live in such a thriving village which will benefit from a school located within safe walking distance of a large amount of the housing in the village

• In favour of the new schoolPwe have a thriving village and need to accommodate its growth. I am just sad that it cannot remain in the centre of the village

• We desperately need a new school and new infrastructure in the village to cope with this growth

• An acceptable location for a school; the proposed new school would be a quantum leap in terms of space and facility and is much needed to accommodate the number of pupils already at Gayton Primary and future demand for school places within this growing community

• A building that will greatly improve the lives and learning capabilities of the children attending

6.23 In response to the representation received, the applicant makes the following comments: Public representation: Concerns and responses

• This is a response to representations from private individuals, in respect of objections to the planning application. It does not respond to corporate representations, all of which were largely in support of the application.

• There were approximately 40 representations from members of the public, with a 50/50 split for/against - with some objections being objections to specific details of the proposal, rather than objections to the project as a whole.

• A letter from the Gayton Parish Council effectively collates the full range of concerns made by individuals.

Location / Amenity & Environment As detailed within the Design & Access Statement this site was chosen after consideration of fourteen local sites and numerous environmental criteria, not least of which was “sequential testing”. In our opinion the current site represents

19

the best compromise between numerous vying priorities. The availability of this current site represents close collaboration with the Gayton Estate, thus avoiding a much more protracted compulsory purchase route for other sites. The main building volumes form an effective sound and vision buffer between houses on Back Street and the main outdoor play areas to the south of the proposed school. Public concerns with respect to light pollution from evening community use of the school hall (and other areas) will always constitute a delicate balance between competing community benefits. However, external lighting has been minimised to a relatively small number of wall mounted down-lighters, and five 5m column lamps around the car park. This column lighting will be largely shielded from houses on Back Street by the main body of the school hall. Furthermore, all external lighting will be timer-controlled by the school. In the context of the existing street lighting on Back Street this additional lighting will be relatively unobtrusive. A few concerns have been raised regarding the surrounding dykes and watercourse in so far as they are a danger to children. However, the proposal allows for a continuous perimeter fence. Flood Risk A thorough technical re-assessment of the site, corroborated by the Environment Agency, shows the site to be at considerably lower risk of fluvial flooding (from adjacent watercourses) than previously anticipated. The site has now been re-categorised by the EA as a Flood Zone 1, rather than a Flood Zone 3. As such the Environment Agency has no objection to the development of the new school. With respect to surface water flooding (as a consequence of potentially prolonged rainfall) the risk of flood for this site has been calculated as being 3% in any given year – or 1 in 30 years. To further alleviate this risk the ground floor of the building has been raised to a height where this risk becomes 1 in every 100 years (1%). The proposed scheme allows for a new network of land-drainage pipework, servicing permeable areas of the site. The land-drainage was designed by Create Consulting Engineers. Non-permeable areas of the site (the building itself, the car park and hard-play areas) will drain into a large underground attenuation tank with sufficient capacity to release outflow into dykes and drains at a pumped rate of 1.7 litres per second. This outflow rate has been set by the Internal Drainage Board. Pupil Numbers The physical size of the school, providing 210 places (1FE) has been carefully calculated using the Education Funding Agency’s Schedule of Accommodation

20

spreadsheet. Furthermore the school has been designed on the site so that it is suitable for longitudinal expansion - in the event that a strategic decision is taken by NCC that this is necessary for the long-term future of Gayton. The landowner is fully aware of this situation and is willing, in principle, to make further agricultural land available Design / Materials It is conceded that the majority of recent development on Back Street uses red/brown/grey clay and concrete tiles. However, the existing school is exclusively slate roofed. Grey slate roofing is consistently used throughout Norfolk, with school buildings in particular, and often used in higher-end period buildings. The size of the proposed roofs naturally coincides with a larger new school building. The pitch of the roof (40 degrees) is also consistent the general local roof style. The intention of the design as a whole, with its brick walls, slate roof and metal windows, is to provide a fairly contemporary interpretation of the same educational ethos of the original school. Within the constraints of an education budget the building details will allude to a self-consciously high standard of design, creating a very high quality learning environment. Sewerage The sewers of Gayton have been historically problematic. Until recently they were cracked and leaky, becoming quickly inundated, and therefore backing-up in bad weather. However, in recent years these problems have been largely resolved by Anglian Water - by lining the sewers with a plastic coating. Nonetheless, the Gayton system is close to full capacity. In response to three recent major planning applications AW have explained that there is only sufficient mains capacity for one of these developments to be connected to the mains system. However, in respect of this last point, it needs to be remembered that the school is being relocated, and therefore that the net increase in capacity will be for 58 school places, rather than 210. Furthermore it is unlikely that any of the three above applications will be implemented in advance of the new school. Anglian Water concludes: “Anglian Water has subsequently completed their hydraulic modelling exercise, and has confirmed that the proposed development, based on the study undertaken will not cause any significant detriment to the capacity of the sewer system.” (AW: “Addendum to the Planning Statement to provide an update from Anglian Water & The Environment Agency” – October 2017)

21

Vehicles The Local Highway Authority (LHA) acknowledges that the new school presents several challenges in terms of traffic management. However, it also acknowledges that “given the mitigation measures proposed, this is unlikely to generate a significant highway safety concern and reason for a highway related recommendation for refusal”. The new car park constitutes an off-highway one-way circulation route, offering very considerable safety advantages over the existing school. The 37 space car park provides on-site parking for the entire anticipated parking need, for all staff. The car park gyratory route has been designed (tracking-tested) by civil engineers - to allow its use by minibuses and coaches. The gyratory route has been designed to allow on-site drop-off and pick-up for parents – i.e. without the need for parents to park in the 37 spaces. The pavement along Back Street will be significantly enhanced and extended as part of the development, and enhanced road markings and signage will be provided. The LHA response to the planning application points out that “the school will have a key role in addressing some of the public nuisance issues raised, which can be addressed in part via a new school travel plan”. Indeed the LHA recommends that the travel plan be fully reviewed six months after the first occupation of the building – as a condition of planning approval.

7. Assessment

7.1 The issues to be assessed for this application are:

7.2 Principle of development

A basic principle when assessing planning applications is outlined in Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states:

“if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

7.3 In terms of the development plan, the County Planning Authority considers the relevant documents in relation to the this application are the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan – Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Plan (2016) and King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local development Framework – Core Strategy (2011). Whilst not part of the development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) are further material considerations of relevance when determining this application.

22

7.4 Following confirmation that Gayton (which includes the area of the application site) is designated as a neighbourhood area, Gayton Parish Council are in the process of preparing a neighbourhood plan. Once adopted this will sit alongside the Local Plan. This is currently at the early stages of preparation and whilst a material consideration, given the early stages of the process, only little weight is afforded to this, in the determination of this application.

7.5 Policy DM2 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (SADMPP) permits development within the development boundaries shown on the proposals map provided it is in accordance with the other policies in the Local Plan. Areas outside the identified development boundaries are defined as open countryside, and Policy CS06 of the CS states that the development of greenfield sites will be restricted unless essential for agriculture of forestry needs.

7.6 In terms of the settlement hierarchy for the Borough of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, Policy CS02 of Core Strategy (CS) identifies Gayton as a Key Rural Service Centre, where limited growth of a scale and nature appropriate to secure the sustainability of each settlement will be supported within the development limits of the key rural service centres.

7.7 The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) published a Ministerial Policy Statement - Planning for schools development (2011), which emphasises the commitment to increasing both the number of school places and choice and diversity in the state funded sector and makes it clear that there should be a presumption in favour of the development of state funded schools. Similar principles are also set out in Section 8, Para 72 of the NPPF, which seeks to ensure that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities and attaches great weigh to the need to create, expand or alter schools.

7.8 Under the Education Act the County Council, as Local Education Authority (LEA) has a statutory duty to provide school place provision. To assist in the delivery of this the County Council has identified a need for Gayton to receive capital investment in order to upgrade the education provision, consistent with demand for places and current NCC standards for primary schools. In addition, the applicant is aware that there are sites within the village that have received planning permission for housing and have designed the new school to accommodate this growth.

7.9 In the accompanying Design and Access Statement, the applicant advises that whilst the educational attainment of the school is very high, the current school building is no longer considered fit for purpose. Due to the age of the building the classrooms are small and cramped and costly to run and maintain; as is the temporary nature of some of the other school buildings within the site. The school assembly hall and dining room are currently accommodated in a re-locatable building and 3 out of the 6 classrooms are in other such temporary structures, which in planning terms is seen as a short term solution, while a new school building is procured.

7.10 The proposed development does not accord with Policies DM2 of the SADMPP and Policies CS02 and CS06 of the CS. For planning policy purposes this greenfield site lies within open countryside, does not comply with the exceptions set out in the policies and is not an allocated site. If approved, the development

23

would constitute a departure from the development plan and has been advertised as such. However, Policy DM9 of the SADMPP encourages the retention of existing community facilities and replacement facilities in the immediate locality if it’s not viable to retain the facility on site.

7.11 As LEA, the County Council is responsible for providing school places and in this case has identified a need for a new school and nursery to facilitate the delivery of an improved education provision. The Government supports the development of state funded schools – which includes Academies and free schools, as well as local authority maintained schools (community, foundation and voluntary aided and controlled schools) and their delivery through the planning system. National planning policy affords significant weight to the need to create new schools to ensure there is sufficient school places available to meet the needs of communities.

7.12 Amenity (noise, dust, light pollution etc)

7.13 Policy DM15 of the SADMPP states that proposed developments should create a high quality environment without a detrimental impact on the amenity of new and existing residents.

7.14 Policies CS08 and CS13 of the CS and Chapter 7 of the NPPF sets out that development should improve the quality of life for people living in the area.

7.15 The nearest residential properties are predominately 2-storey in height. Their front garden boundaries are approximately 11m directly opposite the application site on Back Street and Winch Road. The proposed school building is single storey; the highest element of the proposal being the sport hall with an overall height of approximately 11.3m. Given the single storey nature, positioning of windows and separation distances to adjacent residential property, it is not considered that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on occupiers by virtue of overlooking or loss of privacy.

7.16 The proposal includes air source heat pumps (ASHP’s) enclosed with close boarded timber fencing (4no. located to the eastern boundary of the school site and 2no. located to the south-western boundary of the school site) for heating the school and nursery and a commercial kitchen ventilation system. The accompanying Noise Report, assesses the impact of the proposed plant on nearby residents and concludes that the proposed plant is unlikely to have an adverse noise impact, but does suggest a barrier be installed around the units, which is illustrated on the submitted plans.

7.17 The application is accompanied by a construction management plan which sets out how construction will be undertaken to minimise an adverse impact on occupiers of adjacent property. The contractor’s compound is to be situated to the western area of the site accessed off Winch Road, with wheel washing facilities incorporated into the access to minimise the displacement of mud on the highway.

7.18 In terms of external lighting the submitted Lighting Assessment indicates that wall mounted luminaires are proposed to the school and nursery buildings; 5m high column lighting to the car park. The proposed lighting is to be controlled by photocells and time switch off control to ensure light pollution is minimised.

24

7.19 Having reviewed the application, the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) does not raise any objection to the proposed development and is of the opinion the design of the exterior lighting and enclosed air source heat pumps together with the separation distances to the nearest residents should avoid disamenity issues. In balancing the needs of the applicant and the amenity of the surrounding residents, due to the edge of village location and low background levels, the EHO has raised concerns about workers arriving on site and undertaking works as early as 07:00 as is proposed by the applicant. It is therefore suggested that a planning condition be imposed on any grant of planning permission limiting noisy works, deliveries and collections to / from the site.

7.20 It is acknowledged that there would be changes to the outlook of some residents; the site would have buildings on it instead of it being an empty field, and residents are likely to experience some disturbance from the school and nursey, as general noise generated from outdoor activities, vehicles and people within and around the site, as these are common factors of a school setting. The accompanying construction site management plan details how the construction process will be managed to reduce the impact on adjacent properties.

7.21 Given the imposition of a suitably worded condition relating to the hours of construction, design features of the scheme, separation distances to adjacent property and the details set out in the construction site management plan; it is not considered that the proposed development would have a materially adverse impact on the occupiers of neighbouring property, in accordance with the relevant national and local planning policies.

7.22 Contamination

7.23 Policy DM15 of the SADMPP advises that proposals should be assessed against the potential impacts of contamination.

7.24 Para 120 of the NPPF advises that planning decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location and prevent unacceptable risks from pollution, taking into account the effects of pollution on health, the natural environmental and general amenity.

7.25 Due to the nature of the site which is currently used as agricultural field, the application is accompanied by a Ground Investigation Report to determine the risks from contamination and to provide recommendations for geo-technical design. Following the ground investigation no contamination was identified, therefore remedial works are not considered necessary.

7.26 Assessing the proposals in relation to the potential impact on human health, the EHO does not have any comments to make. Given the conclusion and recommendations in the report, it is not considered that the development of this site would cause a significant risk to sensitive receptors by virtue of land contamination, in accordance with Policy DM15 of the SADMPP and Chapter 11 of the NPPF.

7.27 Design

7.28 Policy DM15 of the SADMPP advises that the scale, height, massing, materials and layout of a development should respond to its local setting through high quality design and use of materials. Policy CS08 of the CS encourages similar principles of achieving good design as a key element to sustainable

25

development.

7.29 Chapter 7 of the NPPF states that good design is a key aspect to sustainable development and places great emphasis on the importance to the design of the built environment.

7.30 Residential properties are located to the north and west of the site. The dwellings to the north are a mix of 2-storey and bungalow estate style, pitched roof dwellings predominately constructed of red or buff brick and tile. The dwellings situated to the west generally sit in larger plots than those to the north and are more of mix in terms of style, and predominately constructed of red brick and render with a tiled roof.

7.31 The applicant has developed the design of the school and nursery buildings in consultation with the school headteacher, addressing particular needs of the school as the end user. The internal layout has been designed following government guidelines set out in the Department for Education (DfE) Building Bulletins 99: Building Framework for primary school projects and Building Bulletin 103: Area Guideline for mainstream schools, as well as the School Premises Act, and follows guidelines developed with Norfolk County Council as their model for primary school design.

7.32 The main school building accessed via a courtyard off Back Street to the front of the site, with a canopy along the north elevation would have a gross internal floor area of approximately 1292m² with a pitched roof ranging between approximately 7.5m to 11.3m in height. Accessed off the main car park area on Winch Road, the nursery building with a brie solei to the south elevation would provide a gross internal floor area of approximately 295m, with a roof height of approximately 3m increasing to 6.2m. Designed to an almost identical style, the proposed school and nursey buildings would be constructed of Olde Alton Yellow multi facing brick, with a colour matching mortar and flush pointing, with aluminium coated (RAL 7024 graphite grey) windows and doors. The 45 degree pitched roofs would be covered in a natural slate, which would also be hung on parts of the walls of the buildings. An external material sample sheet is submitted for consideration as part of the application. Of a standard internal layout, the proposed new school building would provide for 7 classbases leading off a central corridor, accessible from the school building and outdoors. The teaching accommodation is grouped together to the eastern half of the school building; the school hall and office accommodation to the western area. The T-shaped nursery building is also of a standard internal layout with office, store and toilet facilities to the north elevation of the building and 2 classrooms either side of the kitchen / store area to the south. The internal layout of the buildings and overall external layout of the proposed school site are considered acceptable and functional.

7.33 Having reviewed the application submission and the design rationale, it is considered that the proposed development is of little architectural merit nor is sympathetic to its local surroundings. The scale and layout of the buildings are considered acceptable, including the height of the school hall which is required to for functional / operational purposes. Given the height and proposed materials of the school hall, it would be preferred if it was located to the rear of the school building, for example swapped with the office / reception / staffroom accommodation, to reduce the impacts of a prominent feature along the street

26

frontage, that it would otherwise give. The use of slate roofing materials and hung tiles on part of the buildings would be alien to the palette of materials used in the immediate locality, which are red brick, render and pantiles. However, it is to be noted that the issue of design is subjective and what is considered high quality good design to one, is not to another.

7.34 During pre-application discussions and throughout the planning process the concerns relating to the design have been conveyed to both the applicant and planning agent. The applicant has taken the decision not to amend the design and choice of materials of the proposed school buildings as suggested by the County Planning Authority, statutory consultee – Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk, and local residents in their representations. The applicant’s justification is set out in the Planning Statement and Design and Access Statement accompanying the application, and states: the building materials indicated for the exterior of the new design have been chosen to match the materials used on the existing school building; making a strong visual connection with the old school is an important part of the transition the school will be making when it moves; slates have been used over many years in the village and are an established part of Gayton’s existing visual fabric; current funding of capital education programmes is restricted, so designers are looking for ways of getting best value from all capital spent; the school hall has been designed to accommodate the multiple functions required by a school, and enabling it to be used by the local community outside school hours.

7.35 Whilst no response has been received from the Architectural Liaison Officer, the following security measures would be provided: access control, electric locking systems, CCTV, intruder alarm system, fencing and fenestration to recognised security specifications. There would be a clear marked entrance and separation of key stages areas. In the absence of a consultation response, the measures incorporated into the design of the buildings are considered sufficient to reduce opportunities for criminal behaviour and disorder.

7.36 Given the above it is considered that the design of the school and nursery buildings is in conflict with the principles of the design related planning policies which seek to secure high quality design and use of materials. Whilst it is considered that the proposed development could be improved to reflect the design and materials of the immediate surroundings, it is acknowledged that the design does incorporate some features of the surrounding area. On balance, whilst it is considered that the proposed development does not wholly satisfy the design policy requirements, the design is not of a poor standard that it would warrant a refusal of the application solely on design grounds.

7.37 Landscape / Trees

7.38 Policies CS08 and CS12 of the CS seek to protect and enhance the landscape character.

7.39 Chapter 11 of the NPPF encourages good design to limit the impact on landscape and nature conservation.

7.40 The Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) that accompanies the application confirms the removal of a single Oak tree to the north-western boundary of the site is required to facilitate the main entrance to the school, one group of Sycamore, located on the western boundary of the site to facilitate the vehicular

27

access to the site and the removal of a section of hedgerow. All trees and hedges to be retained would be adequately protected during construction.

7.41 To mitigate the loss and enhance the landscaping of the site, the applicant proposes replacement planting in the form of a new native hedge and a mix of tree species such as Field Maple, Hornbeam, Hazel, Holly and Rose, to the north, east and south-east boundaries of the site; and in the woodland thicket area proposed between the proposed car parking and the south-west elevation of the school building.

7.42 Subject to a condition requiring the tree works and implementation of the landscaping scheme and after care maintenance, being imposed on any grant of planning permission, the Council’s Senior Arboricultural and Woodland Officer raises no objection.

7.43 It is considered that the proposed development can be carried out in a manner that would not have a detrimental impact on the trees within the site and proposes adequate mitigation measures to enhance the landscape character of the site, in accordance with Policies CS08 and CS12 of the CS and Chapter 11 of the NPPF.

7.44 Biodiversity and geodiversity

7.45 The overall principles of Policies CS12 of the CS and Chapter 11 of the NPPF seek to conserve and / or enhance the biodiversity of a site when determining planning applications.

7.46 The application site comprises areas of agricultural land, trees, hedging, and ponds, consequently the application is accompanied by an Ecology Report. The report concludes that there are no bats roosting in the oak tree (to the north of the site), no great crested newts in nearby ponds and no water voles using the relevant sections of ditch, therefore the proposed development is expected to result in a neutral impact on protected species. However, as a precaution, mitigation measures are recommended such as tree felling outside the bird nesting season, if not trees should be inspected prior to felling and inspections of the ditches. In addition, compensatory measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site are suggested such as replacement tree planting, the installation of bat roost boxes and bird boxes.

7.47 Having reviewed the application submission the County Council’s Ecologist does not raise any objection with regards to ecology. The recommended mitigation and compensatory measures set out in the Ecology Report are welcomed to lessen the potential for impacts on ecology. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed development can be undertaken without having an adverse impact on protected species in accordance with the relevant national and local planning policies.

7.48 Appropriate Assessment

The site is situated within 10 kilometres of the Norfolk Valley Fens and Roydon Common and Dersingham Bog Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Roydon Common RAMSAR, which are European protected sites. The application has been assessed in accordance with Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, and based on the information submitted to the County Planning Authority (CPA), it is considered that the development would not have a significant impact on this or any other protected habitat. Accordingly, no

28

Appropriate Assessment of the development is required.

7.49 Transport

7.50 Policy DM17 of the SADMPP states that adequate parking provision should be provided in new development and for this type of proposed development should have regard to the County Councils parking standards. In addition, Policy DM15 requires proposals to demonstrate that safe access to development can be provided.

7.51 Policy CS11 of the KL&WNBC CS encourages alternative modes of transport and states that development should provide for safe and convenient access for all modes.

7.52 Chapter 4 of the NPPF also encourages maximising the use of sustainable transport modes and states that decision should take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved.

7.53 The application is accompanied by a Transport Statement, the schools existing travel plan and plans indicating proposed off-site highway measures. The application on site is situated outside but on the edge of the development boundary.

7.54 The majority of the pupils who attend the existing school live within the village of Gayton, however because of parental preference a small number of pupils travel from the surrounding villages / catchment. The submitted plans show vehicular access is off Winch Road to the western boundary of the site, leading to a 37 space car park (including 2no, disabled parking spaces). Pedestrian access is provided off Back Street to the north-western boundary of the site with cycle and scooter parking within the site.

7.55 To improve the pedestrian links to / from the site from the village and provide mitigation measures, the applicant is willing to provide a package of off-site highway works, which include: modifications to the junction of Back Street & Winch Road through the removal of the grass heater island; the provision of double yellow lines at the junction of Back Street & Winch Road (exact extents to be agreed as part of the required Traffic Regulation Order (TRO)); the provision of school keep clear markings on both access points; the introduction of a part time 20 mph speed limit; the provision of a 2m wide frontage footway on the southern side of Back Street; dropped kerb pedestrian crossing points; and new ‘single track road’ signs along Back Street.

7.56 It is to be noted that the highway issues have been subject to pre-application discussion and Development Team discussions, in addition the proposal has been subject to an independent safety audit with no significant issues raised. Having reviewed the application submission, the Council’s Highway Engineer notes the concerns of local residents and advises that the proposed development will result in pressure on the highway network, and that subject to conditions imposed on any grant of planning permission, it is unlikely to generate a significant highway safety concern or warrant a highway refusal.

7.57 Whilst it is acknowledged the provision of a new school and nursey on this site will result in further traffic and pedestrian activity, at drop-off and pick-up times, this is typical of most schools sites. On balance, given the level of parking provision is in line with the County Council’s parking standards, the package of off-site highways works and the promotion of alternative methods of travel to access the site, it is considered that the proposed development satisfactorily

29

deals with the highway network and safety issues.

7.58 Subject to conditions relating to provision of access and parking, cycle / scooter parking, the provision of off-site highway works and the implementation of a school travel plan, it is considered that the proposed development is not in conflict with national and local planning policies relating to highway safety, parking provision and sustainable transport modes.

7.59 Sustainability

7.60 Policy DM15 of the SADMPP encourages the delivery of sustainable development.

7.61 Policy CS08 of the CS promotes and encourages opportunities to achieve high standards of sustainability and energy efficiency measures. For developments creating more than 1000m² of non residential floorspace such as this, there is a requirement to reduce their predicted CO² emissions by at least 10% by using decentralised, renewable and low carbon energy sources.

7.62 Chapter 10 of the NPPF expects new development to take account of local polices in decentralised energy, landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption.

7.63 Ventilation in the new school and nursey would be provided by natural and mechanical means. The orientation of the proposed buildings would allow for the installation of a photovoltaic (PV) panel array on the south facing roof slopes. The submitted plans are based on a 25m² PV panel array for both the school and nursery buildings. It is intended that the electricity generated will be used within the buildings and / or supplied back to the grid. Heat for the buildings would be generated by air source heat pumps used in conjunction with underfloor heating. Other sustainability measures incorporated into the proposed development include: flow restrictors fitted at all outlets to limit the amount of water wastage; passive solar techniques comprising of overhanging canopies with brise-soleil and low heat transmittance glass where appropriate; energy efficient LED lighting; electrical energy metring to enable the building users to readily identify their energy demand and encourage practical steps to reduce their energy use and operating costs.

7.64 It is a requirement of both national and local planning policies for developments to limit their impact on the environment. Whilst the proposed development would not be classed as sustainable development as defined in the NPPF; given the layout, orientation and constraints of the site, the proposed energy measures are considered acceptable and the applicant has provided sufficient justification as to why various other energy options have been disregarded, in accordance with the relevant sustainability related planning policies.

7.65 Impact on Heritage Assets

7.66 Policy CS12 of the CS seeks to preserve and where appropriate enhance the historic environments qualities and characteristics.

7.67 Chapter 12 of the NPPF seeks to contribute to protecting or enhancing the historic environment.

7.68 The application site lies within an area as having archaeology importance and is located between 2 scheduled monuments – moated site at Gayton Hall and

30

medieval settlement remains west of Jubliee Farm. The applicant has undertaken an archaeology evaluation of the site consisting of 12 trenches excavated to provide samples of the site, to assess the potential archaeological resource of the site and the likely impacts of development on that resource. The results indicated that the site is considered to be of limited archaeological interest.

7.69 In reviewing the accompanying Archaeology Evaluation Report and application details, the Council’s Historic Environment Officer concludes that there are not likely to be any significant archaeology remains on site, and the proposed development would not have a significant impact on the historic environment and therefore no requirement for further archaeological work.

7.70 It is accepted that the proposed development would not cause any harm to the adjacent heritage assets, nor would the development if approved result in the loss of any heritage assets, in accordance with the relevance policies of the CS and NPPF.

7.71 Flood Risk - Fluvial and pluvial flooding

7.72 Policy DM21 of the SADMPP, Policies CS01 and CS08 of the CS seek to guide development from areas of flooding although recognises that some development may be required in flood risk areas in order to meet regeneration objectives and maintain the sustainability of local communities.

7.73 The overall thrust of NPPF paras 99 - 104 is to minimise flood risk, locating development in areas at least risk of flooding, thereby reducing the causes and impact of flooding. The NPPF states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk.

7.74 For planning policy purposes ‘flood risk’ relates to all sources of flooding.

7.75 According to the current published Environment Agency (EA) flood map, the application site lies within flood zone 3, where there is a high probability of fluvial (river) flooding and is at high risk of surface water (pluvial) flooding. For the purposes of the Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification, ‘Nurseries and Educational establishments’ such as this fall within the ‘More Vulnerable’ classification as defined in the NPPG. Development may be acceptable in areas of high flood risk subject to the sequential and exception tests being met.

7.76 A Flood Risk Assessment, hydrology report and river modelling accompanies the application. The FRA concludes the site would not flood in a 1 in 100 year, 1 in 100 year plus 50% climate change or the 1 in 1000 year flood events, and therefore the site lies within flood zone 1 – low probability of fluvial flooding, but states that finished floor levels (FFL) would be raised to a minimum of 16.67m AOD, which is 600mm above the predicted 1 in 100 year plus 50% climate change flood level at the site. According to the applicant, the modelling has identified the site is sensitive to flood risk caused by blockages to the adjacent culvert, but with drainage measures in place the applicant is of the opinion the site would not flood.

7.77 The EA in their initial consultation response do not object on flood risk grounds and accept the submitted modelling report and its conclusions that the application site lies within flood zone 1. The EA advise the applicant that

31

to formally update the published flood risk map requires the EA Partnership & Strategic Overview (PSO) team to carry out an evidence based review to ensure the submitted modelling information meets the current required standard to update the flood map.

7.78 The LLFA in their consultation response contest the conclusion of the submitted FRA and requested confirmation of the acceptance of fluvial flood risk and required resilience measures and confirmation of the construction levels and resulting flood risk. Having reviewed the application submission and visited the site there was evidence that the culvert flows were restricted by its size, therefore the applicant was asked to undertake further modelling, to identify the extent of flood risk on the site should the culvert be blocked, because the initial modelling seem to indicate the culvert was free flowing, when on site this was clearly not the case.

7.79 To address the objection raised, the applicant commissioned further surface water modelling at a 1 in 100 year critical rainfall event (plus climate change), indicating the extent of flood risk on the site with the culvert unblocked, 50% , 66% and 95% blocked. Results of the modelling identified on-site flooding, however given the change to the proposed site levels and FFL, therefore would not be internal flooding to the proposed buildings.

7.80 The LLFA in their consultation response remove their original objection to the scheme but highlight the need to re-consult the EA to ensure the culvert scenarios have been accurately represented in the fluvial flood risk modelling and be made aware of the LLFA site visit information. The LLFA go on to advise that the river modelling demonstrates there will be fluvial flooding of the site in a 1 in 100 year event with the culvert 50% restricted; with no compensatory storage being proposed. The fluvial model does not show where the water would be displaced. The pluvial model suggests that the adjacent field to the south would be at risk of flooding. The applicant maintains the stance that blockage removal of the culvert negates the need for compensatory storage. Because of evidence to the contrary, the LLFA contend that the modelled scenario (with 50% blockage) is more of a representative of the “normal” culvert conditions and that the proposed development would be increasing flood risk elsewhere.

7.81 In response, the EA have asked the CPA to hold off making a decision until they have reviewed their position and provided a further response. The submitted model assumes the culvert has full capacity, therefore the EA assumed this was accurate. Following a site visit the LLFA have evidence to the contrary, which means the modelling review undertaken by the EA may not have taken into account the potential for flood risk at the site and consequences off the site.

7.82 In the absence of the flood map been updated, for the purposes of determining the application, the application site lies within flood zone 3 and the sequential test applies. The CPA is responsible for applying the sequential test and to determine whether it has passed. A defined sequential test search area for alternative sites was agreed with the applicant as being the school catchment. The applicant submitted a sequential test matrix assessing 14 sites within the search area against a set of criteria, justifying why the sites are not considered suitable and have been disregarded. In reviewing the sequential test matrix it is considered the proposed development fails to meet the sequential test as advised in the NPPF and NPPG, because there are ‘reasonably alternative’ sites of lower flood

32

risk, both in terms of fluvial and pluvial flood risk, that it would be preferred are developed. Whilst the sites maybe subject to other constraints, this view is for the purposes of flood risk only.

7.83 In order to comply with the flood risk policies of the NPPF and guidance in the NPPG proposals should accord with both the ‘sequential test’ and then, if appropriate the ‘exception test’. The latter establishing whether there are wider sustainability benefits that would outweigh the risk of flooding and ensure the development is safe for its lifetime. The flood risk policies in the NPPF should therefore weigh against approval of the proposal.

7.84 Turning to the issue of the connection of surface water to the adjacent watercourse, the site is bound by ditches to the north, Middleton Stop Drain to the south and Pilkingtons Drain to the west and within the Internal Drainage Board’s (IDB) drainage district, where the IDB bylaws apply.

7.85 Originally the application submission showed a connection to the adjacent watercourse, at a discharge rate of 5 litres per second (l/s) with an underground on-site attenuation tank. This was not considered acceptable and resulted in an objection being raised by both the LLFA and IDB. The IDB raised concerns at the discharge rate as it is higher than the greenfield rate and the rate they were prepared to accept. The IDB have advised the applicant that to facilitate the development a number of consents are required from the IDB before development can commence on site and sought clarity on elements of the surface water drainage strategy relating to the extent of flood risk and how this would be managed.

7.86 The LLFA recommended that given the reliance of the scheme to connect to an IDB drainage ditch, the applicant should provide confirmation from the IDB that the rate of discharge (5l/s) was acceptable. The application was unable to do this.

7.87 Following discussions with the IDB and LLFA the applicant amended the scheme and now proposes to discharge surface water at a rate of 1.7l/s (equivalent to a 1 in 1 year rainfall event), and is the current greenfield rate, rather than 5l/s as originally intended. The IDB in reviewing the additional and amended information received, whilst accept the principle of the discharge rate; raise concerns regarding the structural integrity of the culvert of the Pilkington Drain and whether it is suitable to convey the intended flows. In light of this, the IDB have requested that the applicant carries out a camera survey of the culvert and report the findings to the IDB. The culvert is riparian owned that directs the Pilkington’s Drain under the highway to the north. The consenting process would require the applicant to take steps to find the riparian owner(s); and obtain their comments which are taken in to account when considering the consenting process. Dependant on the results of the camera survey and the structural integrity of the culvert, the applicant may need to invest additional costs of upgrading / maintaining the culvert.

7.88 The IDB reiterate that a number of consents (relating to the discharge rate, works within 9m of an IDB maintained drain, and the proposed culverts within the IDB area) are required. At the time of writing this report, the CPA is not aware that the applicant has submitted any consent applications to the IDB or LLFA for consideration. It is to be noted that the consenting process is a

33

separate regime to the planning process. The IDB 9m easement bounding the site runs alongside IDB maintained drains. For the consenting process certain technical details are required of the IDB to enable the IDB to gain access along the easement for maintenance works, including a standard 30 ton weight limit on assets within easement strips to protect them from machinery during maintenance works.

7.89 When considering the application in relation to flood risk, there is a responsibility of the planning authority determining planning applications to take into consideration the level of flood risk, climate change and the sequential and exception approach where necessary. Whilst the discharge rate of 1.7l/s for the drainage scheme and the raising of the finished floor levels is welcomed, the application submission does not indicate the resilience measures to assist in making the buildings safe for the lifetime of their development. The delivery of the proposed drainage strategy is dependent upon a number of unresolved issues which are to be dealt with under a separate consenting regime. Should the application be approved, it is recommended that conditions be imposed requiring the applicant to supply the CPA with evidence of the necessary permissions / consents prior to the commencement of development and the implementation of the drainage strategy prior to the occupation of the buildings. It is acknowledged the site would be susceptible to flood risk and the failure of the sequential test relating to both fluvial and pluvial flood risk, is contrary to Chapter 10 of the NPPF, guidance set out in the NPPG and as a material consideration should weigh against approval of the application. However, on balance, significant weight has been afforded to the need for the enhanced education provision which outweighs the harm caused by the development of this site at risk of flooding.

7.90 Foul Drainage

7.91 In terms of foul drainage disposal the applicant proposes to connect to the mains foul sewer.

7.92 At the time of writing this report no response has been received from Anglian Water (AW). However, the applicant does include correspondence from AW in the application submission. In a pre-planning assessment dated June 2017 AW confirmed that a direct connection to the main sewer was likely to have a detrimental effect on the existing network and that further hydraulic modelling work was required to find a solution. AW advised the applicant there is limited capacity in the network to accommodate the development proposed for Gayton and AW are unable to reserve capacity in the network for a specific development.

7.93 The Drainage Impact Assessment dated 6 October 2017 concludes that using a gravity regime AW does not predict any detriment on the performance of the existing system.

7.94 Providing the applicant proposes to connect via a gravity regime, it is considered that the proposed development would not give rise to environmental and amenity problems arising from sewerage flooding. To secure the delivery of this method of foul drainage disposal, it is considered necessary to impose a suitably worded pre-occupation condition requiring full details of the foul drainage strategy should planning permission be granted.

7.95 Protection of agricultural land

34

7.96 Policy DM20 of the SADAPP and Chapter 11 of the NPPF seek to restrict the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land (defined in the NPPF as land within grades 1, 2 and 3a).

7.97 The proposal would result in the loss of approximately 1.6ha of Grade 3 agricultural land, which forms part of a wider site. In line with advice in the NPPF this loss is not considered significant as the amount is less than 20ha. Due to its relatively small area, and the benefits a new school could bring to the community, it is not considered that the site would have a significant effect on the wider holding or its continued use.

7.98 Playing pitch provision

7.99 Policy CS13 of the CS promotes a healthy active lifestyle. Similarly Chapter 8 of the NPPF states the planning systems plays an important role in facilitating healthy inclusive communities.

7.100 Submitted plans show the main area of playing field to the south of the school building which accommodates a sports pitch of approximately 68m (l) x 43m (w) (including run offs) with a 75m running track. Adjacent to that is a hard surface area measuring 35m (l) x 18m (w) to be enclosed with 3m high mesh fencing. The area would be marked out for sports pitch provision and could be used for basketball, netball, tennis and football (mini soccer). The proposed school hall has been designed to accommodate multiple functions, such as school assemblies, school dinners and indoor sports activities; and also for use out of school use for after school club and community activities.

7.101 Sport England protect playing fields and sports pitch facilities in the planning system. As the proposed development does not result in the loss of, or impact on any sports facility, Sport England advise that to ensure the facilities are fit for purpose, they should be designed in accordance with Sport England, or another national governing body design guide. The playing field and sport pitch facility are considered acceptable and in accordance with guidance contained in the Sport England Comparative Sizes of Sports Pitches & Courts (Indoor and Outdoor) (September 2015 update). The pitch facilities will require making out prior to the school being occupied. This is to be secured by the imposition of a suitably worded condition should planning permission be granted.

7.102 Environmental Impact Assessment

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning Environmental (Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 the application was screened on receipt and re-screened at the determination stage and it is not considered that the development would have significant impacts on the environment. No Environmental Impact Assessment is therefore required.

7.103 The Community Infrastructure Levy

7.104 The development is CIL liable, but zero rated.

8. Resource Implications

8.1 Finance: The development has no financial implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective.

8.2 Staff: The development has no staffing implications from the Planning Regulatory

35

perspective.

8.3 Property: The development has no property implication from the Planning Regulatory perspective.

8.4 IT: The development has no IT implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective.

9. Other Implications

9.1 Human rights

9.2 The requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 must be considered. Should permission not be granted Human Rights are not likely to apply on behalf of the applicant.

9.3 The human rights of the adjoining residents are engaged under Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life and Article 1 of the First Protocol, the right of enjoyment of property. A grant of planning permission may infringe those rights but they are qualified rights, that is that they can be balanced against the economic interests of the community as a whole and the human rights of other individuals. In making that balance it may also be taken into account that the amenity of local residents could be adequately safeguarded by conditions albeit with the exception of visual amenity. However, in this instance it is not considered that the human rights of adjoining residents would be infringed.

9.4 The human rights of the owners of the application site may be engaged under the First Protocol Article 1, that is the right to make use of their land. An approval of planning permission may infringe that right but the right is a qualified right and may be balanced against the need to protect the environment and the amenity of adjoining residents.

9.5 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)

9.6 The Council’s planning functions are subject to equality impact assessments, including the process for identifying issues such as building accessibility. None have been identified in this case.

9.7 Legal Implications: There are no legal implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective.

9.8 Communications: There are no communication issues from a planning perspective.

9.9 Health and Safety Implications: There are no health and safety implications from a planning perspective.

9.10 Any other implications: Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.

10. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

10.1 It is not considered that the implementation of the proposal would generate any issues of crime and disorder, and there have been no such matters raised during the consideration of the application.

36

11. Risk Implications/Assessment

11.1 There are no risk issues from a planning perspective.

12. Conclusion and Reasons for Granting/Refusing of Planning Permission

12.1 Under the Education Act the County Council as LEA has a statutory duty to provide sufficient school place provision. The proposed development for a new school and nursery is part of the Council’s Capital Programme to facilitate an enhanced education provision providing additional pupil places to meet demand and accommodate future growth as a result of housing that is planned for Gayton. The applicant has considered alternative sites around the Gayton village and has concluded that the site the subject of this application is the only realistically, achievable / deliverable site meeting their requirements.

12.2 The application site (requiring a change of use of agricultural land to educational use), relates to a greenfield site, outside but on the edge of the development boundary identified for Gayton on the proposals map. Should the proposed development be permitted it would constitute a departure from the development plan because the proposal is contrary to policies DM1 of the SADMPP; CS02 and CS06 of the CS and fails the sequential test. The flood risk modelling accompanying the application demonstrates the application site will flood in a 1 in 100 year event plus climate. To mitigate against this it is proposed to raise the finished floor levels of the school and nursery buildings and provide water / storage attenuation.

12.3 Statutory consultees support the proposal in principle; however this is subject to the satisfactory resolution of all material planning considerations and the imposition of suitably worded conditions being imposed on any grant of planning permission. Whilst objections from local residents have been received (as addressed in section 6 of this report) it is acknowledged that the proposed development if approved and built would change the outlook for the immediate neighbours and increase vehicular and pedestrian activity.

12.4 The NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This indicates that proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The application has been assessed against relevant policies in the development plan, and it is considered that the application fails to comply with the relevant planning policies due to its location outside the development boundary, lack of high quality design and the risk to surface water flooding. However, it is acknowledged the enhanced education provision this proposal would provide the local community and assist the County Council in delivering its statutory duty.

12.5 In considering the planning balance, the harm caused of locating a new education provision outside of the development boundary, within an area at risk of flooding, where there are other reasonable available sites of a lower probability of flooding, and lacking the high quality design required by both national and local planning policies, would be significantly outweighed by the benefits of providing a new school and nursery facilities. This would enable the County Council to meet its statutory duty of providing pupil places and planning for future housing growth in the village, in the context of para 72 of the NPPF and the 2011 DCLG

37

ministerial policy statement – Planning for school development, which attaches great weight to enhancing school provision and the need to create, expand or alter schools. It is recommended that Member of the Planning (Regulatory) committee delegate powers to Officers to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in section 13 and subject to no new matters raised by the Environment Agency

13. Conditions

13.1 The development hereby permitted shall commence not later than three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Imposed in accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

13.2 The development must be carried out in strict accordance with the application form, plans and documents.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning

13.3 The external materials and finishes used in the construction of the development hereby permitted shall be as detailed on drawing reference NPS-XX-00-DR-A-(00)-600 Rev P1 and shall be retained as such.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development, in accordance with Policy DM15 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan – Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Plan (2016) and Chapter 7 of the NPPF.

13.4 Notwithstanding the submitted plans and AIA, the landscaping scheme hereby permitted shall be implemented within the first planting season (October to March), following the occupation of the development. The standard trees will require regular watering every 2 weeks for the first three years after planting. Beyond this, watering will be required during times of prolonged drought. Any plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced with others of a similar size and species. All planting shall be retained for a period of five years after initial planting has been completed and any trees and shrubs which are substantially damaged, seriously diseased or die, shall be replaced within twelve months of removal or death, with plants of a similar species and size.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development, in accordance with Policies CS08 and CS12 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local Development Framework – Core Strategy (2011) and Chapter 11 of the NPPF.

13.5 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the vehicular (and / or pedestrian / cyclists) crossings over the footway / ditch / watercourse (including School Keep Clear Markings and appropriate pedestrian restraint measures) shall be constructed in accordance with a detailed scheme to be agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority, in consultation with the Highway Authority.

Reason: To ensure construction of a satisfactory access and in the interests of

38

highway safety, in accordance with Policies DM15 and DM17 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan – Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Plan (2016) and Policy CS11 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local Development Framework – Core Strategy (2011).

13.6 Vehicular and pedestrian access to and egress from the adjoining highway shall be limited to the access(es) shown on drawing no. NPS-00-00-DR-L(00)- 860 Rev P6 only.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policies DM15 and DM17 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan – Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Plan (2016) and Policy CS11 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local Development Framework – Core Strategy (2011).

13.7 The gradient of the vehicular access(es) shall not exceed 1:12 for the first 10 metres into the site as measured from the near channel edge of the adjacent carriageway.

Reason: In the interests of the safety of persons using the access and users of the highway, in accordance with Policies DM15 and DM17 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan – Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Plan (2016) and Policy CS11 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local Development Framework – Core Strategy (2011).

13.8 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted any access gate(s), bollard, chain or other means of obstruction shall be hung to open inwards, set back, and thereafter retained a minimum distance of 10 metres from the near channel edge of the adjacent carriageway.

Reason: To enable vehicles to safely draw off the highway before the gate(s) or obstruction is opened, in accordance with Policies DM15 and DM17 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan – Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Plan (2016) and Policy CS11 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local Development Framework – Core Strategy (2011).

13.9 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed access / on-site car (general & disabled bays) and cycle parking (covered) / turning area shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled, surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved plans (drawing number NPS-00-00-DR-L(00)- 860 Rev P6 and retained thereafter available for that specific use.

Reason: To ensure the permanent availability of the parking / manoeuvring area, in the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policies DM15 and DM17 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan – Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Plan (2016) and Policy CS11 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local Development Framework – Core Strategy (2011).

13.10 Within 6 months from the date of this permission a scheme for the parking of cycles / scooters (for the nursery building) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented before the development is first occupied or brought into use and thereafter retained for this purpose.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate cycle parking that meets the needs of occupiers of the proposed development and in the interests of encouraging the

39

use of sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with Policy CS11 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local Development Framework – Core Strategy (2011) and Chapter 4 of the NPPF.

13.11 For the duration of the construction period all traffic & measures associated with the construction of the development will comply with the submitted Construction Traffic Management Plan (including wheel cleaning & construction parking arrangements).

Reason: In the interests of maintaining highway efficiency and safety & to ensure adequate off-street parking during construction in the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policies DM15 and DM17 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan – Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Plan (2016) and Policy CS11 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local Development Framework – Core Strategy (2011).

13.12 Notwithstanding the details indicated on the submitted drawings, within 6 months of the date of this permission, a detailed scheme for the off site highway works (including the provision of a continuous footway on Back Street; site frontage footway on the south side of Back Street, pedestrian crossing arrangements and modifications to the junction of Back Street & Winch Road) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the highway improvement works are designed to an appropriate standard in the interest of highway safety and to protect the environment of the local highway corridor, in accordance with Policies DM15 and DM17 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan – Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Plan (2016) and Policy CS11 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local Development Framework – Core Strategy (2011).

13.13 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted a scheme for the off site highway works referred to in condition 12 shall be completed to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the highway network is adequate to cater for the development proposed, in accordance with Policies DM15 and DM17 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan – Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Plan (2016) and Policy CS11 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local Development Framework – Core Strategy (2011).

13.14 Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted a Traffic Regulation Order for the provision of School Keep Clear Markings (at the proposed accesses) and the provision of yellow line markings (exact extents to be agreed) shall be promoted by the Highway Authority shall be promoted by the Highway Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policies DM15 and DM17 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan – Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Plan (2016) and Policy CS11 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local Development Framework – Core Strategy (2011).

40

13.15 Within 6 months of the first occupation of the development hereby permitted a review of the existing school travel plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The travel plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetables and targets contained therein and shall continue to be implemented subject to any modifications agreed by the County Planning Authority in writing in consultation with the Highway Authority as part of an annual review.

The travel plan reviews shall monitor pupil numbers and provide accordingly for the phased development of the future cycle parking (as agreed with the Highway Authority).

Reason: To ensure that the development offers a wide range of travel choices to reduce the impact of travel and transport on the environment, in accordance with Policy CS11 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local Development Framework – Core Strategy (2011) and Chapter 4 of the NPPF.

13.16 The permitted site hours are 0700 to 1900 hours Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300 on Saturdays. No work shall occur on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. Deliveries, collections, use of large fixed or mobile plant/machinery and other similarly loud work shall only occur between 0800 and 1800 hours weekdays, and 0900 and 1300 hours on Saturdays. Piling work on site shall only occur between 0900 and 1700 hours Monday to Friday.

Reasons: In the interests of residential amenity, in accordance with Policy DM15 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan – Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Plan (2016) and Policies CS08 and CS13 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local development Framework – Core Strategy (2011).

13.17 The area of new playing fields plans shall be marked out with pitches as indicated on approved plan NPS-00-00-DR-L(00)- 860 Rev P6 prior to the completion of the building works hereby approved.

Reason: In order to provide adequate replacement playing field provision to meet the school and local community requirements, in accordance with Policy CS13 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local development Framework – Core Strategy (2011) and Chapter 8 of the NPPF.

13.18 Notwithstanding the submitted plans, prior to the construction of the roofs of the school and nursery buildings hereby permitted, detail specification of the proposed photo-voltaic panels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The photo-voltaic panels shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development, in accordance with Policy DM15 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan – Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Plan (2016) and Chapter 7 of the NPPF.

13.19 No development shall commence until the County Planning Authority have been informed in writing that all of the necessary permissions/approvals and consents have been obtained, including an updated management and maintenance plan covering all parts of the drainage scheme for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To prevent flooding in accordance with National Planning Policy

41

Framework paragraph 103 and 109 by ensuring the satisfactory management of local flood risk, surface water flow paths, storage and disposal of surface water from the site in a range of rainfall events and ensuring the surface water drainage system operates as designed for the lifetime of the development.

13.20 Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted the drainage strategy as outlined in the submitted supporting documents including (GS_CS_P17_1242_02 Rev B Vols 1 – 4) and permissions/approvals and consents gained as part of condition 19 above, will be implemented in full.

Reason: To prevent flooding in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 103 and 109 by ensuring the satisfactory management of local flood risk, surface water flow paths, storage and disposal of surface water from the site in a range of rainfall events and ensuring the surface water drainage system operates as designed for the lifetime of the development.

13.21 Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted a foul water strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Anglian Water. No buildings shall be occupied until the works have been carried out in accordance with the foul water strategy so approved.

Reason: To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from sewer flooding, in accordance with Chapter 10 of the NPPF.

13.22 Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no buildings, structures or works as defined within Schedule 2, Parts 7 (Classes M and N) and 12 (Class A) inclusive of that Order, shall be erected or undertaken on the site.

Reason: To enable the County Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the site in the interests of an over development of the site, flood risk and playing pitch provision, in accordance with Policies DM15 and DM21 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan – Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Plan (2016); CS13 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local development Framework – Core Strategy (2011) and Chapters 8 and 10 of the NPPF.

13.23 INFORMATIVES:

13.24 For further information on school travel plans please contact Ian Dinmore on 01603 224248 or email mailto:travelplans@norfolk.gov.uk Schools that are required to generate or update plans should use the following link www.modeshiftstars.org/ so that they can use this National on line system to generate and update travel plans.

13.25 Where works affect the flow of an ordinary water course then under the terms of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010; Land Drainage Act 1991; and Water Resources Act 1991; you need to contact the Flood Water Management team at water.management@norfolk.gov.uk or Tel: 0344 800 8020.

13.26 This development involves works within the public highway that can only be carried out by Norfolk County Council as Highway Authority unless otherwise agreed in writing.

It is an OFFENCE to carry out any works within the Public Highway, which

42

includes a Public Right of Way, without the permission of the Highway Authority. Please note that it is the Applicants’ responsibility to ensure that, in addition to planning permission, any necessary consents or approvals under the Highways Act 1980 and the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 are also obtained from the County Council. Advice on this matter can be obtained from the County Council’s Highway Development Management Group. Please contact (01603 223273).

If required, street furniture will need to be repositioned at the Applicants own expense.

Public Utility apparatus may be affected by this proposal. Contact the appropriate utility service to reach agreement on any necessary alterations, which have to be carried out at the expense of the developer.

13.27 Environmental Protection Act 1990

Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Local Authority has a duty to investigate complaints of nuisance and should a complaint be received, irrespective of planning consent, the Local Authority may on determination of a Statutory Nuisance serve a legal notice requiring any said nuisance to be abated and failure to comply may result in prosecution. Further advice may be sought from the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team on this matter where necessary.

13.28 Noise Dust and Smoke from Clearing and Construction Work

Attention is drawn to Sections 60 and 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and to the British Code of Practice BS5228:2009 which set down requirements for the control of noise during construction and demolition works. The contractor should also be made aware of the requirements of the Clean Air Act and Control of Pollution Act regarding the prohibition of site bonfires. The Council’s Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team can provide advice and assistance in this regard.

13.29 The applicant is advised that hand digging within the Root Protection Areas will require the watching brief from an Arboriculturalist Consultant as detailed in the AIA.

Background Papers King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan – Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Plan (2016)

https://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/info/20093/site_allocations_and_development_management_policies_plan/514/adopted_plan

King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Local development Framework – Core Strategy (2011)

https://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/downloads/download/68/core_strategy_document

43

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012)

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/ National Planning Practice Guidance (2014)

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/ DCLG Policy statement – planning for schools development (2011) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6316/1966097.pdf

Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper or want to see copies of any assessments, eg equality impact assessment, please get in touch with:

Officer name : Angelina Lambert Tel No. : 01603 223806

Email address : angelina.lambert@norfolk.gov.uk

If you need this report in large print, audio, braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.

44

±

© Copyright Norfolk County Council

© Crown Copyright and Database rights 2014 Ordnance

Survey 100019340 14 November 2017

1:15,000

Y/2/2017/2009 - Gayton CE VC Primary SchoolGayton

The Application Site

0 500 1,000250Metres

45

El

Pond

Farm

Pp Ho

2

5

6

4

1

3

Path

16.5m

17.4m

TheT

rack

Drain

View

Pipcin

House

Mosi o

Cottage

Bobkins 14

25 15

16

12

393520

23Fivekeys

Poniente

Saumur

Talgarth

Umbrera

Woods House

Sarahgem

The Cottage

BACK STREET

Oak House

Silversprings

The Pastures

Chalk Barn

Lavender Cottage

HAWTHORN ROAD

Lap

Oak

Lattice

Laurels

Acorns

Tarxien

Sousique

Bookends

Hollyoak

Ruberslaw

2

12

3

1

The

Drain

5

1

±

© Copyright Norfolk County Council

© Crown Copyright and Database rights 2014 Ordnance

Survey 100019340 14 November 2017

1:2,000

Y/2/2017/2009 - Gayton CE VC Primary SchoolGayton

The Application Site

0 30 60 90 12015Metres

46