TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 SECTION 78 APPEAL BY Cogent Land LLP ...

330 Pages·2015·13.39 MB·English

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
SECTION 78 APPEAL
BY Cogent Land LLP

PLANNING APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Land South of the Lion Inn, Boreham, Chelmsford, Essex

PROOF OF EVIDENCE ON EDUCATION MATTERS
JOHN POWELL, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR, EPDS CONSULTANTS LTD.

PUBLIC INQUIRY DATE: 6th October 2015
PINS REFS: APP/W/1525/W/14/3001771
LPA REFS: 14/00826/OUT
1. Introduction

1.1. Qualifications & Experience

1.1.1 My name is John Robert Powell. I hold an Honours Bachelor of Law degree from the
University of East Anglia.

1.1.2 I previously worked for ten years in central and local government dealing with issues
of school place planning, buildings and site issues.

1.1.3 I was a Planning Officer and then Senior Planning Officer at the Funding Agency for
Schools, a Non-Departmental Public Body that dealt with all grant maintained
schools. My responsibilities included the planning of school places in 22 London
Boroughs, and the opening of two new schools, in Essex and Surrey.

1.1.4 On the closure of the Funding Agency, I moved into local government, firstly with
Reading Borough Council and then with West Berkshire Council. My responsibilities
included managing the section with oversight of, among other things, planning of
school places, admissions, home to school transport and school building projects.

1.1.5 In 2005 I founded Education Planning and Data Solutions. In 2012 this organisation
became a limited company named EPDS Consultants. EPDS Consultants is an
education consultancy specialising in the fields of school place planning, school
buildings and sites, and related data. EPDS Consultants advises other education
consultancies, local authorities, land owners, construction companies, planning
agents and developers on the implications of new housing on education
infrastructure.

2
1.1.6 Recent examples of cases in which I have been involved as an expert in the
determination of appeals, including appearance at public inquiry, include:
• West Costessey development, Norfolk proposal by Bovis Homes
• Western House School, Slough, proposal by Taylor Wimpey
• Holcombe Road, Helmshore, proposal by Taylor Wimpey

1.1.7 I am also currently advising various developers on school place mitigation matters, site
planning and school design in respect of Land at Holt (Norfolk), Clitheroe (Lancashire),
and Wellesbourne (Warwickshire).

1.1.8. EPDS Consultants was instructed by Cogent Land LLP ("the Appellant”) in August 2014,
to provide an independent analysis of the educational issues arising from the proposed
development and to liaise with the education authority, being Essex County Council
(“the County”), in an effort to reach an agreed position on these issues. I also rely
upon, but do not repeat, matters agreed in the Statement of Common Ground
(“SOCG”) prior to the production of this Proof and the evidence of Mr Anderson on
planning matters, to the extent that they are relevant to the matters addressed in my
evidence.

1.1.9. In providing my independent review, I have obtained details as to the current and
forecast usage of the existing school from the County and have attempted to establish
common ground with officers where possible.

1.1.10. I confirm that insofar as the facts stated herein are within my own knowledge I have
made clear which they are and I believe them to be true, and that the opinions I have
expressed represent my true professional opinion. I confirm that my evidence includes
all facts which I regard as being relevant to the opinions which I have expressed and
that attention has been drawn to any matter which would affect the validity of those
opinions. I confirm that my duty to this inquiry as an expert witness overrides any duty
to those instructing or paying me, that I have understood this duty and complied with
it in giving my evidence impartially and objectively, and that I will continue to comply
with that duty.
3
1.2. Scope of Evidence

1.2.1. This evidence has been produced, on behalf of the Appellant, in support of its appeal
against the decision by Chelmsford City Council ("the City") to refuse to grant planning
permission for the proposed development of land to the south of the Lion Inn, Main
Road, Boreham for residential purposes. As originally submitted, the proposals sought
consent for up to 200 dwellings ("the Appeal Scheme").

1.2.2. Following submission of the appeal, the Appellant has sought permission from the
Inspector to amend the Appeal Scheme so as to reduce the quantum of development
to up to 163 dwellings ("the Amended Scheme"). Unless otherwise stated, my evidence
relates to both the Appeal Scheme and the Amended Scheme.

1.2.3. Specifically, I respond to Reason for Refusal 3, which states that:
“Reason 3
Policy CP4 of the adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD states that the
Council will require, through use of planning contributions, that all new developments meet the
necessary on and off-site infrastructure requirements which are required to support the
development and mitigate the impact of that development on existing community interests.

The development proposal is located within the priority admissions area for Boreham County
Primary School. It is the only primary school serving Boreham village and is full and is expected
to remain full for the foreseeable future. The primary school is surrounded by residential
properties on all four sides and there is no additional land that could be brought into use to
increase the school's size or capacity.

Given the school's existing site constraints, infrastructure needs arising from the development
cannot be physically accommodated at the school. There are no alternative primary schools
located within reasonable walking distance of the development. As a consequence those pupils,
including very young children, who could not be accommodated at the school would have to be
transported, usually by bus, to alternative primary schools.

The transporting of primary school children to an alternative school is not an acceptable option
such that the proposal does not meet the tests of sustainability. The development is not in the
right location and the necessary infrastructure cannot be delivered to accommodate the
4
proposal contrary to the sustainability objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and
Policy CP4 of the adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD.”

1.2.4. My evidence considers the likely impact on local education infrastructure arising from
the proposed development and the appropriate methodology for calculating the
mitigation that may be required to meet any such impact.

1.2.5. My evidence is presented in four sections: firstly an overview of the Statutory and
Policy framework (section 2); second, an analysis of the Council’s rationale for its
adopted position (section 3); thirdly, the Appellant's position in relation to appropriate
mitigation (section 4); and finally, a summary and conclusions (section 5).
5
2. Statutory and Policy Framework

2.1 I do not repeat all of the statutory and policy framework identified in the SOCG. I focus
instead on issues of particular relevance to the educational assessment.

2.2. The Education Act 1996

2.2.1. The Education Act 1996 provides in section 14(1):
“A local education authority shall secure that sufficient schools for providing – (a)
primary education and (b) secondary education ... are available for their area”.

2.2.2. This duty applies in relation to all the children in the local education authority area,
whether they have lived there all their lives or have just moved into a new
development.

2.2.3. The residential component of the proposed development would include family
housing. Family housing often includes school age children who would seek to enrol in
local schools. Those schools may or may not be sufficient to accommodate these
children without the need for additional capacity to be provided.

2.3. National Planning Policy Framework

2.3.1. Paragraph 72 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states:
“72. The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of
school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local
planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to
meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education.
They should:
● give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools; and
● work with schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before
applications are submitted.”

6
2.4. Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010

2.4.1. The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations ("the Regulations") came into force in
April 2010 and impose a community infrastructure levy ("the levy") on new
development.

2.4.2. The levy is intended to provide infrastructure to support the development of an area
and, to a large extent, replaces Section 106 planning obligations, which have
traditionally been the mechanism for securing the infrastructure requirements of
proposed developments. However, there may still be some site specific impact
mitigation requirements without which a development should not be granted planning
permission and which are, therefore, picked up in planning obligations.

2.4.3. In order to ensure that planning obligations and the levy can operate in a
complementary way, the Regulations scale back the way planning obligations operate.
Limitations are placed on the use of planning obligations.

2.4.4. When a charging authority introduces the levy, section 106 requirements should be
scaled back to those matters that are directly related to a specific site, and are not set
out in a regulation 123 list.

2.4.5. When the levy is introduced (and nationally from April 2015), regulation 123 limits the
use of planning obligations. Where the regulation 123 list includes a generic type of
infrastructure (such as ‘education’ or ‘transport’), section 106 contributions should not
be sought on any specific projects in that category. Where a regulation 123 list includes
project-specific infrastructure, the charging authority should not seek any planning
obligations in relation to that infrastructure.

7
2.5. Essex County Council Policy

2.5.1. The County has published “Education Contribution Guidelines Supplement”. This
document predates adoption of the levy by the City, and is attached at Appendix
EPDS01.

2.6. Chelmsford City Council Community Infrastructure Levy

2.6.1. The City has adopted a levy, with an associated Regulation 123 list of infrastructure for
which the levy is sought.

2.6.2. This list is attached at Appendix EPDS02, and includes 'Additional Primary and Pre-
School provision to serve Chelmsford City Council area'. This is stated to exclude new
schools within the North Chelmsford Area Action Plan area, which would instead be
secured pursuant to a planning obligation.

8
3. The City’s Position

3.1. Primary School Impact

3.1.1. The City’s position with regards to primary school provision is that the existing site of
Boreham Primary School ("the School") is constrained and unable to expand to
accommodate any pupils arising from the proposed development.

3.1.2. This position is outlined in a letter dated 20 August 2014 from Claire Ellis of the County
to Mr J Broere of the City attached at Appendix EPDS03. This letter relates to the
Appeal Scheme. Clearly, a reduction in the number of dwellings (as in the Amended
Scheme) would lead to a reduction in the level of impact on school places.

3.1.3. The County has been asked to provide all documents relating to its assessment of the
School site for its suitability to expand. This correspondence is attached at Appendix
EPDS04.

3.1.4. It is clear from this that the County’s position has not been based on any detailed
assessment of the School site.

9
4. The Appellant's Position on Primary School Impact

4.1. Introduction

4.1.1. The County’s position was expressed in correspondence between Claire Ellis of the
County and Mr J Broere of the City attached at Appendix EPDS03. The County has
determined that the School cannot expand to meet the impact of proposed
development due to site constraints.

4.1.2. In this letter, Ms. Ellis advises that the Appeal Scheme would produce approximately
56 primary pupils. I have also used this ratio for both the Appeal Scheme and the
Amended Scheme (as to which see further below).

4.1.3. The County’s position is flawed, as demonstrated below. In addition, it is contradicted
by an email dated 31 July 2015 from Mr Neil Keylock, the School Places Data and
Intelligence Manager of the County, in which he indicates that an expansion of the
School to a capacity of 280 could be accommodated on the existing site (see Appendix
EPDS04).

4.2. School Capacity

4.2.1. The School’s Net Capacity Assessment Form is attached at Appendix EPDS05. This was
provided to me by the County via a Freedom of Information request.

4.2.2. Currently, the School operates as a 1 form of entry ("FE") school, with an annual
admission number of 30 pupils.

4.3. School Roll, Forecasts and Site Impact

4.3.1. As at September 2014, when the information was last published, 210 pupils attended
the School, of which 198 were residents of the School catchment area. This
information is shown in the attached Appendix EPDS06.

4.3.2. The total number of primary school age pupils resident in the School catchment area at
that time was 238, and is shown in the attached Appendix EPDS07.

4.3.3. It is not clear to what extent this consequential outflow of pupils from the School
catchment area is as a result of parental preference or due to the School being full.

10