Today is the deadline to lodge a supporting or objecting comment regarding the proposals for the field at the rear of school.
- Go to Leeds City Council planning site
- Type the reference number 14/01839 or enter Allerton Grove into the search field.
- Click on the Comments tab. You’ll need to register so that you can make comments.
This is the comment I have lodged which objects to the plans. The objection is now within the public domain so I have simply reproduced the objection below. (Please note: I have not published this on the Leeds planning site or here up until now in order to avoid trying to unduly influence parents / carers; however, my role in school is also to represent the interests of our children and our future children, therefore I feel I need to represent their views.)
I am headteacher of Moortown Primary School. I object to the Reserved Matters application on the following basis:
Referring to the ‘Guidance on information requirements and validation’ document (Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2010), points 114, 115, 137, 145 and 150 do not appear to have been followed. For example: point 114: “Design and Access Statements explain proposals already set out in the planning application, but they also set out the principles and concepts that will be used when that proposal is developed in the future. In particular, for outline planning permission, applicants and local planning authorities should consider how they will ensure the relevant parts of the statement are adhered to for the drawing up and assessment of future details.”
There is no clear link or adherence between the original documents submitted that lead to the outline planning permission being granted and the resulting planning permission and related S106 agreement.
The previous application submissions made reference to specific amenities to be available to Moortown Primary School but this has not been included in the Section 106 agreement or the subsequent Reserved Matters application.
How has Leeds Council Planning Department gone from the original submission documents to a legal document which seems to, under the Section 106 agreement paragraph 6.1, specifically exclude use of part of the field by the school?
In the original Design and Access Statement, there was a great deal of explicit reference to the school (including the landscaping documents); in the one submitted with the Reserve Matters Application, such references have virtually disappeared. Comments from parents / carers of Moortown Primary pupils demonstrate that had this not been included from the start of the process, many further objections would have been raised at this early stage. Additionally, my understanding is that the case officer would have relied upon the original Design and Access Statement when making recommendations to approve, but the Reserved Matters document is not consistent with this.
The S106 documents sets out that Leeds Council would adopt the park, but with a restriction on its use as anything other than a public park. Given the explicit references to enhanced facilities at Moortown Primary School set out in original documentation and Delegation Report (which led to the permission being granted and which, in particular, refers to potential future provision for the school in the area) , I struggle to see how this limitation was included.
Because the Section 106 agreement came after public consultation on the application documents, and which feature amenities for the specific use of Moortown Primary, has correct policy and procedures been followed?
Further, I’m not entirely convinced that other guidance has been followed in a way which is transparent and comprehensive in relation to appraise the context. Guidance notes state: “It is important that an applicant should understand the context in which their proposal will sit, and use this understanding to draw up the application.” and that a particular process should be followed. However:
Assessment of the site’s immediate and wider context has not to the best of my knowledge incorporated on-site observations at a time which would demonstrate that the field is used regularly by Moortown Primary pupils, and no planning representative from the council has consulted me to aid this assessment.
Involvement of both community members and professionals has been undertaken, but again, there has not been any consultation with me. This would appear to have led to inaccuracies in the Delegation Report of the Chief Planning Officer: Points 10.6 and 10.13 state the pitch is unused for ten years, but in reality, the site is used currently on a weekly basis (minimum) as a playing field, and has been used for over thirty years. Point 10.7 states the playing fields being lost would be replaced by a playing field of equivalent or better quality, but this fails to account for safeguarding issues: currently, Moortown Primary pupils use the site with a degree of safety as it is fenced off, yet the proposals set out complete public access, thereby undermining any claims for better quality.
Evaluation of the information collected on the site’s context, leading to balancing any potentially conflicting issues that have been identified, might be said to be questionable since existing conflict remains yet a compromise can be made. Moortown Primary seek a portion of land for the school’s full and permanent use; we are, however, prepared to seek compromise such as a dedicated area, fenced, for our use during specified hours ie a compromise can be found. To sum up, and to quote council guidance notes again: “Understanding a development’s context is vital to producing good design” – better consultation with Moortown Primary School and all stakeholders from the outset would allow that.
The S106 Agreement should be changed to reflect the principles set out in the original Design and Access Statement provided within the original outline application. To do so would mean greater space and opportunities for children at Moortown Primary, and children from the wider community through our extended schools programme of activities, to engage in competitive sport and other physical activity, thereby meeting the local agendas (becoming a Child-Friendly City; reducing health-related problems) and the national agenda (increasing physical activity and competitive sport). Ideally, the school wants sufficient dedicated space as has been said throughout the planning process and in meetings with planners, Children’s Services and councillors; dedicated space for the school during specified hours, and then the same space open to the public out of hours and in holidays, is a compromise for all stakeholders.
