Development Control Committee
Meeting to be held on 4 July 2011
Electoral Division affected:
Brierfield and Nelson North
Pendle Borough Council 13/11/0163
Demolition of residential properties and commercial buildings and construction of a new primary school including landscaping, vehicular and pedestrian access, car parking, cycle storage, external lighting, ground reprofiling, outdoor structures including play equipment, sprinkler tank, bin store, fencing and wall, land off Every Street, Whitefield, Nelson.
Contact for further information:
Catherine Lewis, 01772 530490, Environment Directorate
DevCon@lancashire.gov.uk
Executive Summary
Application - Demolition of residential properties and commercial buildings and construction of a new primary school including landscaping, vehicular and pedestrian access, car parking, cycle storage, external lighting, ground reprofiling, outdoor structures including play equipment, sprinkler tank, bin store, fencing and wall at land off Every Street, Whitefield, Nelson.
Recommendation
– Summary
That planning permission be granted subject to conditions controlling time limit, working programme, relationship to the Conservation Area Consent application, site operations, materials, hours of construction working, soil stripping, highway matters, submission of a School Travel Plan, lighting, landscaping, location of temporary soil stockpiles, control of noise and dust, protection of breeding birds, protected species, safeguarding watercourses and drainage, sustainable water drainage strategy, demolition, materials, tree protection, archaeology and ground investigation and restriction on permitted development rights.
Applicant’s Proposal
Planning permission is sought for the construction of a replacement primary school, to provide modern purpose designed facilities and reduce overcrowding at the existing Victorian school (Whitefield Primary School) located off Nelson Street. The proposed school would accommodate up to 270 pupils and would include a 33 place nursery. The age range of the children would be 3 to 7 years.
The main elements of the proposal comprise:

A split level building with a maximum height of 12.5m at the roof ridge. The building would incorporate a school hall and 11 classrooms at ground floor

level and ancillary accommodation including offices and staffroom at first floor level (ground floor when accessed from Every Street).

The school would be L shaped in design and the majority of the building would be constructed of a buff brick with natural ashlar stone, glass and polycarbonate glazing to the proposed portico entrance. The upper floor roofs
(offices and staff room) would be constructed of natural slate while the classrooms would be of standing seam zinc.

Outdoor facilities would include foundation and infant playgrounds located adjacent to the Leeds Liverpool Canal and to the rear of the retained terraces on Every Street and Macleod Street.

The site would be subject to cut and fill earthworks to create areas of level ground for the playgrounds and for the classrooms.

Landscaping works, including habitat area, outdoor classroom spaces, three gazebos, parent waiting areas with benches, trim trail and associated equipment and re-grading works.

Two vehicular access/egress points to a 24 space (including 2 disabled spaces) car park, one from Every Street and the other from Albert Street. 5 car parking spaces would be dedicated for the Pendle Business Enterprise including a dedicated disabled space.

Pedestrian access to the classrooms and playgrounds would be taken from Portland and Clayton Street (although there would be provision for emergency vehicular access at these points). Pedestrian access for the nursery would be taken from Appleby
Street (with occasional vehicular access for the plant room).

Six 6m high lighting columns, one 6m high CCTV pole to the car park, access road and pedestrian routes together with wall mounted lighting against the side of the building.

Extinguishment of an unrecorded public footpath across the site running west to east from Portland Street would be required.

The boundary treatment would include retaining existing railing gates to the Every
Street entrance, construction of stone boundary wall incorporating mounted railings to a maximum height of 2.1m to Albert Street, the rear of Every Street and rear of
Macleod Street. Railings to a maximum height of 2.1m to the nursery garden abutting
Appleby Street, Macleod Street and Portland Street. Retaining wall in natural stone with black mesh fencing to a maximum height of 3m to the boundary of the Leeds
Liverpool Canal.

A landscaped area including seating to the entrance of the nursery from Portland
Street would be created.

A bin store and cycle storage.
The demolition of 39 terraced properties and 3 commercial properties including removal of adjacent footways and streets would be required as part of this development. The commercial properties include the old bakery located to the rear of no 15 Appleby Street, the disused
Chapel of Rest on Albert Street and the linked properties no 45 Albert Street and 121 Clayton
Street.
A screening opinion has been undertaken, which concluded that the proposed development does not constitute Environmental Impact Assessment development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
(England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

Description and Location of Site
The application site occupies an area of approximately 0.88ha located approximately 212m to the northwest of Nelson Centre. The site is bounded on the north by the Leeds Liverpool
Canal, Albert Street to the east, Every Street to the south, and Macleod Street on the western boundary.
The application site includes the site of the former Water Board together with a number of residential and commercial properties. The eastern part of the site accommodates a former chapel of rest and a large tract of land formally that was used as a yard for the former Water
Board.
There are 39 terraced properties which, with the exception of two, are presently empty and boarded up. The site slopes down south to north towards the Leeds and Liverpool Canal with the level of the land dropping approximately 6.5m from Every Street to the canal side. The area of land adjacent to the canal is rough scrubland and includes a number of scattered trees.
An unrecorded public footpath runs west to east from Portland Street across the site. The main vehicular access would be from Every Street utilising an existing entrance. A further five vehicular access points would be created: two from Albert Street to serve the proposed car park, one from Appleby Street, one from Portland Street and one from the rear alley way of Portland Street.
The application site falls within the Whitefield Conservation Area and is part of the Housing
Market Renewal Pathfinder Initiative Area. The northern part of the site abuts the canal; this part of the canal is designated as a Site of Local Nature Importance.
There are 3 Grade II
Listed buildings within 250 m of the site.
Background
The site falls within the Whitefield Conservation Area. The proposal involves the demolition of properties and therefore Conservation Area Consent (CAC) is required from Pendle Borough Council. An application for CAC has been submitted to Pendle
Borough Council for the demolition of:








13-25 Portland St
2-24 Portland St
44 & 46 Macleod St
45 & 47 Albert St
121 Clayton St
1-15 Appleby St
2-20 Appleby St
A garage and Former Chapel of Rest to facilitate construction of the proposed school should planning permission be granted. The application will be considered by Pendle Borough Council on the 4 July
2011. A copy of the officer's report will be available when published.

Notwithstanding there are two applications to be determined by different planning authorities, the applications are interdependent on each other and therefore the application for CAC is a material consideration when considering the planning application the subject of this report due to the significance of the heritage asset it affects.
History of the site
Pendle Borough Council has previously sought a Compulsory Purchase Order
(CPO) for the demolition of properties to facilitate the regeneration of the site and surrounding area. A public inquiry was held to examine the CPO and in September
2003 the Secretary of State ordered that the CPO should not be confirmed. The
Secretary of State recommended that a more holistic conservation led approach should be considered.
An application for CAC to demolish buildings to facilitate the future development of the site the subject of this application was granted by Pendle Borough Council on
30 th January 2006 (ref 13/05/0851P) following referral to the Secretary of State.
Planning permission for the demolition of 23 houses, the construction of 72 new dwellings and renovation of 139 houses on land including the current application site and extending to include land extending to Stanley Street and to just short of
Manchester Road was granted in August 2007, by Pendle Borough Council although the permission has now lapsed (Ref 13/07/0289P).
An application for CAC for the demolition of the 23 houses to facilitate the wider development of the area was approved on 20th August 2007 by Pendle Borough
Council (13/07/0290P).
Planning Policy
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development
Planning Policy Supplement: Planning and Climate Change
Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control
Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk
Regional Spatial Strategy
Policy DP2 Promote Sustainable Communities
Policy DP6 Marry Opportunity and Need
Policy DP7 Promote Environmental Quality
Policy EM1 Integrated Enhancement and Protection of the Regions Environmental Assets
Policy L1 Health Sport Recreation Cultural and Education Services Provision
Replacement Pendle Local Plan (RPLP)
Policy 1 Development in the Open Countryside

Policy 6
Policy 7
Policy 8
Flood Risk
Water Resource Protection
Contaminated Land
Policy 9 Buildings of Architectural or Historic Interest
Policy 10 Areas of Special Architectural or Historic Interest
Policy 11 Archaeology
Policy 13 Quality and Design of New Development
Policy 14 Trees Woodland and Hedgerows
Policy 16 Landscaping in New Development
Policy 25 Location of Service and Retail Development
Policy 29 Creating an Improved Transport Network
Policy 30 Sustainable Travel Modes
Policy 31 Parking
Policy 32 New Community Facilities
Pendle Conservation Areas Design and Development SPD
Whitefield Conservation Area Character Appraisal
Consultations
Pendle Borough Council - Fully supports the proposed development. The proposed design integrates the new structure into the townscape of Whitefield and would preserve the character of the conservation area. There is considerable justification for the school to be located on the site and its presence would have significant regeneration benefits for Whitefield which suffers from high levels of deprivation.
Pendle Borough Council - Environmental Health
–Has identified significant potential for adverse impacts and the need for environmental controls in terms of conditions relating to a method statement for contaminated land, and remediation works.
Public Realm Area Manager (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions controlling the following:

Details of the visibility splay to Albert Road and Every Street.

Details of all the highway works required for construction traffic.

The building not to be opened until all the highway works have been completed.

A travel plan to be submitted.

Wheel wash facilities to be available during the demolition and construction phases.
Public Realm Area Manager (Lighting) - The current submission should not be considered suitable as the car park is over lit, clarification of the height of the lighting columns is needed, a management plan relating to the night operations may be required, and there are no figures to assess the light spill on to adjacent properties.
LCC Specialist Advisory Services (Ecology)
– Was initially of the view that insufficient information had been submitted to establish the potential impacts on roosting bats. However further survey work has been carried out and the emergence

survey found generally low levels of bat activity, and no evidence of bats emerging from the buildings. Individual bats have used the site for shelter on an opportunistic and occasional basis only, but there is no evidence of a significant bat roost at this site. The proposals will not therefore result in significant disturbance to bats or bat roosts.
The implementation of a precautionary approach to demolition (as recommended in paragraphs 6.6
– 6.10 of the Bowland Ecology report, document ref 'Whitefield
Nelson Ecology Report 2011_9_6_11.pdf') should be sufficient to ensure that bats are not killed or injured during site clearance works. Therefore no objection is raised and conditions providing for the following should be imposed:

Mitigation measures for impacts upon bats, further details of bat roosting opportunities to be incorporated in the new development.

The implementation of precautionary approach to demolition as recommended in paragraph 6.6 -6.10 of the Bowland Ecology Report.

Protection of nesting birds.

Landscaping scheme to include replacement bird breeding habitat, breeding bird boxes and other enhancement for wildlife as recommended in paragraph
6.12-6.16 of the Habitat Survey.

Scheme for the protection of the canal during and after construction.

Protection of trees during and after construction.
LCC Specialist Advisory Services (LCAS) - Archaeology – The buildings proposed for demolition lie within the Whitefield Conservation Area, a designated heritage asset, and are considered to make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area.
A level 1 Survey was carried out in 2010 and 2011by Stephen Bond which determined that the buildings proposed for demolition were of some local significance. A number of buildings were in a condition which prevented a complete assessment being made but which could be undertaken as part of further conditioned recording work should Conservation Area Consent and planning permission be granted.
The loss of part of the building stock will have an undoubted negative effect on the
Conservation Area and is regretted and should only be seen as a last resort. LCAS sees no reason to disagree on archaeological grounds with the position that English
Heritage has come to that in this instance there are sufficient public benefits to outweigh the harm to the Whitefield Conservation Area that the development would cause.
The Council for British Archaeology has in their comments on the proposals suggested that a Level 2 or 3 record would be an appropriate level of recording. It is however LCAS opinion that in view of the work already undertaken by English
Heritage in By Industry and Integrity: Nelson a late 19th-century Industrial Town
(Nicola Wray 2001), combined with the existence of many of the original planning applications and Stephen Bond's recent work, that further recording to Level 2 or 3 would merely be a duplication of much of this work, and would not prove to add much to our knowledge of the area.

LCAS is however of the opinion that a comprehensive photographic record be made of the exteriors of the buildings, along with the recording of those element of the structures identified in Stephen Bond's reports as inaccessible, and would recommend that such work should be secured by means of a condition, as required in PPS5, Policy HE12.3.
United Utilities
– No objection subject to conditions relating to drainage
Environment Agency - No objection in principle but further investigations are required as the site has been significantly raised in certain areas, and much of the fill is probably derived from waste sources; no water quality or chemical analysis information has been submitted. As there is the potential movement of fill materials around the site there is a need for a more quantitative assessment to ensure the protection of human health given the proposed end use. Conditions should be imposed to require the following to be carried out and submitted for approval:

A desk top study to identify all previous site uses and potential contaminants.

A site investigation using the information from the desk top study.

A risk assessment.

A method statement.

A remediation strategy.
Sport England - No objection as the scheme would not result in the loss of existing sports facilities. The scheme should be amended to include a sports pitch in the light of the Pendle Open Space Audit (2008) and include formal marked games courts in line with BB99 (Building Bulletin 99 sets out guidelines for primary schools intended to address pupil's needs).
English Heritage - Accepts that the public benefits arising from the proposed new school outweigh the harm and loss to designated heritage assets the policy test at
PPS5 HE9.2 (i) have been met. Subject to consideration of the points below the design of the new school will preserve the character and appearance of the
Whitefield Conservation Area satisfying the policy requirements of PPS5 and S72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).

The materials for the hard surfacing to be carefully considered

Use of cobbles on vehicle routes

Are three sets of gates needed on Every Street needed?

Design of boundary railings

Need for CCTV columns

Emphasise route from Clayton to Portland Streets

Use of quoins on Portland Street

Final choice of brick on the school.

Style of Every Street Portico is acceptable but the over engineered highway design adjacent needs to be revisited.
British Waterways - No objection subject to conditions controlling boundary treatment
(height, specification, materials, colour, planting), and details of appropriate mitigation measures to prevent pollution.

A contribution towards towpath improvements between the two bridges either side of the development is requested. The new school would result in a higher footfall on the towpath and although the surface has recently been improved, it has started to degrade. The towpath is Sustrans National Cycle Network Route 68. As the transport statements points out the traffic free footbridge ensures that route 68 is practical for accessing the school by sustainable modes of transport.
Lighting to the canal should be avoided to prevent harmful impact upon foraging bats. Due to the proximity of the canal to the development an informative should be placed upon any Decision Notice to advise the applicant to contact the Engineer
Team to ensure any necessary consent is obtained.
Council for British Archaeology
– Regret the loss of terraced properties, as the terraces have historic interest and townscape value. Although boarded up for c10 years, they are of robust construction. The public benefit argument is weakened by the availability of other sites in the immediate area involving less demolition. The design of the external aspects of the scheme should be reduced to retain more buildings, in particular Macleod Street. If the application is to be approved, an appropriate level of recording of the buildings in context should be undertaken. Level
2 or 3 is more appropriate than Level 1 suggested by the Planning Statement. A condition should be imposed upon the Conservation Area Consent application so that no demolition should take place until a contract is signed for the funding and construction of the school.
Nelson Town Council - No observations received
Representations
– The application has been advertised by press and site notice.
Neighbouring properties have been notified by individual letter. Two letters of representation have been received from the same local resident objecting to the proposal for the following summarised reasons:

Object to the siting of the new school but not to the school itself.

The new school does not justify the demolition of the houses and the resulting development would be detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area.

There are alternative sites that do not require the demolition of houses in the
Conservation Area.

The new street layout and mining of the setts and York flags go against the
Public Realm for and within conservation area standards.

The new street layout is out of line with Conservation Area standards due to the harsh man made materials and differing road and pavement levels.

Loss of a public footpath which runs through the site from Portland through to
Clayton Street.

Some parts of the school design are out of keeping with the character of the
Conservation Area.

Concern that Pendle Council has allowed the properties to stand derelict and deteriorate, that the buildings are structurally sound and could have been renovated in a Conservation led approach similar to the ones that they are refurbishing at present.


The historic value of the Conservation Area is that the area is still virtually complete almost everything is extant and original. Demolition would undermine the integrity of the whole area.

The plans to alter Every Street at the proposed entrance are out of character with the Conservation Area and the proposed entrance to the school looks harsh.

The proposal is contrary to PPS5 Historic Environment.

The proposal is contrary to Policy 10 of RPLP.

The County Council has failed to make a proper case against the alternative sites. The importance of Whitefield Conservation Area as a Heritage
Asset has to be balanced against any inconveniences of an alternative proposal.

No Environmental Impact Screening Opinion has been carried out.

There is an inconsistent approach to the boundary wall treatment to the site

The proposed palette of materials would be alien to the Ward.
Advice
Director of Environment and Public Protection Services – Observations
Planning permission is sought for the construction of a replacement single site primary school on land between Every Street and the Leeds Liverpool Canal.
The present Whitefield Infant and Nursery School are located off Norfolk Street and was constructed in 1908. They are located on two sites; the nursery is located across the road from the main school site. The school has capacity for 180 infant pupils with a further 33 full time equivalent nursery places. The high birth rate in Nelson has increased pressure for places within the area and at this school. Whitefield Infant School is currently oversubscribed and temporary demountable units have been erected to meet this demand. In September 2011 the infant numbers are likely to increase to 256 pupils.
The main issues to be considered are:
•
The principle of the development and compliance with development plan. Policies, in particular the potential impact on the Whitefield Conservation Area and the loss of the designated heritage asset.
•
Site Selection.
•
Design and visual impact.
• The implications of the development on the road network in terms of traffic and safety.
• Impacts on the amenities of neighbouring and nearby residential properties.
• Ecology.
• Flood risk

Ground contamination

Archaeology
These issues are addressed as follows:
The principle of the development

The proposed development is for the re-contouring of land followed by the construction of a new replacement primary school building and nursery, ancillary office accommodation, and outdoor playing areas including the creation of a habitat area, gazebo, storage shed, internal access roads, car park spaces, associated fencing, and a separate access from Albert Street. To facilitate the development 39 terraced houses which are mainly empty run down terraced properties around Portland and Appleby Streets, a red brick former bakery, a flat roofed chapel of rest and a two storey stone building linked by a single storey stone building off Albert Street would have to be demolished . The proposed school and associated development would be located within the urban boundary as defined by the RPLP and within the Whitefield Conservation Area.
The application must be assessed and tested against the relevant national, regional and local policies for development within the urban area and open countryside.
Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise.
The relevant policies for demolition within a conservation area are Planning Policy Statement
5, (PPS5), Policy DP2 and Policy EM1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and Policy 10 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan (RPLP). These policies reflect the principles set out in the Government guidance Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) – Planning for the Historic
Environment which states there should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets. Loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. The Government's overarching aim is for the historic environment and its heritage to be conserved and enjoyed for future generations. The
Whitefield Conservation Area is a designated heritage asset. However PPS5 states that there may be instances where there is a clear and convincing justification for the loss of a designated heritage asset. PPS5 states that where an application will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance local planning authorities should refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that:
(i) The substantial harm to or loss of significance is necessary in order to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss; or
(ii) (a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and
(b) No viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term that will enable its conservation; and
(c) Conservation through grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is not possible; and d) The harm to or loss of the heritage asset is outweighed by the benefits of bringing the site back into use.’ (PPS5 (HE9.2))
The characteristics of the Whitefield Conservation Area include the survival of original buildings from the mid to late19 Century origins, the consistent terraces of stone housing built to a grid pattern, stone flagged pavements, and the short development period. The houses in Whitefield are deemed to be of heritage and townscape value.
In terms of the application site, most of the properties proposed to be demolished are identified as Buildings of Townscape Merit.

The applicant has submitted a Heritage and Historic Environment Statement to support the application. This assesses the impact of the proposed demolition of the properties within the Whitefield Conservation Area in terms of PPS5. The heritage statement concludes that the terraced houses that would be demolished as part of the application do make a positive contribution to the local townscape as a whole but not individually. However, PPS 5 does allow for the loss of a designated heritage asset where it is necessary in order to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss. To make this judgement other material issues must be fully considered.
Site Selection
The planning application and the application for CAC fall to be determined by the
County Council and Pendle Borough Council respectively. The application for CAC is reliant on the justification for the school in accordance with the policy considerations set out in PPS5.
In February 2004 the Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF) announced the Building Schools for the Future P rogramme ('BSF’). The aim of that programme was to rebuild or renew every secondary school in England within fifteen years. In March 2005 the Government however announced in the Budget report that the BSF programme would be extended to primary schools in the form of the Primary
Capital Programme (`The PCP’).
The PCP is a national initiative aimed at improving primary school buildings and facilities throughout the country. All authorities were invited to submit their Strategy for Change to the DCSF which would set out how they proposed to manage the programme. Following extensive consultation throughout Lancashire, the County
Council’s Cabinet Committee for Schools recommended a Strategy for Change that was subsequently approved by the Cabinet Member for Schools, submitted to the
DCSF and formally approved in April 2009.
As part of this national initiative to improve primary school buildings and facilities the
County Council identified Nelson as a priority area. The growth in pupil numbers is being driven primarily by a rise in the birth rate so the demand for places will initially impact on the reception year groups and then move on through the other age groups. Therefore the initial demand will be for reception/infant places rather than across all age groups.
In July 2009 the cabinet member for Children and Young People made the decision to permanently expand the capacity of Whitefield Primary School by 90 additional places i.e. 30 extra places in each year group with effect from September 2010 and to permanently increase the capacity of Lomeshaye Junior School by 120 extra places. The applicant has advised that the expansion of Whitefield Infant and
Nursery School is currently being accommodated by the provision of temporary classrooms. Furthermore the need for school places in the area will not be satisfied by the expansion of Whitefield and Lomeshaye schools. The Authority predicts that a further 50 places (350 in total when they have moved through the school/s) will be required from September 2012 and is currently looking at options elsewhere in the

area.
The current challenges that face the school mean that the school is operating at capacity level. The space allocated for teaching and playing facilities is below recommended standards. The main school building is on a restricted and sloping site which is shared with Lomeshaye Junior School. This has required the school to use temporary accommodation which in turn reduces available outdoor space. This is preventing the school from making full use of outdoor areas to enhance curriculum areas as effectively as in the past. (Outdoor education is a requirement of the
Foundation Stage curriculum). The move to full three form entry will reduce outdoor provision further. The local Sports Centre now has to be used for some PE.
The Department for Education (DFE) provides guidelines for the development of primary schools, known as Building Bulletin 98 (BB98), which were formulated in
2002. The applicant has advised that in comparison to these guidelines, the existing school accommodation at Whitefield Infant & Nursery School is dramatically insufficient for the current pupils.

The area of the school hall is 80m 2 (which is below the minimum safe area to provide Physical Education and should be nearly double - at least
154m 2 )

The Basic teaching areas measure a total of 405m the minimum recommendation of 447.5m
2 )
2 (which is 42m 2 below

100m 2 of the basic teaching area is currently provided in temporary classrooms

Overall floor area of the school building is 882m 2 (which is around 68% of the recommended 1,298.5m
2 ) for the current numbers on roll

School meals are cooked off site and delivered to school, to be served and eaten in the inadequately sized hall/dining area which cannot accommodate the whole school in one sitting.
In response to the projected pupil numbers in Nelson generated by a combination of a rise in the birth rate and planned regeneration of the area are such that there would be insufficient places in existing primary schools in Nelson. Therefore an analysis of existing primary school provision and an extensive site selection process was undertaken by the applicant prior to the submission of this application.
The applicant has advised that the analysis identified that whilst the majority of schools in the local area currently have insufficient space for the number of pupils on roll, four schools do have sufficient space, three of which, are large enough to accommodate a new or expanded school.
Of these Castercliffe Community Primary currently has the ability to expand a further
15 places per year group but would not provide sufficient additional capacity.
Additionally, the analysis concluded that this school, which is located 1.6 miles from the proposed site, would be too far away from the area of immediate need in
Whitefield.
St .John's Southworth RC Primary is closer to the area of need being 0.4 miles away

but it is located on the opposite side of Manchester Road which is one of the main vehicular routes into Nelson. This site has access issues because of the small area and narrow shape of the site, which would make the site difficult to accommodate development of the scale required to meet current pupil numbers.
Townhouse Road (Special Educational Needs & Nursery School) Campus is of sufficient size to accommodate a new or expanded school. However, it was similarly considered to be too far away from the Whitefield area being 1.9 miles away from the area of need and would necessitate the formation of a new school to cater for pupils who fall outside the specific needs and age group.
Further sites were considered and discounted as follows:
The former Water Board land (forming part of the current application) was considered to be too small in its independence to accommodate a new school and associated play areas
The existing school site is scheduled for providing additional capacity for children at junior level.
The Presbytery site is substantially under sized to meet the needs of a new school and would require some demolition of properties.
Trodger's Field has an irregular elongated shape and is bounded by the canal and
M65 motorway which passes the site at ground level.
The refurbishment and extension of the existing school on a larger site would necessitate the acquisition of additional land and buildings.
Whitefield Mill is occupied by multiple businesses the loss of which would have an adverse affect on the local economy and forms a significant part of the built fabric in
Whitefield and a considerable part of the heritage of the area.
Land off Bracewell Street has been sold for development as a care home and is located on the opposite side of Manchester Road 0.8 miles away.
Quarry Hill –This site is a landfill area and is currently designated as a nature reserve
0.8 miles away and would be located on the opposite side of Manchester Road.
Former Mansfield High School -Currently being considered as a site for provision of further primary school places in the Brierfield area and is 1.3 miles away from the area of need.
Former Edge End High School This land is currently being returned to sports playing fields and will be transferred to Pendle Borough Council on completion as part of the land swap agreement for the Marsden Heights BSF project. It is unlikely that permission could be obtained to develop this site as Sport England would object to the loss of playing fields.
Land off Halifax Road This site is 1.1 miles away on the opposite side of

Manchester Road from the area of need. It is currently being considered as a site for provision of further primary school places in that area. There are issues regarding vehicular/pedestrian access to the site and its historical use as "access land".
Pendle View Primary School/Fisher More RC High School campus – This site is 1.7 miles away on the other side of Nelson town centre. Because of the cancellation of the BSF programme this site is still occupied by Pendle View Primary school so is not currently available.
The applicant has advised that all of these sites were found to be unsuitable through a combination of their location, size, shape and topography. The main reason that they were discounted at an earlier stage is their distance from the area of need and their location on the opposite side of Manchester Road/Colne Road beyond the applicant's requirements to provide a new school in the Whitefield area.
In expanding Whitefield Infant School consideration must be given to parents who are likely to have children at both the infant school and Lomeshaye Junior School, as these parents would need to drop off and collect their children within a short space of time. A need for further places outside the Whitefield area has already been identified; if the places required for the Whitefield area were to be provided outside the Whitefield locality then those places are likely to be filled by children living outside the Whitefield area.
A site at Carr Road, less than 400 metres from the existing Whitefield site was also considered. However it is further away from the main centre of population and demand within Whitefield. In addition, it is in the floodplain and adjacent to the M65 with associated noise and pollution.
A site known as the James Nelson Sports Ground was also considered. However this is in the ownership of a private developer and is the subject of a planning application for housing.
The applicant's site selection process has demonstrated that whilst other sites may be available there are a number of factors that would prejudice the development of them. The application for Conservation Area Consent (currently being determined by
Pendle Borough Council) to demolish the properties has received a letter of objection from the organisation known as SAVE. This objection makes reference to other sites that could be used instead of the proposed site. In particular SAVE argue that Carr
Road is identified as a site that is said to have flooding issues but that this has not been supported by any written advice from the Environment Agency. They state that the 'advice we (SAVE) have obtained has confirmed that the site is low risk and that straightforward measures can be undertaken to secure any new buildings on the site.'
The majority of the site falls within Flood Zone 1 and Flood Zone 2 with a strip of land adjacent to the road within Flood Zone 3. A school is classed as a 'more vulnerable development 'as defined in PPS 25 although as stated in PPS 25 development of this nature could be appropriate in Zone 2. However the EA has provided more specific advice to the applicant that states based upon the local topography of the area it is possible that the site would be defined as Flood Zone 3 b and schools should not be

permitted in Flood Zone 3 b. Further to these comments the applicant undertook a
Flood Risk Assessment and a report was produced in January 2010. This confirmed that the site is partially within Zone 1 and 2 and in terms of PPS 25 is considered to be within Zone 2 where more vulnerable uses are appropriate subject to mitigation measures and safe access and egress to the site during flood events. Major concerns about the access and egress to the site in a flood situation dissuaded the applicant from pursuing this option. Furthermore the aims of Planning Policy on flood risk are to direct new development away from areas at risk from flooding. There could be unacceptable flood risk associated with access from Carr Road and it therefore considered acceptable to reject this option.
In terms of the Trodgers Field site SAVE discount the argument that it this site is less convenient as they argue that it would be less than 5 minutes away from the proposed site. The applicant has provided further information that advises 'This site appears to be large enough but it has an irregular elongated shape and is bounded by the canal and M65 motorway (which passes the site at ground level). The motorway presents a significant challenge and would require extensive screening in order to mitigate the impact it has upon the site. The required screening and the elongated shape of the site effectively reduce the overall area available for development. It must also be remembered that a proportion of the foundation stage curriculum is based on access to outdoor play areas; the noise generated by the motorway could have a significant impact on the effectiveness of this external learning environment. The site is currently used for recreation and has a MUGA and play area. Given the lack of this type of amenity in the Whitefield area it is likely that there would be a requirement to replicate the facility elsewhere in the locality. An access road to some allotment gardens runs through the site and this would need to be retained as it is the only vehicular access available. Of all the sites scored on the option appraisal table this is the furthest from Lomeshaye Junior School. Although a detailed transport assessment has not been carried out on this site, our traffic consultant advised that the access bridge has visibility issues and the site is less favourable in sustainable transport terms being located somewhat further from the provisions of the town centre.'
It is accepted that whilst this site is large enough and less than 5 minutes walk away from the proposed site it would be unreasonable to build a nursery and primary school as the motorway passes the site at ground level with associated problems of noise and air pollution. There would also be additional issues associated with the distance between the Infant and Junior schools for parents of children at both schools.
Due to the growth in the projected demand for school places within Nelson redeveloping the nursery and existing site were discounted as the existing Whitefield
Infant School Site would be used to expand Lomeshaye Junior School as the demand in school places works through the school years.
It is accepted that the applicant has considered alternative options before coming to the conclusion that the proposed site, although requiring substantial demolition is the most appropriate option due to its ability to serve the needs of the local area and be a catalyst for regeneration opportunities in a socially deprived area.

The analysis concluded that the proposed site is the most suitable and viable location for the new school. Whilst it is acknowledged that there would be loss to the heritage asset, public benefits arising from the proposed new school would outweigh the harm caused by the loss of part of the designated heritage asset as a result of the demolition of properties. English Heritage share this view and has advised that 'it is pleased to offer its full support to the provision of a new school in
Whitefield and issue that the local community will see it as a valued and cherished introduction into the Whitefield Conservation Area.'
The applicant did consider utilising only the land occupied by the former Water Board avoiding the need to demolish surrounding housing stock. However, initial studies showed that, in this case, the footprint of the building would have to extend across the full width of the site and involve the diversion of major sewers. Additionally, the area of the former Water Board is approximately 5200m 2 which was considered insufficient to accommodate the proposed school building and the 8190m 2 of outdoor space required by the school.
It was also suggested that in order to save the existing housing stock from demolition that the school should be built over a number of storeys. This was discounted by the applicant as it is considered inappropriate by OFSTed to build primary school classrooms of more than one storey high due to access issues. The applicant has advised that 'Although the proposed site is by no means perfect and slopes considerably toward the canal, it does have the best potential in allowing the
County Council to provide the full range curriculum and extended offer, in line with the Directorate for Children and Young People’s `Model School Framework’, the
`PCP’ and `Strategy For Change’. The framework requires that each classroom at
Foundation and Infant stages should offer access directly to the outside for curriculum and play. The County Council contends that in order to provide this and to minimise changes in level internally (and to ensure that the building complies with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010), the school should be built across the site and principally consist of a single storey structure, with all classrooms located at ground level.'
The applicant is of the view that this is the preferred site because critically it lies at the centre of a defined and settled population within the heart of the Whitefield community. Furthermore, the long term sustainability and conservation of
Whitefield's physical heritage depends on maintaining a thriving community in the area. The school has the potential to meet the need for a community hub through its use by the wider community out of school hours.
It is acknowledged that the earlier CPO in 2002 was not successful and that the
Inspector identified that the area had heritage value and that through the retention and regeneration of the housing stock this would contribute to the regeneratation of the area. Pendle Borough has undertaken a programme of restoration of terraced properties and commercial buildings in the area by utilising a number of funding sources such as the Housing Market Renewal Programme and a Townscape
Heritage Initiative.
Renovation within the area has included terraces on Every
Street and Stanley Street and taken forward properties on Albert Street and Mosley
Street.

Pendle Borough Council has advised that to consider the retention and refurbishment of Portland Street, Macleod and Appleby Street a funding investment of over £4 million would be required. Since 31 March 2011 further funds for housing market renewal have not been made available; this, in conjunction with the falling market value of property would impact on the final projected income that might be generated as a result of the refurbishment of these properties. In the current economic climate such a scheme is unlikely to be brought forward in the foreseeable future .
Whitefield is characterised by high levels of deprivation and faces a number of challenges. Low education attainment rates are considered to be one of the key issues that result in Whitefield being one of the most deprived areas in the Country.
The proposed new school would provide purpose built accommodation, seek to address the overcrowding that is currently experienced in the existing school and thereby provide an opportunity to address the poor rates of educational attainment that characterise the Whitefield area. The construction of the school in this location is designed to act as a catalyst for the regeneration of the Conservation Area.
It is clear that a new school is required in the area. The applicant has considered a number of alternative sites for the location of the school but, this site apart, they have all been discounted for a variety of reasons. The use of the current site would result in the loss of designated heritage and there is a presumption in favour of keeping such assets. Consent should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the loss is necessary in order to deliver public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss.
It is considered that the demolition of properties is necessary to facilitate the construction of a new school and associated facilities. On balance, it is considered that the substantial benefits that would be brought about by the development in terms of providing a new state of the art school and nursery and which could act as a catalyst for the regeneration of a socially deprived area would outweigh the harm caused by the loss of part of the designated heritage asset.
English Heritage accepts that the public benefits arising from the proposed new school outweigh the harm and loss to designated heritage assets and therefore the policy test at PPS5 HE9.2 (i) have been met.
Further, the Borough Council are of the view that there is considerable justification for the school to be located on the site and its presence would have significant regeneration benefits for Whitefield which suffers from high levels of deprivation.
In this respect the proposal is considered to comply with the national guidance and most of the policies of the development plan.
Design and Impact upon the Conservation Area
In considering this application special attention must be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area as required by section 72 Planning (Listed Buildings &
Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Policy 10 of the RPLP seeks to conserve areas of

identified historic and architectural interest. As the development would require a significant level of demolition it is accepted that the proposal is contrary to this policy. However as there is considerable justification for the school in this location it is considered that this element of the scheme is acceptable. However the design and impact of the new building and associated facilities still needs to be assessed.
The Pendle Conservation Area Design and Development SPD seeks to ensure that new development respects local character and distinctiveness; respects established building lines and demonstrates a relationship to existing groups of buildings. The design and layout of the school has been influenced by the need to respect the street lines and important axes, the 6m difference in the slope of the land, the local sewer network and the need to provide sufficient teaching space at one level.
The applicant has designed a building that reflects the important characteristics of the Conservation Area. Whilst the school would sit within the Conservation Area as a larger, individual building, through the split level L shaped design it would follow the street pattern and building lines associated with Whitefield. In order that the new building would not dominate the existing buildings, the scale of the school is that of a cascading 2 storey structure leading down from Every Street to a single storey classroom section on the lower portion of the site. The view down Portland Street is on a major axes looking in to and through the site. The Hall has been designed and placed at the intersection of this axis and that from Clayton Street, thereby providing a local landmark, as a focus at the end of Portland and Clayton Street.
The school would be constructed primarily of a buff brick. The roof to the main two storey element would be recycled natural slate, with a zinc standing seam roof to the actual classrooms on the lower level. It is considered that brick and a standing seam material for the roof are materials that would not usually be acceptable within a Conservation Area contrary to the intentions of Policy 13 in the PRLP. However,
English Heritage has advised that whilst the urban fabric of Whitefield is characterised by the almost consistent use of natural stone and welsh slate, they do support the introduction of brick for the construction of the school on the basis that any selected palette is strictly limited and consistently used for new infill developments. This, they argue would ensure that the overall unity of the area is maintained. However, whilst English Heritages desire for a consistent use of materials is understandable and perhaps desirable, the use of such in other development cannot be controlled as part of this application. Materials for developments on other surrounding sites would be controlled through their application process although it is accepted that the materials proposed to be used as part of this development may determine the materials to be used in future developments elsewhere in the area.
It is considered that subject to a condition controlling the materials including the colour of the mortar to be used that the materials are acceptable. The applicant has also advised that the scheme would incorporate the reuse of the materials from the demolished properties, where practicable. A condition to require such is proposed.
The design of the school entrance on Every Street is one of the most important parts of the proposed development and possibly one of the most contentious as this would be the focal point for the school entrance. It could not be viewed in isolation

due to its juxtaposition with the art deco designed electricity substation and the recently refurbished Enterprise Centre. The applicant has designed a simple box like shaped portico measuring 11m in width with a total height of 6.4m
using ashlar stone which would be enclosed with glass on the south and western elevations.
The use of a simple palette of materials and in particular the natural stone on this important frontage is considered acceptable. The design of the portico is clean and uncluttered yet provides a sense of gravitas to this main entrance of the school site, and within the street scene. The applicant has retained the existing wrought iron gates to the vehicular access within the design.
It could be argued that the scale and design of this entrance is excessive for a small primary school. However, there would be specific entrances for the classrooms and nursery from Clayton Street and Portland Street, which would be more in keeping in terms of scale associated with a primary school. The proposed portico has, and would be likely to generate differing subjective opinion on its architectural merits.
However, it would be a striking feature in the street scene and would contribute to architectural merits of the scheme. It is considered acceptable in planning terms and is supported by English Heritage.
The main playground takes advantage of the open vista of the canal; the scheme incorporates a habitat area, trim trail equipment and three gazebos. A CCTV camera was initially proposed on this canal frontage. However, to prevent visual encroachment on this boundary, the plans have been revised to omit one of the gazebos and reposition one against the gable wall of no 11 Portland Street. This would provide a more usable space in terms of formal marked out games appropriate to the infant age range and addresses the comments made by Sport
England. The CCTV camera has also been removed from the canal area and would now be wall mounted. These elements are considered more acceptable in terms of visual amenity.
A lighting scheme has been submitted as part of the application but the Public
Realm Manager (Lighting Engineers) has advised that clarification is required in terms of the height of the lighting columns, and that the car park is over lit. A condition controlling details of the lighting scheme to be submitted is proposed.
A landscaped garden area would be created to the frontage of the nursery off Macleod Street, the design of which is considered acceptable. However a condition controlling the details of planting is proposed.
English Heritage has raised a number of design issues and which are addressed as follows:
In terms of the hard surfacing within the school grounds English Heritage has requested the use of buff gravel dressing which they consider would be more natural and harmonious than the proposed Bituchem 'Natratex'. The applicant has advised that surface dressings of a few millimetres are likely to wear off in time and the use of a 25mm wearing course would be more robust and should not need any maintenance. The use of a harder wearing course is considered acceptable.
The suggested use of cobbles on the vehicular routes instead of within the car park spaces by English Heritage is not supported due to healthy and safety issues

although cobbles are proposed for the car parking bays. The use of the surface materials as proposed is considered acceptable.
In terms of access points, the applicant has advised that there are three sets of gates close to the junction with Every Street because consultation with the School and the Enterprise Haven has identified that each party needs to be able to secure their property at different times of day, evening and weekend therefore it would be impossible to coordinate locking one set of gates. It might be argued that the existing gates close to Every Street could be removed but as they also provide protection to the side of the school and Enterprise Haven buildings and, as they are existing it would seem counter-productive to remove them. It is considered that as the site has a shared access and that there is a need to secure the school site out of hours that the three proposed gates are acceptable.
With reference to the three types of boundary fencing, the perimeter of the site would be secured through black railings; English Heritage accept that black mesh is acceptable to the canal side. English Heritage’s request for a 1.8m reclaimed stone wall be provided to Albert Street and to the rear of the houses to Macleod Street and no's 140- 150 Every Street has been met. In order to ensure the required level of security it would be topped by railings to a maximum height of 2.1 metres. It is considered that this boundary treatment is acceptable and complies with Policy 13 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan.
In terms of further emphasis of Clayton Street through to Portland Street by the use of more consistent stone paving, the applicant has advised that delineation of the axes of Portland Street and Clayton Street is marked within the playground by a contrasting band of hard surfacing material, but must be at the same level to provide for safe use for games. It is considered that this is acceptable.
In terms of the demolition of half of Portland Street the gable walls would need to be carefully dismantled and material reused to construct a new outer leaf to the gable end of the remaining houses on Portland Street. This would include the reuse of quoins. A condition is proposed requiring the submission of a scheme and programme to ensure a satisfactory treatment to the gable end is achieved.
The applicant has advised that reclaimed Welsh slate, dark grey zinc and a buff brick are proposed to be used and which reflect the recommendations of English Heritage.
A condition is proposed controlling the materials and requiring samples to be submitted and agreed.
As stated earlier English Heritage support the design of the portico but has reservations relating to the street scene and an over engineered design to the highway in front of the portico but which does not form part of this application.
In conclusion, whilst the proposed materials may be considered to be contrary to the purposes of Policy 13 of the PRLP, they are considered to be an acceptable contrast within the budget constraints of the project and to which English Heritage has raised no objection subject to the reuse of reclaimed materials from the demolition of the properties where possible and the specification of materials, all of which can be addressed by condition.

A condition is proposed requiring the details of external elements of the proposal including the gazebos, bin store and cycle shelter. Given the development all falls within the conservation area, a condition is proposed removing the permitted development rights to ensure a high quality of design of any future extensions or ancillary development.
It is considered that the new school would make a positive contribution to the
Conservation Area. The design of the build has respected the change in levels across the site through a split level design, the height and massing of the building has been carefully considered and the roof design of the classrooms at the lower level has been influenced by the distinctive outline of the old weaving sheds that would have characterised the area adjacent to the canal. The design of the building and external areas can therefore be supported.
Traffic and Safety
A transport assessment has been submitted in support of the application which concludes that the vehicular impact of the proposal on the surrounding network is likely to be limited. Although pupil numbers would increase from the current number of 222 to a total of 315, the retention of good practice and the updating of the school travel plan would ensure that the increased numbers of pupils can be safely accommodated in a sustainable way. A number of access points for vehicles and pedestrians are proposed. Access to the nursery would be from Macleod Street, with two further pedestrian accesses to the infant school from Clayton Street and Portland Street.
Vehicular access by the staff would be from Every Street and Albert Street. A total of 24 car park spaces would be provided, with 5 spaces for the
Enterprise Business Centre. Provision has been made for a mini bus, secure covered cycle storage and motor cycle parking. The proposal accords with the car parking standards as set out in the LCC Car Parking Standards.
The existing school has had a Travel Plan in place since 2006 which sets out a number of ongoing targets. The travel plan encourages walking to school and since 2006 there has been a reduction of 27 % of children travelling to school by car so that in 2010 only 10% came by car. Nevertheless, should permission be granted a condition is proposed to ensure that the
Travel Plan would be reviewed within 12 months of the opening of the new school.
A number of sections of adopted and un-adopted highways that currently traverse the site would require stopping up. An application to stop up the highways would need to be made to the Secretary of State under Section 247 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990. An unrecorded public footpath also traverses the site adjacent to Portland Street through to Clayton Street. This too could be included within the same application to the Secretary of State.
The County Council's Manager of Public Realm has not objected to the proposal but has recommended conditions be imposed in respect of visibility splays, highway works to facilitate construction traffic, all highway works to be completed before the

school is opened, submission of a travel plan, and wheel wash facilities. These are the subject of proposed conditions set out in the recommendation.
British Waterways has requested that a financial contribution be made towards towpath improvements between the two bridges either side of the development. The towpath is part of
SUSTRANS National Cycle Network route 68; the transport statement accompanying the application makes reference to the use of the bridge as a means of accessing the school by sustainable modes of transport. However, the applicant has advised that less than 15% of the current school intake live on the opposite side of the canal of the proposed school site. It is considered that the prospective use of the towpath would not be of a scale that should necessitate the diversion of funds from the school building project to fund improvements to the tow path.
Impact upon residential amenity
The site is located in a predominately residential area, with housing on three sides of the site.
It is acknowledged that there would be some impact upon residential amenity with the introduction of a new infant school in a predominately residential area. However, part of the site could be used for commercial/industrial purposes due to the use by the former Water
Board and which could have a greater impact in terms of noise, vehicle movements, hours of operation etc upon residential amenity than a school.
Nevertheless, the applicant has sought to design the building and school facilities in a way that respects the characteristics of the Conservation Area, and minimises the impact that it would have on residential amenity. Lighting is proposed although further details are required.
A condition is proposed to require the submission of further details to ensure any lighting would only be employed when necessary and in a way that would minimise impact on the area the canal side and nearby residential properties.
The nearest residential properties are located on Portland Street with the gable end of no 11 abutting the site. The rear of properties on Every Street and Macleod Street would overlook the nursery garden and would be approximately 16 metres away from the nursery building.
The properties on Albert Street would be approximately 38 metres away from the two storey aspect of the school building with the proposed car park between the housing and the school.
There would be a distance of 6m between the rear of residential housing on Every Street and the proposed car park. Landscaping is proposed between the car park boundary and the alley way that serves the rear of these properties. This landscaping strip which would seek to mitigate against the impact of the car parking spaces. It is therefore considered that these distances are acceptable and would not compromise residential amenity. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy 32 of the Local Plan.
The creation of a triangular garden at the intersection of Macleod Street, the entrance to the nursery and the retained element of housing on Portland Street, would provide a landscaped focal point for the community and is considered to comply with Policy 16 of the RPLP.
Ecology
The application is accompanied by an extended Phase 1 Survey. The site has habitats typical of brown field sites in the area. The majority of the site is hard standing with area of semi improved grassland, scrub and scattered young trees. The report identifies the main potential

impacts of the development to be the disruption of bat foraging areas (which could be avoided through a carefully considered lighting scheme, (particularly in close proximity to the canal and which is the subject of a proposed condition), loss of bird nesting habitat and loss of habit generally. However, the Survey concludes that the majority of the application site is of low ecological value.
The Committee must have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity and regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive 1992. The EC Habitats Directive 1992 requires the UK to maintain a system of strict protection for protected species and their habitats. The Directive only allows disturbance, or deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places, in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative, reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic, nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment and provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and no detriment to the maintenance of the species population at favourable conservation status in their natural range.
Circular 6 of 2005 advises local planning authorities to give due weight to the presence of protected species on a development site to reflect EC requirements.
PPS 9 advises LPAs to ensure that appropriate weight is attached to protected species and encourages the use of planning conditions and obligations where appropriate.
It advises the refusal of planning permission where harm to the species or their habitats would result unless the need for, and benefits of, the development clearly outweigh that harm The converse of this advice is that if issues of detriment to the species, satisfactory alternatives and public interest seem likely to be satisfied, no impediment to planning permission arises under the Directive and Regulations.
It is considered that whilst the site may have some minor ecological interest along with some nature interest associated with the adjoin canal, that interest is not so great that it would prevent the development of the site and conditions could be imposed to protect what interest there is by restricting site development works during the bird breeding.
A bat report also accompanied the survey, which suggest that the properties on Portland
Street/Appleby Street offer potential bat habitat but that it is unlikely there would be significant maternity or hibernation roosts. However, it concluded that additional internal and activity surveys would need to be undertaken during the main summer activity season.
The additional surveys have now been undertaken which found generally low levels of bat activity, and no evidence of bats emerging from the buildings. Individual bats have used the site for shelter on an opportunistic and occasional basis only, but there is no evidence of a significant bat roost at this site. The proposals will not therefore result in significant disturbance to bats or bat roosts. A condition controlling the protection of bats during demolition is proposed. The adjoining canal is identified as having local nature interests in the RPLP although these are not identified. Controls on construction and on lighting of the completed scheme would ensure the protection of the adjoining canal and potential bat foraging area.
On this basis it is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the ecology of the area as protective measures would be employed throughout the development phase to protect any protected species. Furthermore, the creation of a habitat area within the school grounds,

utilising existing features for example the stone wall would provide an opportunity to increase the biodiversity of the area.
Ground Contamination
The application is accompanied by a geotechnical report which revealed that significant depths of fill materials covering the site and borehole sample analysis revealed that contamination appeared to be contained within the fill and generally related to the former site usage as a corporation yard. The leachate testing undertaken as part of the soil analysis revealed the presence of little or no pollutants. The Geotechnical report considered that further testing should not be necessary.
The Environment Agency, although not objecting to the development, has requested geographically more investigation and further assessment of the polluting potential of the contaminants be made. The Environmental Health department at Pendle Council has identified that there is significant potential for adverse impacts on the site due to contamination and have requested that conditions be imposed requiring a site inspection and remediation works. Therefore, subject to conditions controlling this issue the proposal is considered acceptable and complies with Policy PPG 14 and PPS23 and Policy 8 of the RPLP
Flood Risk
The application site involves land defined as being within Flood Zone 1 where the likelihood of being affected by river or sea from flooding in any one year is less that 0.1%. The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment that concludes that the site could be developed without increasing flood risk to the site or the surrounding areas. The assessment recommends a number of mitigation measures and advises that the school buildings should be located on higher ground in the south east part of the site. The applicant has designed the building so that the footprint of the building is not in close proximity of the canal. The main school buildings would be within the south east of the site which is the highest part of the site. The proposal therefore complies with PPS 25 and Policy 6 of the RPLP.
Archaeology
The Council for British Archaeology regrets the loss of the terraced properties but recommend that if planning permission is to be granted then an archaeological record should be made to Stage 2 or 3 rather than Stage 1 as proposed. LCAS has considered this aspect and considers that this would be a duplication of much of the existing information; furthermore it would not prove to add much to the current knowledge base. LCAS is satisfied that in view of the work already undertaken that subject to a condition requiring a comprehensive photographic record to be made of the exteriors, along with the recording of elements that were previously inaccessible, that on archaeological grounds demolition can be adequately mitigated through the recordings of the buildings.
Conclusion and Summary of Reasons for Decision
Whitefield Infant Primary and Nursery schools are currently located on a split site off
Norfolk Street. Due to the rising birth numbers within the area the school suffers from severe overcrowding. The development would provide a modern new replacement school with state of the art facilities to enable education to be delivered to high standards.

The proposal would require the demolition of 39 properties which are designated as heritage assets in the Whitefield Conservation Area. PPS5 states that there can be instances where a clear and convincing justification can be made for the loss of a designated heritage asset. Development that would lead to substantial harm or the total loss of an asset may be permitted where it is necessary in order to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm. The applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that there are no other suitable sites to deliver the educational facilities within a defined and settled population.
The proposal would seek to encourage the continued regeneration of the Whitefield
Conservation Area and would provide significant public benefit. It would seek to address the levels of deprivation and education inequality that specifically exists within the area. It is therefore considered that the applicant has demonstrated that the benefits accrued by the proposal outweigh the harm that would be caused by the harm and loss to designated heritage assets.
The school would be of an acceptable design and utilise a simple palette of materials. The design would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The school building and external facilities would not lead to an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the area or nearby residential properties. Conditions on site management, materials, landscaping, lighting, ecology, archaeology, contamination and access would ensure the protection of the Conservation Area and amenities of nearby residential properties, and the environment.
The proposal would not adversely affect the ecology of the area as protective measures would be employed throughout the development phase to protect any protected species. The creation of a habitat area within the school grounds, utilising existing features for example the stone wall would provide an opportunity to increase the biodiversity of the area.
It is accepted that the proposal does not comply with all the policies within the
Development Plan. In particular the proposal does not meet the aims of Policy 10 of the RPLP, which seeks to conserve areas of identified historic or architectural interest. However there is considerable justification for the school to be located on this site and its presence would have significant regeneration benefits for Whitefield.
The development would not lead to an unacceptable increase in traffic. The loss of the public footpath is outweighed by the benefits the development would deliver. There would be no unacceptable flood risk. On balance the significant benefits of the proposed development outweigh the impacts on the conservation area. The policies of the Development Plan relevant to this decision are:
Regional Spatial Strategy
Policy DP2 Promote Sustainable Communities
Policy DP6 Marry Opportunity and Need
Policy DP7 Promote Environmental Quality
Policy EM1 Integrated Enhancement and Protection of the Regions Environmental Assets
Policy L1 Health Sport Recreation Cultural and Education Services Provision

Replacement Pendle Local Plan (RPLP)
Policy 1
Policy 7
Development in the Open Countryside
Water Resource Protection
Policy 8
Policy 9
Contaminated Land
Buildings of Architectural or Historic Interest
Policy 10 Areas of Special Architectural or Historic Interest
Policy 11 Archaeology
Policy 13 Quality and Design of New Development
Policy 14 Trees Woodland and Hedgerows
Policy 16 Landscaping in New Development
Policy 25 Location of Service and Retail Development
Policy 29 Creating an Improved Transport Network
Policy 30 Sustainable Travel Modes
Policy 31 Parking
Policy 32 New Community Facilities
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
Time Limits
1. The development shall commence not later than 3 years from the date of this permission.
Reason: Imposed pursuant to Section 91 (1) (a) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
Working Programme
2. The development shall be carried out, except where modified by the conditions to this permission, in accordance with the following documents: a) The Planning Application and supporting statement received by the
Director of Environment and Public Protection Services on the 28 March
2011and as amended by the following correspondence
Emails from Andrew Howorth Property Group Lancashire County Council dated the 20 June 2011 to Catherine Lewis entitled 'Sport England comments.'
Emails from Stephen Riley Children and Young People Directorate dated the 20 June 2011 to Catherine Lewis entitled
'Proposed site of new school at Carr Lane'
'Conclusion from initial Flood Risk Assessment'
'Appendix A Whitefield School Operations' b) Submitted Plans and documents:

Drawing No A02 rev c entitled 'Site and Location Plans as existing'
Drawing No A07 rev b entitled 'Site Plan as proposed'
Drawing No A03 rev a entitled 'Site Survey'
Drawing N0 A04 entitled' Pipe and Cable Asset Register'
Drawing No A17 entitled 'Tree Survey and existing features including Schedule'
Drawing No A18 rev b entitled 'External works and landscaping'
Drawing No A20 entitled 'Ground Floor'
Drawing No A25 rev b entitled 'First Floor'
Drawing No A31 entitled 'Elevations as Existing'
Drawing No A 38 rev b entitled 'Site Sections 4 & 12'
Drawing No A37 rev b entitled 'Long Elevations Every St and
Albert St'
Drawing No A 39 rev a entitled 'Elevations- Classroom Block
Drawing No A 40 rev a entitled 'Admin Block'
Drawing No A53 rev b entitled 'Site cross sections'
Drawing No A16 Details and sections (boundary elevations) c) All schemes and programmes approved in accordance with this permission.
Reason: To minimise the impact of the development on the amenities of the area and to conform to Policies 10, 13 and 32 of the Replacement Pendle
Local Plan.
3. No demolition shall commence on the site as part of the development hereby permitted unless it is in connection with the construction of the school hereby permitted and not until formal legal contracts have been entered into for the construction of the school to commence within a maximum period of three months following completion of the demolition works.
Reason: The demolition is only justified on the basis of the erection of the new school and the conditions therefore needed to ensure the new school is built.
4. No development shall commence until the Conservation Area Consent
Application reference 13/11/0091 submitted to Pendle Borough Council has been approved.
5
Reason: The demolition is only justified on the basis of the erection of the new school and the conditions therefore needed to ensure the new school is built.
No demolition shall commence on site unless and until full details of the external finish of the gable of 11 Portland Street have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Environmental Protection and Public
Services. The gable shall thereafter only be restored in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to ensure that the external appearance of the gable respects the historic fabric of the area and for the avoidance of doubt.
Building Materials
6. No development shall commence until samples of the building materials to be used for the external elevations and the roof and hard landscaping of the development and details of the colour and method of applying the mortar to the brick and stonework have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Environment and Public Protection Services. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the materials and details approved by the Director of Environment and Public Protection Services.
Reason: To protect the visual amenities of the area and to preserve the character of the Conservation Area and to conform with policies 10 and 13 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan
Site Operations
7. Written notification of the date of commencement of the development and the
date of the opening of the school shall be provided to the Director of
Environment and Public Protection Services within 7 days of such commencement and opening.
Reason: To enable the County Council to monitor the development and to ensure compliance with this permission, and to conform with policy 32 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan.
Hours of Working (construction phase)
8. No ground engineering, ground re-contouring works or construction
development including the delivery of construction materials or removal of materials off-site during the construction and demolition phases shall take place outside the hours of:
0730 to 1800 hours, Mondays to Fridays (except Public Holidays)
0800 to 1300 hours on Saturdays
No ground engineering, ground re-contouring works or construction development including the delivery of construction materials or removal of materials off-site during the construction and demolition phases shall take place at any time on Sundays or Public Holidays.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of local residents and adjacent properties/landowners and land users and to conform with policy 32 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan.
9. No soils shall be stripped and no re-contouring works shall be undertaken on the site until a scheme and programme for the location and heights of any temporary soil stockpiles has been submitted to and approved in writing by

the Director of Environment and Public Protection Services. The measures contained within the approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented at all times during the construction phase of the development.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to safeguard the amenity of local residents and adjacent properties/landowners and land-users and to conform with policy 32 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan.
10. All plant, equipment and other machinery used in connection with construction and demolition operations on the site shall be equipped with effective silencing equipment or sound proofing equipment to the standard of design set out in the manufacturer’s specification and shall be maintained in accordance with that specification at all times throughout the construction and demolition phases of the development.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of local residents and adjacent properties/landowners and land-users and to conform with policy 32 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan.
11. No mobile plant or vehicles shall be operated at the site until a scheme and programme describing the types of reversing alarms to be fitted to mobile plant /vehicles used on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Environment and Public Protection Services. The scheme and programme shall provide for the fitting of non-audible or white noise reversing alarm systems and include details of alternative measures that will be adopted should non-audible or white noise warning systems fail to operate or be unsuitable. Following the written approval by the Director of
Environment and Public Protection Services the approved reversing alarms shall be fitted to and used by all mobile plant/vehicles on the site at all times during the construction and demolition phases of the development.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of local residents and adjacent properties/landowners and land users and to conform with policy 32 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan.
12. No soils shall be stripped, no re-contouring works shall take and no demolition shall take place until a scheme and programme of the measures for the suppression of dust has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Environment and Public Protection Services. The scheme and programme shall include details of: a) The suppression of airborne dust caused by the moving and storage of soil and overburden and other materials within the site. b) Dust suppression on haul roads. c) Dust suppression throughout the construction period of the development
The measures contained within the approved scheme and programme shall be implemented at all times during the site preparation, demolition and construction phases of the development.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of local residents and adjacent properties/landowners and land-users and to conform with Policy 32 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan.
Highway Matters
13. No construction development shall commence until wheel-cleaning facilities to a design and specification and in a location first approved in writing by the
Director of Environment and Public Protection Services have been installed.
The approved facilities shall remain available and be used by heavy goods vehicles as defined by this permission at all times during the phased construction of the new building and demolition of existing buildings including the laying out of the associated car parks, external facilities and landscaping to ensure that no debris from the site is deposited by vehicle wheels upon the public highway. The wheel cleaning facilities shall be maintained in full working order at all times throughout the construction and demolition phases of the development.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety
14. Prior to the school being brought in to use visibility splays from a point 2.4m as measured along the centre line of the site access road from the continuation of the nearer edge of the carriageway of Albert Road and Every
Street to points measured 40m in each direction along the nearer edge of the carriageway of Every Street and Albert Street from the centre line of the access, shall be provided and the visibility splays shall be kept clear of any obstruction.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure adequate visibility at the street junction or site access.
15. No development shall commence until the highway works to facilitate construction traffic access have been constructed in accordance with a scheme and programme to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Environment and Public ProtectionServices.
Reason: To enable all construction traffic to enter and leave the premises in a safe manner without causing a hazard to other road users.
16. The development shall not be brought into use until the offsite highway works set out below have been carried out in accordance with a scheme and programme which shall be first submitted to and approved by in writing by the
Director of Environment and Public Protection Services: a) The removal and erection of street lighting b) The provision of school keep clear markings c) The relaying of the kerbstones d) The alteration to the highway drainage

e) The laying of kerbs and make good the footway across the former access to the back street between Portland Street and f)
Appleby Street at the end of Protland street and Appleby Street .
Other works in the adopted highway necessary to facilitate the development.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
17. Within 12 months of the opening of the school a School Travel Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Environment and Public Protection
Services for approval in writing. The Plan shall provide details of: a) A brief description of the school, its location and a summary of the particular transport and road safety issues at the school. b) A brief description on how evidence will be gathered from consultation with pupils, staff, parents, the governing body and other interested parties. c) Targets and measures to reduce pupil and staff car journeys to and from the site. d) Management of on-site staff and visitor parking. e) Management of cars dropping-off and picking-up staff and f) pupils.
The measures to be taken to promote pedestrian/road safety and encourage pupils and staff to use sustainable forms of transport. g) Details of the implementation and review/monitoring of the
School Travel Plan.
The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented within one month from its approval.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to encourage sustainable means of transport.
18. No development shall commence until a scheme and programme for external lighting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Environment and Protection and Public Services. The scheme and programme shall include the following: a) Details of the type and intensity of lights. b) Details of the types of masking or baffle at head to prevent light spillage. c) Details of the type, height and colour of lighting columns. d) Details of the light spread diagrams showing lux levels at the site e) Boundary and calculation of the impact of these on nearby f) residential properties.
Details for the control of the times of illumination of the lighting. g) Details of lighting lantern heads to be used.

All external lighting to be provided as part of the development and use thereof shall be in accordance with the approved scheme and programme unless amended by details approved in writing under condition 19 below.
Reason: In the interests of visual and local amenity, and to conform with
Policy 32 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan
19. Within 1 month of the school hereby permitted being opened an assessment of the lighting scheme shall be carried out during hours of darkness to identify any unacceptable light spillage to neighbouring properties or the amenities of the area. The results of the assessment shall be submitted to the Director of
Environment and Public Protection Services within 7 days of such assessment together with the proposed measures for addressing any unacceptable light spillage to neighbouring properties or the amenities of the area for approval in writing. The approved measures shall be carried out in their entirety within a further 14 days from the date of approval.
Reason: In the interests of visual and local amenity, and to conform with
Policies 28 and 32 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan
Archaeology
20. No demolition works shall commence on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work. This must be carried out in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which shall first have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Director of Environment and Public Protection Services.
The programme of work shall comprise the creation of a black and white print and negative (& colour slide, where relevant) photographic archive of the exterior of the buildings to be demolished , as well as the interiors of 44-46
Macleod Street and the Appleby Street Triangle, using a suitable 35mm SLR camera and conventional silver-based film only.
Reason: In the interests of archaeological investigation and to conform with, policy 11 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan.
Protected Species
21 The precautionary measures set out in paragraph 6.6 to 6.10 of the 'Updated
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Ecological Report for BREEAM
Education 2008 Assessment' dated June 2011 by Bowland Ecology shall be implemented in full.
Reason: To protect bats and to conform with Planning Policy
Statement 9
22. No trees or hedgerows shall be removed during the bird-breeding season between 1st March and 31st July inclusive unless they have been previously checked and found clear of nesting birds in accordance with Natural

England’s Guidance and if appropriate, an exclusion zone set up. No work shall be undertaken within the exclusion zone until birds and any dependant young have vacated the area.
Reason: To protect nesting birds and to conform with Planning Policy
Statement 9
Landscaping
23. Notwithstanding the submitted landscape details no development shall commence until a revised landscaping/habitat creation and management plan for the site, including a detailed planting scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Environment and Public Services.
The scheme and programme shall include details of: a) The location, numbers and types of tree and shrub planting within the site. Trees and shrubs should be located in positions where their roots and canopies will not encroach on the boundary or light of the adjoining properties. b) Details for the management of any landscaping areas including maintenance of tree and shrub planting. c) Details for the enhancement of biodiversity including replacement bird breeding habitat (native shrubs and trees) breeding bird nest boxes and other enhancement for wildlife as recommended in paragraphs 6.12-6.16 of the report 'Whitefield Nelson, Extended
Phase 1 Survey and BREEAM Assessment' (Bowland Ecology LTD
2010.
The approved landscaping/habitat creation and management plan shall be carried out in the first available planting season following completion of the construction phase of the development and thereafter maintained for a period of 5 years. The approved ecological management and mitigation measures shall be undertaken within 12 months from the completion of the construction phase of the development.
Reason: In the interests of visual and local amenity and the local environment and to conform with Policy 16 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan.
24. No development shall commence until details of the proposed boundary treatment to the canal side boundary (showing height, specification, colour, materials, surfacing and any new planting) have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Environment and Public Protection
Services. The development shall thereafter only be implemented in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise agreed in writing.
Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the development is satisfactory and appropriate to the character and appearance of the adjacent waterway environment.

25. All trees to be retained within the application area shall be protected during the construction phase of the development in accordance with BS5837: 2005.
Reason: In order to protect trees and to comply with Policy 14 of the
Replacement Pendle Local Plan.
26. Any trees within the site that are removed or damaged, become diseased or which die at any time during the demolition or construction phases of the development, shall be replaced with trees of a type, number and species and in locations to be first approved in writing by the Director of Environment and
Public Protection Services. Thereafter, the approved tree(s) shall be planted during the first available planting season as defined in this permission following the construction and demolition phase of the development.
Reason: In the interests of visual and local amenity and the local environmen, and to conform with Policy 14 of the Replacement Pendle Local
Plan.
Safeguarding of Watercourses and Drainage
27 Any chemical, oil or fuel storage containers on the site shall be sited on an impervious surface with bund walls; the bunded areas shall be capable of containing 110% of the container or containers’ total volume and shall enclose within their curtilage all fill and draw pipes, vents, gauges and sight glasses.
There must be no drain through the bund floor or walls. Double skinned tanks may be used as an alternative only when the design and construction has been approved, in writing, by the Director of Environment and Public
Protection Services.
Reason: To safeguard local watercourses and drainages and avoid the pollution of any watercourse or groundwater resource or adjacent land and to conform with Policy 7 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan.
28 All foul drainage arising from the school shall be discharged to a public sewer.
Reason: To safeguard local watercourses and drainages and avoid the pollution of any watercourse or groundwater resource or adjacent land and to conform with Policy 7 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan.
29. No development shall commence until a scheme and programme has been prepared in consultation with British Waterways detailing appropriate measures to prevent pollution of the Leeds Liverpool Canal during and after construction of the proposed development has been submitted and approved by the Director of Environment and Public Protection Services. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of Environment and
Public Protection Services.
Reason: In order to avoid contamination of the waterway from windblow, seepage or spillage at the site.

Sustainable Surface Water Drainage Strategy
30 No development shall commence until a surface water drainage strategy based on sustainable drainage principles and including the attenuation of surface water discharges has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Environment and Public Protection Services. Thereafter, the approved strategy shall be implemented in full.
Reason: To reduce the increased risk of flooding and comply with Policy 7 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan.
Salvaged materials
31. No development shall commence until a scheme and programme for salvaging of materials from the houses to be demolished as part of the development hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Environment and Public Protection Services. The scheme shall include the following:

A method statement detailing the proposed time scales for the demolition.

The sequence of demolition.

Plans to a 1:100 scale identifying the area where the reclaimed materials shall be stored.

The methods to be employed in the cleaning of the stone and slate.

Identify those elements of the new school building and associated external facilities where salvaged materials can be used and specify which materials are to be used.

Identify proposals for salvaged materials not used on site.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
Scheme and Programme.
Reason: To protect the visual amenities of the area and to preserve the character of the Conservation Area and to conform with policies 10 and 13 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan
Permitted Development Rights
32. Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 32 of the Town and
Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (or any order amending or replacing that order) no extensions, porches, garages, outbuildings, sheds, greenhouses, oil tanks, hard standings, fences, gates, or walls shall be constructed or erected within the curtilage of the approved school and grounds, other than those expressly authorised by this permission.
Reason: To protect the visual amenities of the area and to preserve the character of the Conservation Area and to conform with policies 10 and 13 of the Replacement Pendle Local Plan.

Definitions
Planting season : means the period between 1 October in any one year and 31 March in the following year.
School Travel Plan: this is a document setting out a package of measures for reducing the number of car trips made to a school or a group of schools by parents and staff for improving safety on the school journey. The Plan may be produced by the Local Authority in consultation with a school or may be produced by the school with the advice of the Local
Authority
Notes
The applicant’s attention is drawn to the Department of Education and Employment publication “A Safer Journey to School,” specifically the preparation of School Travel
Plans.
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
List of Background Papers
Paper Date Contact/Directorate/Ext
13/11/0163 June 2011 C Lewis/Env/30490
Reason for Inclusion in Part II, if appropriate
N/A