Page 20 - Archive in reverse date order

building? Further material changes to the existing buildings would be needed in order to comply
with building regulations.

Nothing is said about further development work to provide for the usual double perimeter fencing
found in schools (one particularly necessary in this case with vulnerable children as the site has
access on all sides to open land); any additional oil container (there is no gas supply); waste bins;
conversion of the outdoor space for a playground, equipment and for outdoor sports; the provision
of an indoor games room; the proposed small farm; the widening of the access driveway to permit
two-way traffic and large vehicles such as mini-buses and service/delivery vehicles. Nothing is
said about the location of the proposed Sewage Package Treatment Plant, nor anything about
accommodation for a Caretaker. (See Note 5)

CONCLUSION

It is likely that the Head Teacher (at least) will be employed all year round. And we suspect that
paid-for activities out of term time will be introduced since the school will be a commercial
business. This would further impact on traffic volume and timing etc.

There is a precedent for an applicant to simply seek permission to convert an existing building and
then, once this is granted, to follow it up with another seeking permission to completely demolish
the building and rebuild it. This happened at 65/67 Parsonage Lane (Ref 11/01106/FUL).

Before a decision on this proposal is made, we consider that there is a need for:-

- a Tree Survey (in view of the wooded nature of the site);

- an independent Soil Assessment (asbestos is present and children are involved);

- a detailed Traffic Impact Statement from a qualified traffic engineer with supporting
Documentation;

- a site visit by members of the Planning Committee, should the decision be delegated.

In view of the proposal's major impact on residents in such a wide area (Parsonage Lane, Bunkers
Hill, Cocksure Lane and Gattons Way) we consider that this application should have been given
FULM status.

Finally, we have never seen such a poor and deficient set of documents and drawings such as were
submitted to Planning in support of this application, a serious understating of important factors such
as traffic volume and timing, drawings of building conversions with no measurements given and
photographs of the stables and barn buried deep within the Contaminated Land Survey along with
copies of pertinent historical maps buried even deeper.

Our members (and people living in the affected area, whether members or not) have been fully
consulted on this application. We ask you to please reject it as one that is totally unacceptable.

Yours sincerely,

Jean Gammons David Cook
(Secretary) (Chairman)
/NOTES

4