Agenda item

That the development brief be refused to allow further consideration of socio-economic factors in relation to future uses of the school building, but that the demolition of the annex, canteen blocks and lean-tos be approved.        

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application. 

            The Development Manager explained that this was a General Matters application to inform Members of the preparation of a development brief for the redevelopment of the Custom House Lane Junior CP School site when it and the existing Dee Road Infants CP School were replaced by the new “All Through” school at Dee Road, Connah’s Quay.  The Committee meeting on 28 July 2010 had resolved that planning permission be granted for the redevelopment and part of the land was to provide a new playing field, hard play area and car parking whilst a portion of the site had been identified as surplus.  He explained that the Custom House Lane School incorporated the former Northop Board School built in 1881 and Members had felt that its retention and incorporation in any redevelopment proposals should be investigated.  The minutes of the earlier Committee meeting indicated that a development brief would be prepared and brought back to the Committee for consideration, on the basis that this would be informed by a feasibility study, which was appended to the report.  The conclusion of the study was that it was not financially viable to retain the old school and the Development Manager said that it was now the intention to demolish the school in its entirety to allow the marketing and eventual redevelopment of the ‘surplus’ land in accordance with the parameters set out in the development brief.  He was aware that Members might not agree to total demolition and if so asked that they agree to the demolition except for the former Northop Board school. 

            Councillor P.G. Heesom proposed refusal of the development brief which was duly seconded.  He said that he had some concerns about the report and that a proper case for demolition of the whole building had not been made.  He added that complete demolition had not been agreed by the Committee and that some of the buildings were a valuable feature.  He proposed refusal of the development brief and the application before Committee as it was not in agreement with the decision taken in July 2010. 

            In response, the Principal Solicitor said that there was no application before Members today and that all the Committee was being asked to do was to note the content and conclusions of the brief.  He quoted from the minutes of the 28 July 2010 meeting which set out the basis upon which the brief was being reported to the Committee.  Councillor Heesom then proposed that the development brief be not accepted.  This was duly seconded.

            Councillor J.B. Attridge, the adjoining ward Member, said that he shared Councillor Heesom’s concerns.  He agreed that the annex blocks needed to be demolished to accommodate the new school but he was opposed to the complete demolition as detailed in the report.  He added that he was opposed to any form of housing development on the site and that the feasibility study should include information on socio-economic factors as suggested by the Leader of the Council at a recent County Council meeting.  However he did not want the Committee to put on hold the demolition of the annex blocks and lean-tos and nor did he want to stop the new school being built.  Councillor Attridge considered that more work was needed regarding what possible future uses there might be of the building: previous issues which had been raised had not been addressed.  Councillor Heesom then amended his proposal to allow the demolition of the annex blocks, canteen block and lean-tos but not the other buildings, whilst still not approving the development brief.  (The amendment to the proposal was agreed by the seconder.)  He said that the main bulk of the building was a feature which was irreplaceable and reiterated that, with the exception of the demolition of the canteen block and lean-tos, the development brief should be referred back for further consideration.

            Councillor M.J. Peers referred to page 128 of the agenda and the two cases put forward for the demolition or retention of the Northop Board school building.  He queried the figures which had been provided, in particular the 4 bed properties at £155,000.  He felt that the valuations were not accurate and that they needed to be reviewed. 

            Councillor C.A. Ellis asked if the building of the new school would be delayed if the development brief was not accepted.  The Development Manager confirmed that would not be the case.  On the issue raised by Councillor Peers he said that, in financial terms, retention of the building was not justified, but as Members seemed to be moving beyond this factor in suggesting that the feasibility study should take a wider remit and consider factors other than financial information, there was little point in reviewing the valuation information. He reminded Members that Flintshire County Council was the applicant and the owner of the site and it was appropriate in these circumstances that community uses should be considered, but the surplus land could not then be viewed as an asset in financial terms.

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the development brief to allow further consideration of socio-economic factors in relation to future uses of the school building, but to allow the demolition of  the annex, canteen blocks and lean-tos, was CARRIED.    

            RESOLVED:

That the development brief be refused to allow further consideration of socio-economic factors in relation to future uses of the school building, but that the demolition of the annex, canteen blocks and lean-tos be approved.