Lee Green residents will no doubt remember that last year, the planning application for the new Northbrook School building on the corner of Wantage and Taunton Roads caused some controversy.  The plans were eventually approved by the Council’s strategic planning committee back in October last year.

Ther planning department have now received an application to vary the planning permission that was granted.  The applicant team want to alter the windows to integrate some louvres and also to change the colour of the render used around the windows.  The original plans included render in various shades of green and yellow.  As you can see from the pictures, the new plans replace the green and yellow with shades of yellow, orange and red.

However, what’s caused a lot of concern locally are the changes to the stained glass windows to the front of the school.  As I understand it, the render’s being changed to fit with the new-look stained glass, which features a large cross in the same shades.

The changes to the window design have already been granted permission by council planning officers under delegated powers (that is, behind closed doors, without consulting the local residents or councillors).  Apparently the original permission included a provision for this ‘detail’ to be agreed by officers.   The changes to the colour of the render, and the integration of  the louvres can’t be agreed in this way, and need public consultation.

It seems absurd that the window is considered a detail, but the render needs consulting on.  It’s true that it’s common practice for details to be agreed by officers without going through the whole planning process - but the changes to the window are much larger than the usual ‘detail’ changes (which tend to be detailed matters like submitting a sample of the bricks to be used). 

I’ve asked officers to give me a copy of the council policy or procedure they follow when deciding whether a change is a ‘detail’ or not. I’m told there isn’t a written policy and that it’s normal practice to agree details without consulting on them.  It seems to me that even if residents don’t agree with the decision made, they should be entitled to understand how such decisions are made.  When does a ‘detail’ cease to be a detail and become a big deal?

The fairest way to deal with this would be to fully consult on the windows and the render as a package, so that residents can have their say – for or against.  I was against the original plans as I believe they were too intrusive, and I think the new plans are even more intrusive – though it’s difficult to separate the render from the window.  The right shades of render might actually be an improvement on the lime green we had before.

A public meeting has been arranged for Tuesday 24th November and will be held at the present Northbrook site on Leahurst Road (the old Ennersdale site) from 7.30pm.  I’ll be chairing the meeting.  Though the windows aren’t part of the application, I can’t see how we can avoid dicussing them, and I can only hope the applicant team will  take the discussion into account when deciding whether or not to proceed with their plans.

In the meantime, I’ve tabled a question to the Deputy Mayor (who’s in charge of planning) at the next Full Council, outlining my surprise that there’s no written policy in place to deal with the ‘details’ of applications, and asking her to ensure that such a written policy is put in place so that residents can understand the processes followed in such cases.