Plans to move and rebuild primary school attract dozens of objections as major update given
Plans to rebuild and relocate a primary school on Wearside, which have sparked dozens of public objections, are due to go before councillors for decision next week.
Sunderland City Council’s Planning and Highways Committee will discuss an application seeking permission for a “new single-storey Catholic primary school building” at land to the north of Stockton Road in Ryhope.
The application submitted on behalf of the Department for Education (DfE) is seeking permission to build a new school along with a “new sports pitch, outdoor PE court, outdoor informal play space, new pedestrian footpath from Halifax Place to Beechbrooke, new vehicular access and associated parking.”
It is understood that the development is part of the Government’s School Rebuilding Programme and is proposing a new replacement school for St Patrick’s Catholic Primary School, which is currently based nearby at Smith Street in Ryhope.
The proposed site for the new school is located near a number of streets including Stockton Road, Halifax Place, Beechbrooke, Dinsdale Street South and Smith Street South, as well as sitting adjacent to a separate park and play area Beechbrooke Park.
A “planning and open space statement” submitted to council officials noted the school relocation is “necessary to ensure the school can continue to provide high-quality education in modern, fit-for-purpose accommodation that meets current standards and future needs”.
It was noted that the new primary school would include a library, assembly/dining hall, nursery and teaching rooms, staff and SEN facilities, a “new under 9/10s sports pitch, an outdoor PE outdoor court [and] new informal outdoor play spaces”, along with new tree planting, new pedestrian and vehicular access from Stockton Road and 24 parking spaces, including EV spaces, accessible spaces and additional cycle parking.
The planning and open space statement acknowledged “the site is identified as ‘amenity greenspace’ within the council’s now-revoked Greenspace Audit” but said “it is not formally designated as ‘open space’ within the adopted development plan”.
It was also noted that the “proposed development will enhance the site’s quality through substantial new green infrastructure, landscaping, planting, informal play area, and the delivery of a sports pitch and PE court” and that while “this space will no longer be fully publicly accessible, it will continue to contribute positively to visual amenity and local character.”
During a council public consultation exercise, the school plans sparked public opposition with 19 formal objections, including a number of addresses from Beechbrooke, along with a petition referenced in council planning documents as “Preserve Ryhope’s Community Field” with around 126 signatures.
Concerns summarised in a council committee report included the close proximity of the new school development to residential neighbours, the “loss of green field currently used by the community for children to play and for dog walkers”, traffic congestion and traffic safety, noise impacts from school activities, loss of privacy and impacts on local wildlife.
Other public concerns included the level of parking provision proposed on site, the impact of construction works, parking pressures, access for emergency vehicles, flooding risks and more.
A council planning report also made reference to a link in the submitted petition which “takes visitors to a website which has been signed by 16 people”, raising similar concerns about community impacts linked to the loss of the field to facilitate the school development.
There were also around four “neutral” representations submitted by members of the public and four public comments in support, with supporting comments outlining the benefits of the development, describing it as a “positive investment for Sunderland and local children” which “is close to the existing school so it is unlikely that travel patterns will change significantly,” according to planning documents.
Council planning officers, in a report published ahead of a decision-making Planning and Highways Committee meeting next week, have recommended the school application for approval.
It was noted that the school development, which would “accommodate 210 pupils aged 4 to 11 with an additional 26-place nursery and 20 full-time equivalent staff”, would provide “a new educational and community facility on land that is allocated for this purpose […] in a relatively sustainable location with good access to public transport”.
The committee report noted that the proposed site is “identified as amenity greenspace within the council’s Allocations and Designations Plan Greenspace Audit (December 2020)” and that the site “has amenity value, given that it provides greenspace that breaks up the existing urban form” and “has recreational value, although its nature conservation value is likely to be limited”.
Council planners acknowledged that the “proposed development would have an adverse impact on the amenity and recreational value of the greenspace, given that it would serve to limit public access to the land” and noted that a “financial contribution is required to mitigate the loss of this site, to allow the improvement and maintenance of green space within the vicinity of the site”.
In this context, it was argued that “subject to an appropriate contribution for the loss of amenity space, it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable”.
In terms of impacts on residential amenity, council planners said that subject to conditions around the use of certain school areas, such as “outdoor pitches”, the new school would “serve to provide pupils with a high-quality learning environment without giving rise to unacceptable adverse impacts on the development on the living conditions of existing properties in the area”.
Other mitigation measures included limits around the time of construction works as part of a “noise and vibration management plan” and recommended conditions to “deal with noise from building services and plant equipment and in respect of extraction and ventilation associated with the operation of the new school kitchen”.
The council committee report added: “With regard to general noise and disturbance, as has been stated, it is accepted that the school grounds would be actively used throughout the school day, however, this would be intermittent and the school and grounds will also be vacant outside of school hours, weekends and during school holidays.
“Given this, on balance, it is considered that the development would not have a significant detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby dwellings.”
On highway safety impacts, the council report said “that the implications of the proposed development in respect of access, highway capacity, pedestrian safety and sustainable travel initiatives are acceptable”.
Following comments from “National Highways, Nexus, Active Travel England and the council’s future transport team”, council planners concluded “the proposed development would be in a sustainable location and would have no unacceptable impacts on the highway network in terms of capacity or safety”.
It was noted that “to help facilitate safe access and egress for pupils across Stockton Road, a controlled crossing is proposed”, including “build-outs to both sides of Stockton Road to assist with safe crossing and reducing vehicle speeds in this locality”, which would need to be “funded and constructed by the applicant” subject to council approval through a legal agreement.
To “address any potential inconsiderate short stay parking around drop off and pick up times” linked to the new school location, the council committee report said the “introduction of parking restrictions in the immediate area will be essential”, including school keep clear markings and double yellow lines, subject to the conclusion of separate legal processes.
It was also noted that financial contributions from the applicant to “make the development acceptable in planning terms” would be secured via a section 111 agreement, subject to approval by the Planning and Highways Committee.
This includes financial contributions towards “improvements to alternative open space within the vicinity of the site”, “onsite biodiversity net gain monitoring” and “offsite highway measures”, which would be “delivered prior to occupation”.
The council committee report adds: “Subject to the appropriate financial contributions and the discharge of and compliance with recommended conditions, it is considered that the proposed development would have no unacceptable impacts with regard to visual or residential amenity, design, highway and pedestrian safety, flooding / drainage, contamination or ecology.”
The existing Ryhope primary school is run by the Bishop Chadwick Catholic Education Trust and education leaders have previously welcomed progress on the project.
Planning documents from applicant the DfE added “it is intended that the existing school will remain open during construction of the new school, allowing phasing to be a more straightforward process.”
The meeting will start at 5.30pm in the council chamber and will be open to the public.
For more information on the planning application tabled for decision next week, visit Sunderland City Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 25/02698/PS4