School buildings and games area at Seaton House School, Sutton

What was proposed

The application proposed three phases: new classrooms, replacement of an existing building, and a games area with landscaping.

“The application seeks planning permission for a phased development involving the erection of a single storey building to provide classrooms (Phase 1), demolition of existing two storey building and erection of a replacement two storey building (Phase 2) and provision of Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) and associated landscaping (Phase 3).”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and advice

Earlier permissions supported educational use of former bowling club facilities, and recent pre-application advice supported the proposed improvements in principle.

“DM2022/01107 - Application to vary condition 1 (Approved drawings) and delete conditions 3 and 8 (Kitchen - ventilation and noise) and 4 (Hours of use) of planning permission Ref: DM2020/02143 'Application to vary condition 11 (the D2 use shall be restricted to and limited to use as a bowls clubhouse and shall not be used for any other class D2 use) of planning permission Ref: B2016/73421/FUL for the 'Erection of a clubhouse for Carshalton Beeches Bowling Club' to allow…”

“PRE2024/00085, the most recent - which was a follow up to PRE2024/00027 and PRE2020/00163 in relation to the demolition of the existing detached school building and erection of a detached two storey school building and new classroom block. The key elements of the advice provided from the council to the applicant were: ● The provision of the new buildings will improve the school facilities and enhance the learning environment.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal would improve education facilities without significant harm to design, neighbours, highways or parking.

“The continued use of the site for educational use is acceptable and accords with the relevant planning policies, the existing use and ownership of the site. The proposal will improve the school's educational facilities for current and future pupils. Report Page 1”

“The design of the proposal would reflect the intended use of the buildings for functional educational use, whilst respecting the local context of the site and would not result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the application site and the wider surrounding area.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Consultees raised no objections subject to conditions and obligations covering sustainability, biodiversity, drainage, environmental protection and fire safety.

“Internal Consultation Comments Received Sustainability Officer This planning application is acceptable with respect to the sustainability requirements of London Plan Policies SI 2, SI 3, SI 4 and SI 7; the Mayor’s Energy Assessment Guidance 2022, the Mayor’s ‘Be Seen’ Guidance and Local Plan Policies 31 and 33, subject to the recommended planning conditions and inclusion of a carbon offsetting contribution of £7,410 and appropriate ‘Be Seen’ obligations as part of any…”

“Biodiversity Officer No objections to the proposal, subject to recommended conditions and a S106 obligation with the LPA to pay the Monitoring Fee for the proposed ‘significant onsite habitat gains’. Environmental Health Team The development is considered to meet the Air Quality Neutral requirements. A condition for the provision of a dust management plan for the site works, to minimise impacts on adjacent properties and sensitive receptors is recommended.”

Officer report

Objections from residents

Residents objected over parking, traffic, design, height, loss of green space, overlooking, loss of light, noise and possible pupil increases.

“The consultation on the application has received a total of 23 objection letters from 19 households listed below, which are available to view in full on the Council’s planning portal, and material planning considerations are addressed within the report:”

“Parking and Highway Safety ○ Increase in parking pressure ○ Increase in traffic ○ Increase illegal parking and on grass verges ○ Impact from construction traffic and increase in noise ● Design ○ Excessive height ○ Development out of keeping with the surrounding area and size of buildings out of character with the surroundings ○ Loss of green space ● Neighbour Amenity ○ Visual impact ○ Loss of light to gardens ○ Overlooking and loss of privacy ○ Disturbance from doors to…”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

An objector, a ward councillor and the applicant’s agent addressed the committee about local concerns, the need for better facilities and the proposal’s impacts.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed construction disruption, neighbour communication, the changed outlook, noise screening, sustainability and the school’s long-term educational needs.

“In debate Members acknowledged that the construction phase could cause disruptions to neighbours, and noted that construction was included in the conditions which were included in the report. It was noted that the school had communicated with neighbours about the application. It was discussed that the application would improve facilities for educational use on the site.”

“Planning Committee 1 July 2026 4 alteration to the outlook for neighbours’ gardens, noting however that the adjacent gardens were long which could reduce the significance of impact. The school had been on the site for many years, the application would improve its facilities and support its future sustainability.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted planning permission subject to the listed conditions and a Section 106 agreement by the stated deadline.

“Planning permission be GRANTED , subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix B and a Section 106 agreement (with the obligations secured outlined at 6.73) by 2 December 2026, or a later date as agreed in writing by the Strategic Director of Environment, Housing and Neighbourhoods.”

Minutes