Woking Councillors Refuse School Expansion Proposal

Published on: 18 Oct, 2024
Updated on: 19 Oct, 2024

Hoe Bridge school in Woking (image Google)

By Chris Caulfield

local democracy reporter

An exclusive Surrey school that charges up to £21,000 a year has had its plans to create places for an extra 180 pupils dashed over traffic and child safety fears.

Hoe Bridge School in Old Woking had hoped to build a new two-storey senior school on green belt land to allow it to offer education through to GCSEs.

Its plan had been recommended by officers at Woking Borough Council after Surrey Highways accepted new access routes would mitigate traffic problems along Old Woking Road and nearby ancient lanes.

Councillors at the Tuesday, October 15 Planning Committee however saw things differently and voted to refuse the plans saying it would have a disproportionately negative impact on nearby properties, and that its proposed new entrance would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.

The school comprises two sections, a pre-prep for pupils aged two to seven and prep for pupils aged seven to 13. The expansion would have allowed children to complete education through to GCSEs without the need to change school.

In all, there were 27 letters of objection with issues focused primarily on traffic.

Objecting to the plans was the Rose Wood Residents’ Association.

Their speaker said: “I am sorry to report the growing anger around this development in the community.

“As residents we have a unique insight to the character of the roads affected by this development.

“They are unsafe.”

He highlighted the tragic death of Derek Abbott who was involved in an incident near White Rose Lane, as well as a string of problems and “many, many” near misses with school kids.

He added: “It’s not safe. It’s already overloaded. This road is a county lane and dates back to the 15th century. It is narrow, full of blind corners, it floods and cars swerve around pedestrians as there is an incomplete pavement.

He said: “We must protect our kids before there are more accidents and god forbid one involves a child.”

Chris Webster, the school’s head said they had worked with a team of experienced planners to ensure the development would benefit the environment.

He said: “We are the local school for local families with a wonderful reputation and exceptional educational record.”

The matter came down to whether councillors felt the school’s efforts to expand, and the knock on benefits to the town such as more jobs and better community facilities should be supported or whether the problems on the roads were too much to overcome.

Cllr Ian Johnson

Cllr Ian Johnson (Lib Dem, Mount Hermon) said: “All things being equal the school needs what it needs and the question is whether kids can get there or not and local people around there can be safe in that happening.”

Cllr Rob Leach (Liberal Democrat, St Johns) sided on the safety side of the coin. He said: “Although highways don’t object it is doing nothing to improve the safety of this area, and I honestly can’t see how a child crossing that road at that new area is safe.

Cllr Daryl Jordan

Cllr Daryl Jordan (Ind, Byfleet and West Byfleet) put forward the motion to refuse the plans.

He said: “I’m not entirely happy with the entrance at all.”

The decision to refuse the plans was voted through by five councillors to two.

Responses to Woking Councillors Refuse School Expansion Proposal

Paul Duggen Reply

October 20, 2024 at 8:47 am

I was appalled with the way the Woking Borough Council’s Planning Committee reached what can only be described as a contrived decision on Tuesday evening.

From watching the webcast I felt I was watching a bad play when Cllr Daryl Jordan simply plucked his motion to refuse out of thin air. The shocker was that there had been no discussion during the meeting about the new entrance being “out of keeping with the character of White Rose Lane” nor the same entrance having a “disproportionate negative impact on nearby properties but particularly number 46”.

The meeting had all been about the Safety and Traffic concerns on White Rose Lane so why didn’t the Planning Committee refuse the decision based on these Road Safety Concerns?

It seemed to me that the chairman and others were predetermined, aware that a refusal on highway grounds would stand less chance at appeal than a subjective “Out of Keeping/Disproportionate negative impact” refusal and so had prepared the motion in advance.

Planning guidance states that the specific reasons proposed in a motion for refusal are discussed amongst councillors with an open mind before a verdict is delivered. This did not happen and I suspect this is because none of the councillors had even considered the aesthetics of the new entrance in its setting as being an issue until they voted on it.

The council’s professional planning officer had considered these elements in his extensive officer’s report to the committee (paras 234-236) and concluded that overall the entrance achieved a satisfactory relationship to adjoining No. 46 White Rose Lane, avoiding significant harmful loss of privacy, daylight and sunlight, and overbearing effect (due to bulk, proximity or loss of outlook).

The dishonesty of this decision shines a depressing light on our broken planning system. It throws into the spotlight the capability, integrity and motivations of local councillors, charged with too much power, and also burdens the under resourced planning department with the unenviable task of mounting a response to any subsequent appeal they don’t believe in.

On a human level it puts on hold many children’s educational plans while the school picks up the pieces and decides a course of action.
RWL Davies Reply

October 21, 2024 at 3:58 pm

I agree entirely with Mr Duggen’s comments.

What’s the back story to the rejection?

Is number 46 that important; the planners didn’t think so?

Still, makes a change from rejections based on preserving newts.