The future of a special educational school could be thrown into doubt if a decision to refuse permission for a £45m revamp – including the building of 325 homes on green belt – is not overturned, it has been warned.
An inquiry has begun into the Seashell Trust’s controversial plans to radically redevelop its Heald Green campus, including a new school building, sports hall and swimming pool, part-funded by the sale of some of its fields.
The school said the site was in desperate need of an overhaul as its old 1950s buildings no longer meet the needs of its students – and there was no other way of paying for it other than developing the land between Wilmslow Road and the A34.
But planning bosses threw out the proposals on the grounds the school, which caters for children and young people with profound and highly complex needs, had not proven there are ‘very special circumstances’ to justify building on the green belt.
They also refused them as less than 50 per cent of the proposed homes were to be affordable, and it was deemed there would be an ‘adverse impact’ on nearby Grade II listed Griffin Farmhouse.
Read more of today's top stories here
But ‘surprised and disappointed’ bosses at the Seashell Trust appealed the decision, leading the secretary of state to order a public inquiry.
And the three main interested parties – Seashell Trust, Stockport council and campaigners Heald Green Action Group – have now made their opening statements before planning inspector Michael Boniface.
Paul Tucker QC, on behalf of the Seashell Trust, was the first to address the opening day of the inquiry, held at Fred Perry House in Stockport.
He said if the appeal were dismissed on the basis a cheaper scheme could meet the trust’s needs it could potentially lead to ‘the most serious rethink in its 200 year history’.
And he warned that the outcome of such a rethink would be ‘far from certain’ but ‘realistically could involve managed decline’.
He added: “Those who are opposing this scheme need to be under no illusion that this is not another step in a future redesign, and then pretend that they are doing no more than minimising green belt loss and encouraging a modest rethink on the part of the trust.
“The truth is actually that the dismissal of the appeal jeopardises the future of the trust as a provider of desperately needed facilities in an ‘excellent’ manner to some of the most vulnerable children and young people.”
Mr Tucker also told the inquiry it was irrelevant whether less costly alternative schemes could be feasible.
“Such criticisms go precisely nowhere if the benefits of such a scheme (referring to that of the Seashell Trust) clearly and decisively outweigh all the harm together with the harm by reason of inappropriateness,” he said.
But John Hunter , for Stockport council, said he did not accept the trust would not come back with new proposals in the event of refusal – despite Mr Tucker’s assertion it was not an ‘inevitable consequence’.
He said: “It’s unthinkable that the trust won’t go back, rethink and come back with a redesign if the scheme is refused planning permission for the reasons the council suggests it should be.
“Because none of the council’s case is inconsistent with a more modest scheme being granted planning permission.
“That can’t be pre-determined by the council, but the issues which have been raised go to the overall costliness of the proposal, and whether that goes beyond what is necessary.
“If you agree with that, it would be irrational and perverse for the trust to draw up the bridge saying it won’t do anything else.”
And Mr Hunter told the inquiry there would be no ‘inherent planning’ objection to the plans if they were purely for a new ‘state-of-the-art’ school.
But he added: “Crucially, the application also seeks permission for up to 325 new houses on green belt land in order to fund the cost of the school and other costly elements of the transformation project.
“And it’s therefore necessary to consider whether a less costly school design would be capable of appropriately meeting the needs of its current and future students.”
Peter Yates, a former chief planning officer, addressed the inquiry on behalf of the Heald Green Action Group, which opposes the plans in their current form.
He said: “We are fully supportive of an incremental development of the current site to enable the trust’s work to be continued with improved facilities.
“We do not support the project on the scale as proposed, funded by large scale housing which will eliminate a structurally important area of the Greater Manchester green belt.”
He also claimed that, during the course of the inquiry, the group would provide evidence that the proposed demolition and rebuilding of existing buildings was ‘unnecessary, expensive and extravagant’.
Evidence is set to be heard on 20 separate dates, with the inquiry currently scheduled to conclude on June 25.
