Agenda item - BH2014/00922 - Hove Park Depot, The Droveway, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a new two storey primary school building with solar panels and windcatchers, associated access works and hard and soft landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a new two storey primary school building with solar panels and wind catchers, associated access works and hard and soft landscaping.

 

(1)             It was noted that the application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

 

(2)             The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the item and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs, elevational drawings, matters on the Late List and information received since the closure of the Late List. An error was noted in the report such that a letter from 12 Orchard Gardens should be listed as objecting to the application, not supporting. The application site was located between the Droveway, Hove Park, and the site of the Engineerium. The site was currently used as a Council depot; whilst some of the activities had moved to Stanmer Nursery it had not been possible to relocate them all there and an alternate site was being sought. Some long views of the site were provided to give context; as well as long views that had been taken during winter. The site was located in the Engineerium Conservation Area and the Engineerium site itself contained Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings. It was noted that a previous application had been withdrawn in September 2013 for a new three–storey primary school on the site.

 

(3)             Permission was now sought for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and the construction of a 2-storey school. The design was simple and functional, and the building would have a ‘slab-like’ appearance and be partially excavated. The finish would include two different colour bricks, and rendering; details of these were shown to the Committee using a sample board. The site would have 12 parking spaces – 3 of which would be for disabled users with vehicular access from the Droveway. Parents dropping off their children would be encouraged to park on Goldstone Crescent and walk across the park to the site. At this point in the presentation it was noted that a number of late letters had been received in support including a letter from the Lead Member for Children & Young People, Councillor Shanks, that did not raise any new material considerations. There was also late letters of objection received, and it was also added that these did not raise any new material considerations.

 

(4)             The considerations related to: the principle of the development; the impact of on the Engineerium Conservation Area; the impact on the setting of the listed buildings; neighbouring amenity; transport and ecology. The established use at the site was sui generis, and whilst policy sought to protect employment sites in the city this did not relate specifically to sui generis sites. Many of the functions at the site had been transferred to Stanmer Nursery, and an alternate location was being sought for the remainder of the services – as such there was no objection to the change of use. Policy also encouraged the provision of new schools within the city to meet the growing demand which was acute in the west of the city. The proposed school would be a three form entry, and whilst there would be limits on the amount of play space it was noted there was no requirement for free schools to have such space. The limit on the amount of space was due to the reduction in height of the previous scheme, and the necessity to retain a portion of land for the badger habitat.

 

(5)             In relation to amenity it was noted the building was a considerable distance from residential properties which was considered sufficient to protect against light loss and additional noise, and the site would only be in operation during daytimes and weekdays. In relation to the heritage and visual impact on the conservation area and neighbouring listed buildings, the Heritage Team were of the view the design would be excessive in bulk and the scale and mass would harm the open character of the site; however, in terms of the NPPF the harm was less than substantial and should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme. In these circumstances it was considered that the public benefits justified the site and the outweighed the harm that would be caused.

 

(6)             In terms of transport the site was accessed from the Droveway on the junction with the Waitrose Store with a route for cycle and pedestrian access. As previously stated parents would be asked to park in Goldstone Crescent, and the application had referred to the operator of Waitrose allowing parents to park in their car park; however there was no formal agreement and this did not form part of the assessment of the application. The 12 car parking spaces on the site would be allocated on the basis of need, and this would be accommodated in the scope of the travel plan. It was affirmed there would be no parking on the site for parents to pick up and drop off. Transport was considered a key issue as part of this application, and there was a concern about an increased risk to highway safety. The school’s admission policy would not be based upon the pupils home to school distance and as such it was acknowledged that a greater number of parents might drive their children to school; however, the Sustainable Transport Team had advised that the information submitted by the applicant confirmed that the proposed measures would mitigate the impacts   

 

(7)             In relation to ecology the detailed survey had advised that there would not be an adverse impact on wildlife. There would be some changes to the pre-commencement conditions, and the sustainability conditions would be amended to allow for ‘very good’. In summary the principle of the development was considered acceptable. Whilst there would be some harm to the setting of the listed building this was outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme and was in accordance with the NPPF. The proposals would adequately address transport concerns and for the reasons set out in the report the Committee were recommended to be minded to grant the application subject to a S106 planning obligation and the amended wording of conditions.

 

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

 

(8)             Before the first speaker, Mr Roger Crouch, delivered his submission to the Committee the Chair confirmed that the late information Mr Crouch had sent had been read and considered by the appropriate Officers.

 

(9)             Mr Roger Crouch spoke in objection to the Committee in his capacity as a local resident. He stated that the main problems related to the increase in traffic that would be caused by the application – particularly in the morning. The applicant’s transport consultants had stated that the number of car journeys would be low and the activity on Goldstone Crescent would be at off peak times when the traffic would be low. Mr Crouch then went on to query some of the assumptions put forward by the traffic consultants, and stressed his view that there would not be sufficient spaces on Goldstone Crescent to accommodate the increased use. Mr Crouch queried if the current assumptions could be maintained when the school was operating at the full 630 capacity, and noted the school was untypical of any other in the city as it had no defined catchment area, and would lead to a higher car use. In the previously withdrawn application the car usage levels had been lower and this had been queried by Officers; it was Mr Crouch’s view that these figures should also be queried. Reference was also made to development at Toad’s Hole Valley which would generate additional traffic, and would have a fundamental impact on the area. In closing Mr Crouch made reference to the grounds for refusal in relation to traffic measures listed in the NPPF.

 

(10)          Councillor Mac Cafferty asked Mr Crouch for more information in relation to the severity of problems on Goldstone Road and it was explained that there were problems when the park was busy, and there were concerns this would be much more severe when Toad’s Hole Valley was developed.

 

(11)          Councillor Bennett spoke in opposition to the application in her capacity as the Local Ward Councillor. She stated that she sympathised with the problems that the school had encountered finding a suitable site; however, this location was not appropriate. The design was like a ‘warehouse’ and was inappropriate in the context of the conservation area; there was also concern that the school would be freely able to apply for an additional storey in future – the site also had very limited play space. The traffic problems were now considered to be worse as she felt the new Waitrose store attracted more car users than the previous operators had, and the transport study had not given consideration to this. Accessing Nevill Road was dangerous as there were already two large secondary schools and a primary in the immediate area. The travel plans that had been put in place for the City Park Office development had been ineffectual, and it was added that the school would not have a local catchment. Councillor Bennett highlighted that the letters of support had not been from local addresses. Reference was made to the Highway Officer’s report and that this report stated the highway authority could not recommend approval as the S106 had not been agreed to mitigate the proposals. The Committee were invited to refuse the application.

 

(12)          Ms Carolina Gopal, the Principal at the Bilingual Primary School, addressed the Committee supported by Mr Chris Barker (Planning Consultant) and Mr Roger New (Transport Consultant) to assist with questions. Ms Gopal stated that she wanted to address some of the concerns that had been expressed; the school was currently entering its third year and had been very successful to date and it was important it had its own site in the city. The school had worked closely with the Council to find an appropriate site, and had withdrawn the previous application to properly address the concerns of local residents. The start time of the school would be staggered from 09:20 hours to fall outside of rush hour, and the school would take an a further 10 years to reach its full capacity. Parents at the school were committed to sustainable transport, and those that did park would only need to for very short period of time. Ms Gopal noted that she had spoken with the Waitrose operators and they were content to allow parents to use the car park to drop off and she had a letter to this extent. In relation to sports space Ms Gopal had reached agreement that the school could use the facilities of the nearby secondary schools, and wildlife at the site would be properly protected. This was considered an appropriate use of a brownfield site and the new school would have significant public benefits. The Committee were invited to approve the application.

 

(13)          In response to Councillor Hyde it was explained by Ms Gopal the range of drop off times in the morning would be between 09:20 and 09:40 hours, and the pick up time would be between 15:20 and 15:45 hours.

 

(14)          In response to Councillor Jones it was clarified by Ms Gopal that the break and lunch time would be staggered due to the space restrictions and there was the potential to use space at the nearby large secondary schools.

 

(15)          Councillor Simson asked for more information in relation to the potential to park at the Waitrose Supermarket and Ms Gopal answered that she had initially spoken to the previous operators, and reached an agreement with the current occupiers three weeks ago which she had in writing with her at the meeting. Ms Gopal also added that she was in discussion with the dog racing track operators about a similar arrangement.

 

(16)          In response to Councillor C. Theobald the following responses were provided: there would only be one access to the site from the Droveway; the staggered drop off times was currently used and this worked well, and break and lunch times would be staggered.

 

(17)          Councillor Davey asked about the arrangements at the school’s current site – which was also constrained. Ms Gopal explained that the school did not use the main BACA School frontage and parents dropped of in the AMEX Stadium overspill car park.

 

(18)          Ms Gopal explained in response to Councillor Hamilton that the school was currently considered using a minibus to pick up staff due to the restricted number of parking spaces. Councillor Gilbey followed this line of questioning and asked about buses for the children at the school; Ms Gopal explained that this had not been considered necessary as the majority of the children at the school came from Hove and Portslade area and the school would potentially look at walking buses.

 

(19)          Ms Gopal explained, in response to Councillor Jones, that the site had been picked as it had designation for a school.

 

(20)          The Chair asked about the design, noting that this had been raised during the pre-application presentation. Mr Barker explained that the design was constrained by the size of the site and necessity to reduce the height from three-storeys to two. There were also constraints in relation to the badgers on the site; level changes; access as well as budgetary restraints. The design had come on since the withdrawn three-storey proposal and it was felt the design before the Committee was functional and attractive with an interesting entrance. It was also added that views of the school from the Engineerium would be ‘near impossible’.

 

(21)          In response to Councillor Simson it was explained by Ms Gopal that the play space would accommodate approximately 200 children at one time. Following further queries Ms Gopal explained that lunchtime was important to the ethos of the school and they would be considering creative uses of the space to maximise its potential.

 

(22)          Councillor Carden asked about the protection of the badgers on the site and Mr Barker explained that the development had been focused away from the badger sets, and was further than the necessary exclusion distance. There would also be a full badger mitigation strategy. The Area Planning Manger demonstrated this distance using the plans.

 

(23)          In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained by Mr Barker that the school had to be three-form entry to as the Department for Education would not fund a two-form entry school.

 

Questions for Officer (Planning)

 

(24)          In response to Councillor Carden it was explained that relocation of Council facilities from the site was a matter for the Council as the Parks Department and was not material to the application.

 

(25)          Councillor Phillips raised specific queries in relation to the trees on the site, and it was explained that there would be conditions in relation to the species and maturity of the replacement trees. The elm that was to be felled was described as a ‘fair specimen with some decay’ which was being felled to facilitate site access. The location of the Norway Maples to be felled was confirmed using the plans. Councillor Phillips noted she could not understand why it was necessary to fell all of the trees, and would like a full response from Officer as to why they could not be retained.

 

(26)          With the assistance of the applicant it was explained to Councillor Davey that a ‘wind catcher’ was roof mounted ventilation.

 

(27)          Councillor Gilbey asked about the final materials, and the Head of Development Control, Jeanette Walsh, suggested that the final details of material be delegated to her in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

 

Questions for Officers (Transport)

 

(28)          In response to Councillor Gilbey it was explained that it would not be appropriate for parents to walk directly across the park in winter as the ground would be saturated; however, S106 monies had been secured to help support pedestrian movement through the park.

 

(29)          In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained that it would be unlikely that staff would park on Goldstone Crescent as there were ‘3 hour no return’ restrictions there. There would also be a travel plan encouraging activity such as car sharing to limit the impact.

 

(30)          It was confirmed for Councillor Gilbey that the informal parking arrangements with nearby businesses could not be included in the travel plan, and they had also not formed part of the assessment of the application.

 

(31)          In response to Councillor Davey it was explained that the S106 monies would be spent on: improvements to the Droveway; some improvements in the park and wider pedestrian improvements in the area. Councillor Davey went on to ask about the parking capacity on Goldstone Crescent and it was noted there would be slightly more capacity in the mornings; with all matters factored in the highest use would be 85% of capacity, and this would not be enough to warrant refusal. It was also confirmed there were two bus routes on the road. In relation to cycle parking it was acknowledged that the number was low, but this in line with the Council’s standards.

 

(32)          It was confirmed for Councillor C. Theobald that any S106 monies used in the park would have to be part of mitigation measures.

 

(33)          Before the Committee moved into debate the Area Planning Manager confirmed the size of the play space, and noted there was no requirement for open space as this was not a residential scheme.

 

Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(34)          Councillor Hyde noted that this was a very controversial application, and she sympathised with the concerns raised by residents and the Local Ward Councillors. She stated she had had initial concerns in relation to the traffic; she felt reassured with some of the mitigations such as the staggered start times and the S106 monies; however, she acknowledged that the situation ‘would not be perfect’ and she noted the informal arrangements with local business car parks. Whilst she felt there were still problems with the travel plan at the City Park site it was acknowledged that the additional journeys would only be in the morning and the afternoon weekdays during the approximate 9 months the school would be open each year. Her original concerns in relation to the materials had been mitigated and she welcomed some of the earthy and green tones that were suggested, and it was acknowledged that there would be minimal views of the site from the Engineerium. Councillor Hyde welcomed the additional of a bilingual school in the city, and noted that whilst the school would be limited in terms of play space it did directly abut a park which could be used. On balance whilst the situation was not perfect there were clear mitigation measures in place and the scheme would address the shortage of school places in the west of the city; for these reasons she would support the Officer recommendation.

 

(35)          Councillor Wells noted that from the site visit he did feel the building height would interfere with the neighbouring buildings, and he felt the scheme would be ‘snug’. He welcomed the use of the park by the children at the school; whilst he had concerns in relation to traffic these were not considered significant to vote against the application. For these reasons he would support the Officer recommendation.

 

(36)          Councillor Davey noted the citywide challenge in relation to school places, and noted that this area of Hove was very popular with young families. Trying to find a new site for a school would always be challenging, but he considered the consequences of refusing the application outweighed concerns and he would support the Officer recommendation. He noted that the parents were happy with the education at the school, and hoped this would become a popular school in the area. Transport would be a challenge at the site, but this was in the context of a challenging situation across the whole city; however, many would be able to walk to the school and the area was very well serviced by buses. It was hoped the school would work positively with the School Transport Team.

 

(37)          Councillor Littman stated he had initially been undecided about the application, but he agreed with the comments made by Councillor Hyde that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the potential harm. There were mitigation measures in places and the school still had another nine years before it would reach capacity during which time emerging issues could be addressed.

 

(38)          Councillor Phillips echoed the comments made by others on the Committee and she noted it was a functional building. She welcomed its location next to the park and the children at the school using this facility. A lot of queries in relation to transport had been answered and she hoped the school would partner with the ‘Cycle Schools’ in the city. She noted her personal views about free schools, but welcomed the consideration given by the applicant for the Council’s difficult position and added that this school would potential serve families in her own neighbouring ward. Councillor Phillips added that her concerns about the trees had not been addressed in full, but on balance she would support the Officer recommendation.

 

(39)          Councillor C. Theobald noted that many of her questions had been answered and she felt reassured about the application. She felt the school could warrant a larger site with a smaller development and more outdoor space. The situation with parking was not ideal, but there was some mitigation to address this. The design was acceptable and a bilingual school in the city would be a welcome addition and she would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

 

(40)          Councillor Jones stated he was mindful of the concerns of local residents and the local Councillors as well as the suitability of the site; the size of the scheme and the design. On balance many of his concerns had been addressed, and he felt the bilingual facility was a progressive approach to education. Councillor Jones noted he did not agree with concerns about the children using the park and on balance he would support the application as the benefits outweighed his concerns.

 

(41)          Councillor Hamilton stated he felt the same as many other Members on the Committee, and noted there were gains and losses in relation to the application. He felt the informal parking arrangements with the local businesses would aid the situation, and he felt there would no negative impact from the school using the park. He stated he had initially been undecided, but he had been persuaded and felt the scheme was very good given the constraints and he would support the Officer recommendation.

 

(42)          Councillor Gilbey noted she still had concerns in relation to parents dropping off and picking up, and she would prefer direct buses to the site. She noted that the situation at the site would be very different in winter, and it would impact on the Engineerium. She added she had concerns with the longevity of the building and was not happy with the design, but on balance she was leaning towards supporting the Officer recommendation.

 

(43)          The Chair noted he had listened very carefully to the points made by the residents and the Local Ward Councillors, and he had very serious concerns in relation to transport. He noted at the pre-application presentation he had pushed the applicant in relation to design, but felt it was a functional approach. He reiterated his concerns, but stated that on balance the public benefit of the scheme was the overriding factor.

 

(44)          Before the vote was taken the Chair suggested that Condition 8 be amended to delegate the agreement of the details to the Head of Development Control in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokesperson. The Head of Development Control also noted that the recommendation was minded the grant with the amendments that had been discussed and laid round for the Committee.

 

7.1         RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a S106 planning obligation, conditions and informatives and the amended conditions set out below:

 

              Amended pre-commencement Conditions 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 20 & 21

 

No work shall take place above ground floor slab level of any part of the development hereby approved until…

 

              Additional informative to be added:

 

Details of materials to be agreed in accordance with conditions shall be agreed by the Head of Development Control in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.