Agenda item - BH2014/03933 - Saltdean Primary School, Chiltington Way, Saltdean, Brighton - Council Development

Demolition of two existing single storey classroom blocks and erection of a new two storey teaching block with link corridor, new two storey classroom extension, hall extension, infill staff room extension and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Demolition of two existing single storey classroom blocks and erection of a new two storey teaching block with link corridor, new two storey classroom extension, hall extension, infill staff room extension and other associated works.

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

(2)             The Planning Manager (Major Applications), Paul Vidler introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application related to Saltdean Primary School which was currently split across the site into upper and lower schools; it was part two storey and the wider area was characterised by detached houses. The current intake of the school was 420 pupils with two classes in each of the seven years. As a result of an increase in school numbers there was a bulge class and two temporary classrooms had been provided on site to accommodate this. The intention was to increase the capacity to three classes per year, totalling  630 pupils, and four extensions were proposed to achieve this across the site. The upper school would be linked with the lower through a two-storey extension that would be excavated into the site. The materials would be a mixture of matching brown brickwork and red cladding on certain elevations.

(3)             The scheme also proposed an extension to the hall which would be part brickwork and cladding. The third extension was a two-storey classroom extension, and the fourth was a small addition to the staffroom. Of main concern in the consultation had been the parking arrangements, and many of the letters of objection had not opposed the expansion, but were concerned with the parking, pick up and drop off arrangements. Currently there were two carparks on the site, and the changes to these would increase the number of spaces on site from 11 to 13 – two of which would be disabled spaces. If the parking standards in the SPG were applied to the school a maximum of 37 spaces (including 4 disabled spaces) would be required. A staff survey had been carried which showed 59% of staff drove to school and 6% car shared; however, parking behaviour was difficult to predict as there were a number of part-time staff. Based on this information it was estimated that 9 additional staff would need to park on the surrounding streets, and a parking survey had also been carried out showing there was capacity for 360 cars on the surrounding streets. Officers were of the view that there was sufficient capacity for the displaced parking, and for this reason there was no requirement to extend the size of the car park on site. To manage the increased demand on infrastructure there would be a number of improvements which were listed in the report. The transport impacts were considered acceptable and the report was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report. 

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(4)             Mr David Atkey spoke in objection to aspects of the scheme in his capacity as a local resident. He stated that local residents supported the expansion of the school and the reasons for it; the design was excellent and would meet local need. Objections related to the parking facilities, and the problems associated with 30-40 staff parking on street. There were existing problems for residents using their cars in the morning as well as issues with ‘road rage’ and other incidents. These problems would continue with the expansion of the school and the increased number of staff. It was felt that the option to encourage the use of sustainable transport was unrealistic; instead the car park should be increased to a capacity of 30 which would still be below the maximum level recommended by the SPG. It was noted that planning guidance stated adequate levels of parking should be sought.

(5)             Mr Michael Nix spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the Head of Education Planning & Contracts. He explained that the application sought to address the shortage of school places in the location and was part of the five year School Organisational Plan. The demand would continue to grow on the school; other nearby schools were also at capacity and it was not permissible to give priority to children living within the city as opposed to those from the part of Saltdean within the boundaries of East Sussex County Council. Consultation had been held during 2014, and following the notice period there had been approval given by the Children & Young People Committee pending planning approval. Officers had been mindful of the concerns in relation to parking and congestion; however, it was considered that the smaller car park took into account this impact and availability of parking on the surrounding streets. Any application to reduce the amount of outside space at the school needed approval from the Secretary of State – this had already had to happen as part of the application, and a further application would make the scheme much more difficult to achieve. Council Officers would work with the school to make changes to the travel plan and keep this under review as the school continued to grow over the next seven years.

(6)             In response to a series of questions from Councillor Hyde it was explained by Mr Nix that he had not been closely involved with the design of the scheme, but colleagues had worked closely with the Planning Department and taking pre-application advice. In relation to parking matters the application needed to strike a balance between the needs of staff and the loss of the outside space; this had been done through the assessments with Officers in transport. The section 77 consent from the Secretary of State had been secured by demonstrating where additional outside space might be provided.

(7)             In response to Councillor Gilbey it was explained by Mr Nix that there were already two bulge classes at the school so it would continue to expand up to capacity over the next few years.

Questions for Officers

(8)             In response to Councillor Cox it was explained that the parking at Lustrells Vale had not been taken into account as part of the parking assessment; the parking was mentioned in the report by way of context.

(9)             In response to Councillor Jones the Principal Transport Officer, Pete Tolson, advised that traffic problems were common around most schools; this school had been engaged in a travel plan which would assist alternative ways to school.

(10)          In response to Councillor Gilbey it was not known if staff were using the car park at Lustrells Vale, but it was clarified the level of displacement parking was expected to be approximately nine cars.

(11)          In response to Councillor K. Norman it was clarified that the Road Safety Team had engaged with the school in relation to a travel plan, and a condition in the report required the plan to be submitted and approved before the extensions were completed. The Road Safety Manager, Martin Heath, explained that Officers would continue to work with school even once their travel plans were agreed. The plan would seek to challenge anti-social transport related behaviours, and the school would have access to the Council’s enforcement services.

(12)          It was confirmed for Councillor Gilbey there was currently no home to school transport provided by the school.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(13)          Councillor Hyde stated that this was a very popular local school with good outside facilities and residents welcomed the expansion. She felt the issue of parking had not been properly listened to and there was a lost opportunity to improve the situation; she did not agree with the approximated level of displacement parking that had been put forward by the assessment. The outer city location of the school would make it more difficult for staff to travel there by sustainable transport, and many would have to use their own transport. Councillor Hyde raised concerns in relation to the proposed red cladding, and felt it could make what was currently a very unobtrusive building much more prominent; there was also concern that the proposed materials would not match those currently on the site. Councillor Hyde proposed that were the Committee minded to approve the application then the discharge of the condition in relation to the materials should come back before the Committee for determination.

(14)          Councillor Littman stated that he supported the application and the expansion of the school – noting it was a popular and successful school. The concerns in relation to the parking were noted, but and he felt from reading the report this was a significant issue. He agreed with Councillor Hyde in relation to the issue with the red cladding, and felt this should be revisited.

(15)          Councillor Randall noted he agreed in relation to the cladding.

(16)          The Senior Solicitor, Hilary Woodward, explained that if Members were minded to grant the application then the Committee could resolve that the discharge of condition 10, in relation to the materials , come before the Committee for determination.

(17)          Councillor Hamilton stated that his concerns mostly related to the parking on the site, and he referenced a similar problem in his Ward with a much larger school. He felt teachers had to take an increased amount of materials to and from school each day and would be difficult for them to walk a distance or take public transport. On balance he would support the Officers recommendation, but reiterated that the proposed parking solution would not be sufficient.

(18)          Councillor K. Norman stated that he agreed with the comments of others on the Committee in relation to the cladding, and referenced ongoing problems regarding parking since the expansion of Westdene Primary School a few years back. On balance he felt these issues would not be fully resolved, but would support the Officer recommendation in principle.

(19)          Councillor Wells stated the parking would be insufficient.

(20)          Councillor Phillips noted that in her professional experience as a teacher it was normal for staff to not be able to park in the school car park.

(21)          Councillor Gilbey noted she was surprised of the colour of the red cladding that was passed around to the Committee. She stated there was a need for these schools places and she would support the application.

(22)          A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officers recommendation that the Committee grant the application was unanimously carried.

151.2    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 GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in section 11; the amended condition and additional informative set out below, and that Condition 10 in the report be discharged by the Committee.

              Amended Condition 7

The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in full accordance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) submitted on 11 March 2015unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure highway safety and that appropriate environmental protection is in place to safeguard neighbouring amenity in compliance with policies TR7, SU9, SU10 and QD27of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Additional Informative

The Planning Committee has indicated that the red coloured cladding materials proposed in this application would not be acceptable and has resolved that the application to be submitted to discharge the requirements of Condition 10 be determined by the Planning Committee. The applicant is recommended to propose an alternative colour/shade of external cladding material.