Agenda item - BH2015/02403,Brighton College Eastern Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing Sports Hall, Chowen building and Blackshaw building and Pavilion to facilitate erection of a new 4 storey (including lower ground) Sports and Sciences building together with associated works.  Removal of a section of the boundary wall facing Sutherland Road to create new car park entrance with car lift to underground parking area.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Queen’s Park

              Demolition of existing Sports Hall, Chowen building and Blackshaw building and Pavilion to facilitate erection of a new 4 storey (including lower ground) Sports and Sciences building together with associated works. Removal of a section of the boundary wall facing Sutherland Road to create new car park entrance with car lift to underground parking area.

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

(2)          The Planning Manager, Applications, Nicola Hurley, introduced the report by reference to photographs elevational drawings, floor plans and site plans. These showed the existing and proposed street frontages and views across the site towards neighbouring properties, samples of materials were also displayed. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of the existing Sports Hall, Chowen building, Blackshaw building and Pavilion and the erection of a replacement four storey (including lower ground floor) Sports and Sciences building comprising the following mix of teaching and sports facilities:

• Basement level swimming pool, changing facilities, plant room, stores and car park for 20 vehicles and 36 bicycles

• Ground floor level Sports Hall, fitness studios and café

• First floor lecture theatre, stores and four classrooms

• Second floor 15 science classrooms, preparation rooms and greenhouse

• Roof level amenity terraces, running track and non-accessible sedum roofs

(3)          In order to facilitate access to the basement car park a section of flint boundary wall fronting Sutherland Road was to be removed, along with all fencing and walls fronting the new building. The section of wall to be removed sat within a flint wall that attaches to a Grade II listed flint wall extending along College Terrace and was considered listed by virtue of its attachment. On balance and having regard to the overall benefits of the redevelopment of this part of the campus it was not considered that the absence of a boundary wall at this point was so detrimental as to warrant refusal of permission. Conditions were recommended to secure details of the new wall-ends, prior to works to the wall commencing.

(4)          It was considered that the application represented a well-designed addition to the Brighton College site which suitably preserved and enhanced the special interest and setting of its Grade II listed buildings, the appearance of the site when viewed from Sutherland Road, and the character and appearance of the College Conservation Area as a whole, without resulting in undue harm to neighbouring amenity or highway safety, in accordance with development plan policies, the NPPF when considered as a whole, and the statutory duty within sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and approval was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers and Questions

(5)          Mr Denny spoke on behalf of neighbouring residents setting out their objections to the scheme. He stated it was considered that the proposals would compromise daylight and sunlight, particularly to properties at the rear by virtue of the height and close proximity of those buildings. The proposed scheme was out of keeping with the character of the neighbouring conservation area and failed to address the safety concerns raised. It was the view of objectors that the car park should be removed and the height of the north block reduced to give the scheme a more modest appearance. Objectors were also at the apparent reduction of opportunities for local community use arising from the scheme.

(6)          Mr Westbrook, spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of the scheme. He explained that there was currently a mismatch of buildings on site, they were outdated, too small and were no longer fit for purpose as they were inadequate for modern teaching requirements. The scheme had been revised to reflect the feedback received following consultation, both the CAG and Historic England had raised no objection to the proposals.

(7)          Councillor Miller asked whether there would be an increase in pupil number and Mr Westbrook confirmed that was not envisaged.

(8)          Councillor Wares referred to the fact that a number of objections had been received and asked the applicant’s representative regarding amendments made in order to mitigate objectors concerns.

(9)          Councillor Janio asked the applicant to provide details in relation to on-site parking arrangements and how this would be monitored. It was explained that the additional on-site parking was intended in part, to ameliorate the pressure on parking in neighbouring streets. A one in one out system would be used in order to manage traffic flow and to control the number of vehicular movements on site.

              Questions for Officers

(10)       Mr Gowans, CAG asked for clarification regarding the elevational treatments and glazing proposed to the classrooms to be provided at second floor level.

(11)       Councillor Wares sought further information in relation to the operation of the proposed car lift and asked for details of the potential impact this could have in terms of vehicles queuing to access it. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager, Steven Shaw, explained that this had been assessed, and would operate as a “tidal flow” arrangement in the morning and evening and it was considered to be satisfactory.

(12)       Councillor Robins asked for clarification of the height of the constituent elements of the scheme and their distance from the nearest neighbouring properties.

(13)       Councillor Miller requested detail in respect of the extent of the works to be carried out adjacent to the listed flint wall.

(14)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner enquired regarding the arrangements to be made for transportation of materials and waste to and from the site during the construction period. It was important to minimise noise nuisance and other disruption.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(15)       Councillor Morris asked whether it would be possible to add an informative requesting that the applicant consider making facilities at the college available to small local community groups.

(16)       Councillor Wares concurred and considered that it was also important to ensure that use of the roof did not give rise to noise nuisance.

(17)       Councillor Gilbey considered that it would be appropriate to condition use of the roof to be used between 8am and 8pm seven days per week.

(18)       Councillor Mac Cafferty had noted the concerns raised by residents, about the potential impact on the neighbourhood also noting, however, that this scheme represented the “final Piece of the jigsaw” in that it represented the last stage of works at the college.

(19)       A vote was taken and members voted unanimously that planning permission be granted subject to the additional condition set out below.

94.1       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11. Condition 15 to be amended as set out below and also to the additional Condition and informative set out below:

              Amendment to Condition 15 to read:

              Additional Condition:

            The use of the roof for recreational purposes as set out in the planning application hereby approved shall take place between 8.00am to 8pm Monday to Sunday only.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Additional Informative:

The applicant is advised that Planning Committee would like to encourage the applicant to find creative ways of making the sport and recreation facilities available for the public/community to use.