Agenda item - BH2015/03108,St Aubyns School 76 High Street Rottingdean Brighton

Demolition of rectangular block and associated extensions to north of Field House (main school building), demolition of building to north-east of Field House and other associated structures. Retention of existing sports pavilion, war memorial, water fountain and chapel. Residential conversion and refurbishment works to Field House, terraced cottages and Rumneys building, construction of new residential blocks and dwellings houses to provide a total of 48no residential dwellings (C3). Construction of part 2no, part 3no storey residential care home building providing a total of 62 bedrooms (C2). Revised access and landscaping works, provision of garages, car parking spaces, cycle storage and refuse facilities, alterations to boundary flint wall along Steyning Road and The Twitten and other associated works (Amended/Additional Information).

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

Demolition of rectangular block and associated extensions to north of Field House (main school building), demolition of building to north-east of Field House and other associated structures. Retention of existing sports pavilion, war memorial, water fountain and chapel. Residential conversion and refurbishment works to Field House, terraced cottages and Rumneys building, construction of new residential blocks and dwellings houses to provide a total of 48no residential dwellings (C3). Construction of part 2no, part 3no storey residential care home building providing a total of 62 bedrooms (C2). Revised access and landscaping works, provision of garages, car parking spaces, cycle storage and refuse facilities, alterations to boundary flint wall along Steyning Road and The Twitten and other associated works.

 

(1)          It was noted that this application and the two applications for Listed Building Consent following it (B and C on the Minor Applications List) had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. It was explained that the presentation and public speaking would relate to the considerations in respect of all three applications, with each voted on separately by the Committee.

 

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Liz Arnold gave a presentation by reference to photographs showing the constituent elements of the site and views across it, also plans and elevational drawings. Reference was also made to the further representations received and set out in the late Additional Representations List. It was noted that no new matters had been raised.

 

(3)          It was noted that St Aubyns School closed in mid-2013, it had been a fee paying school with boarding facilities (use class C2). The former school was located in its own grounds on the eastern side of the High Street and incorporated playing fields to the rear/east of the school. The site was of 3.3Ha, although the campus and field was physically divided by a public twitten that ran between Steyning Road and Marine Drive In addition to the main school building, the Chapel and the boundary wall flint wall fronting the High Street were Grade ll listed however all buildings, structures and flint walls located within the site (school campus and playing field), which were built before 1948 and were in associated use at the time of listing were considered curtilage listed. The school campus, itself, approximately 0.86Ha included;

 

• The main `school building (known as Field House/76 High Street) and its adjoining Chapel (Grade ll Listed),

• The listed boundary wall fronting the High Street (Grade ll listed),

• A row of internally linked terraced cottages (including Rumneys) (pre-1948 and curtilage listed),

• Other outbuildings associated with the school (circa 1980-1995) including

• classrooms, dormitories, gymnasium, changing rooms, and Headmaster’s residence,

• An outdoor swimming pool,

• Shooting range (pre-1948 and curtilage listed),

• Terraced gardens, and

• Equipped children’s play area.

. The existing playing field measured approximately 2.5Ha and comprised of:

• Sports pavilion (pre-1948 and curtilage listed),

• War memorial (pre-1948 and curtilage listed),

• Water fountain (pre-1948 and curtilage listed), and

• 2 tennis courts with associated net fencing and cricket nets.

 

(4)          The school campus site was located within the Rottingdean Conservation Area, the boundary of which ran along the eastern side of the twitten and therefore excluded the playing field. Never-the-less the playing field was considered an important part of the setting of the Conservation Area, providing a distinction between the historic village and the surrounding suburban environment. The site was located on a sloping hillside which rose from west to east from the valley floor, with a level change of approximately 5m between the school’s main building and the middle of the playing field. This change of levels accounted for the existing predominance of garden terracing to the school building. One of the boundaries of the South Downs National Park was located approximately 119m to the east of the playing field.

 

(5)          The main considerations in determining the application related to the principal of the proposed development, the impacts of the proposed development on the visual amenities of the site and surrounding area, (including the Rottingdean Conservation Area and its setting), the impacts upon the Listed Buildings located within the site and their setting and financial viability. The proposed access arrangements and related traffic implications, air quality, impacts upon amenity of neighbouring properties, standard of accommodation, ecology, sustainability impacts needed to be addressed. A planning brief had been prepared for the site in order to guide sensitive future redevelopment of the site following closure of the school in April 2013. The brief had been prepared by the Council in partnership with Rottingdean Parish Council and with the engagement of the landowner, the Cothill Educational Trust (joint applicant of this application). The brief sought to provide a planning framework to facilitate sensitive redevelopment.

 

(6)          The constituent elements of the scheme were set out in detail including those contained in the two Listed Building consent applications that had been submitted concurrent to this application with regards to demolition and conversion works. The post 1948 buildings located on site were proposed for demolition as part of the proposal and this was considered acceptable in principle. Field House, the main school building was of significance as an early large residence and due to its early use as a school, its plan form and surviving historic features were of significance notwithstanding alterations which had been made over the years. The proposed alterations to the rear elevation were considered inappropriate. The proposed lift was also considered to have an unacceptable impact on the building. The existing Chapel was attached to the main Listed Building and as such it was considered to form part of the listing of the school despite what had been stated within the applicant’s submitted Heritage Statement. As such any alterations to the Chapel would require Listed Building Consent.

 

(7)          The proposal included construction of a new care home and 10 new dwellings (3 and 4 bedroom) in the southern part of the existing playing field, resulting in a development of approximately 0.8Ha of the former playing field. The proposed residential development on the former playing field would not have a traditional layout and would not reinforce the local character or urban grain of the area. It was also considered that this element of the proposal would fail to successfully address the street, without a strong sense of public/private space or strong building lines. The proposed care home was considered to be excessive in scale, massing and footprint and would appear dominant in relation to the footprint of the main Listed Building, which was itself a relatively large building. The proposed care home would also be an incongruous feature in relation to the tight knit urban grain of the Conservation Area and to the setting of the Listed Building. The impact of the proposed development on strategic views including those from Beacon Hill were also shown in photographs and an assessment of the impact of the proposed new build within the site. Whilst new buildings which would contribute towards the city’s identified housing need were welcomed, there was no provision for affordable housing as required by the Brighton & Hove City Plan which had been adopted in March 2016, and the previous local plan. An independent assessment provided by the District Valuer had indicated that this would be viable although the applicant demurred from that view.

 

(8)          The Planning Officer, Heritage and Design, Sanne Roberts, was in attendance at the meeting and referenced those elements of the site which were listed in their  own right and those which were curtilage listed and their rationale for the views of the Heritage Team in supporting recommendations that the application be refused.

 

(9)          The existing playing field was an identified open space and sports area and in respect of the current proposal the partial loss of the existing school playing field was being considered on the basis that the loss would be mitigated by the retention of the remainder for public use. Retention was required in order to meet the existing objectively assessed open space needs. The option explored in the application was for transfer of the retained playing field land to the City Council with a maintenance fund of £93,000 to cover a 10 year period. Such transfer and fund provision was proposed by the applicants in order to secure the long term public access. However due to public sector austerity the Council was only in a position to accept additional land where sufficient monies were provided to ensure maintenance for 25 years, for which a maintenance cost of £500,000 would be required. Without the transfer of the retained playing field and associated features, such as fencing and the existing sports pavilion in a good state of repair and the provision of the maintenance fund the applicant would need to demonstrate how the land would be retained and maintained to provide satisfactory/unrestricted public access (which is a material consideration regarding the loss of part of the existing open space).

 

(10)       Overall, whilst the public benefits of the proposed development were noted, including the re-use of the currently vacant school buildings, the future conservation of Listed Buildings, the delivery of much needed housing and the transfer of the retained playing field to the Council for public open space. These public benefits were outweighed by the overall shortcomings of the proposed development, including the lack of provision of affordable housing, the failure of the proposal to secure future use of the Chapel, the harm caused by the massing/design of new buildings and the harm that would be caused to Listed Buildings/Curtilage Listed Structures as a result of the proposed conversion and/or alterations in addition to the harm caused to the Conservation Are and its setting and the setting of the Listed Buildings.

 

              Public Speaker(s) and Questions

 

(11)       Mr Smith and Ms Mosse spoke on behalf of objectors setting out their objections in respect of all three applications currently put forward in respect of the site. They considered that the care home proposals would result in a building of too great density for the site and its proposed specialism in dementia was not necessary given that there was an 80 bed unit located in Woodingdean. The proposed changes of use were in contravention of existing covenants and in their view any loss of green space should be resisted, there had been an 1800 signature petition seeking to retain the playing field. Loss of 60% of the Listed Buildings was unacceptable as would be the detrimental impact on traffic, air quality and increased flood risk. Much of the application ran counter to the Planning Brief and newly adopted City Plan. The independent viability assessment by the District Valuer was significantly different from that provided by the applicant.

 

(12)       Councillor Mears spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections in respect of all three applications currently put forward in respect of the site. In her view the proposed form of development represented serious overdevelopment and would have a serious impact on Rottingdean Village. To build 48 residential homes, and a 62 bed care home was too large a development for the existing infrastructure, with the additional traffic movements having a serious impact both on road capacity, congestion, air quality and pollution and creating the potential for serious accidents; also on sewage and drainage. A new care home would increase the already large numbers of elderly and disabled residents and increase the strain on local GP surgeries. The impact of the Listed Building applications which included for removal of large areas of the existing flint boundary wall and demolition of 60% of the former building did not respect the historic nature of the site and would have a negative impact both on the site itself and did not respect the character of the village or surrounding area.

 

(13)       Councillor Shepherd spoke in his capacity as a Member of Rottingdean Parish CounciI setting out the Parish Council’s objections in respect of all three applications currently put forward in respect of the site. Councillor Shepherd stated that whilst the Parish Council recognised that redevelopment of the site was accepted it was important that this should be done sympathetically respecting both the listed and curtilage listed buildings on site and its context in relation to the wider setting of Rottingdean Village and in longer views. To that end the Parish Council had provided input into the Planning Brief. Whilst welcoming some elements of the scheme, overall they considered that it represented overdevelopment as some elements of scheme were of too great a density and would have a negative visual impact, also in respect of traffic volume and air quality and would not provide adequate infrastructure provision. Any positive contribution was outweighed by the negative elements of the current scheme.

 

(14)       Mr Williams spoke on behalf of the applicants requesting that the Committee agree to defer consideration of the applications before them in order to enable further work to be undertaken in relation to the viability assessment provided by the District Valuer - an assessment with which the applicants fundamentally disagreed; also to carry out further work in relation to the air quality assessment. Mr Williams stated further that the applications before the Committee would deliver a number of significant public benefits. As well as providing housing which would go towards satisfying the city’s unmet housing need, the care home with specialist facilities for the care of those suffering with dementia, would also answer an identified local need. Although part of the playing field would be lost the scheme would provide public access to the remainder which was not currently available. The scheme would deliver a high quality development and further time was requested to resolve these issues.

 

(15)       Councillor Morris asked the applicant’s representative why the District Valuer’s assessment had been rejected and Mr Williams explained that they did not agree with the assumptions or methodology used in arriving at his conclusions. Councillor Barradell asked why the applicants were requesting that the application be deferred rather than withdrawing it and it was explained that to do so would run contrary to the contractual arrangements which existed between the applicants.

 

(16)       Councillor Miller referred to the fact that although the applicant’s representative had raised two issues there were in fact a large number of reasons for refusal proposed querying why these had not also been addressed. Mr Williams stated that in the applicants view they were unable to move forward until the viability issue had been addressed as that impacted on the scheme overall.

 

(17)       Councillor Miller also referred to the status of the Chapel for which no community interest had as yet been forthcoming expressing concern regarding the fact that it would continue to deteriorate. Councillor C Theobald also expressed the same concerns. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, explained that were approval to be recommended community use would be covered by a s106 agreement and the nature of a s106 agreement was such that it was enforceable against  successive landowners.

 

(18)       Councillor O’Quinn enquired as to the rationale for the care home specialising in dementia and it was explained that this was based on an assessment of such needs identified by the council’s adult social care team. Officers clarified that such provision would be available to anyone and would not be available solely for those living locally within the city.

 

(19)       Mr Gowans, CAG referred to the circulated site plans, seeking clarification that a garage building shown on them should have been included as proposed for demolition. It was confirmed that was the case.

 

(20)       The Chair referred to the fact that notwithstanding the applicant’s request for deferral, and the two reasons cited for that there were a large number of other reasons proposed for refusal. She considered that it would be appropriate therefore for the applications to be determined as put forward. As the Committee were in agreement they then preceded to ask questions of officers and to debate and determine the applications.

 

              Questions for Officers

 

(21)       Councillor Barradell asked whether it would be possible to vote on each reason for refusal separately in respect of each the applications. Councillor Gilbey sought clarification of how that would be undertaken. It was explained that the reasons could be voted on in that manner if Members wished to do so. However, following the discussion and debate the Committee decided to vote on each separate set of recommendations en-block.

 

(22)       Councillors Morris and Wares enquired regarding the methodology used by the District Valuer and it was confirmed that the assessment was carried out in accordance with best practice. A consistent approach taken by the District Valuer’s Office being applied to all applications on which they were consulted.

 

(23)       Councillor C Theobald asked for confirmation that although at pre-application stage the scheme had sought to provide 10 affordable housing units on site that no affordable housing had been put forward in the current application. It was confirmed that was so. Councillor Theobald also enquired regarding treatment to the twitten adjoining the site and public access arrangements across the site.

 

(24)       Councillor Miller referred to references to the playing fields enquiring whether there was any inconsistency between the Planning Brief and the recently agreed Plan and it was confirmed that there was not.

 

(25)       Councillor Barradell referred to the comments received from Sport England raising objection to any reduction in area of the existing playfield field querying whether they were aware that there was currently no public access to that space. It was explained that Sport England’s position was to oppose the loss of playing fields irrespective of access arrangements/their ownership.

 

(26)       Councillor Barradell sought clarification regarding loss of/further alteration to the listed buildings on site given the dilapidated condition of some of them and/or the fact that that their appearance had already been much altered over the years since they had first been built. The Planning Officer, Heritage and Design, Sanne Roberts advised, that the heritage statement provided by the applicants was lacking in information and that the significance of individual features/areas impacted by the scheme or the importance of strategic views and the level of impact on these individual features had not always been identified. Whilst sympathetic alterations to the main building would be supported the proposed external alterations to the rear elevation of Field House sought to introduce a regularity and similarity for which there was no historical precedent. Even though it had been altered the existing rear elevation revealed much about the development of the building and was significant in understanding the history of the building and should be preserved.

 

(27)       Councillor Morris sought clarification of the distinction between those buildings on site which were listed in their own right and those which were curtilage listed.

 

(28)       Councillor O’Quinn sought clarification of the proposed impact on traffic of the proposals. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager; Steven Shaw, confirmed that three highway authorities  had locus in the vicinity of the site and that some of the observations received referred to the anticipated impact of cross-boundary trips. It was considered that traffic issues arising could be addressed by appropriate s106 arrangements at such time as any permission was granted.

 

              Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(29)       Councillor Barradell stated that whilst she supported the reasons for refusal put forward overall, being concerned about the massing, bulk and scale proposed in relation to some elements of the scheme, the care home and lack of any affordable housing, she was not, opposed to the loss of some of the listed buildings. They were in a very poor state of repair, having not been maintained for some time and having undergone significant alteration since they were first built and were not in her view of such merit that they should be retained. In the case of Field House she was of the view that the proposed alterations to the rear elevation were acceptable.

 

(30)       Councillor Littman stated that he supported the officer recommendations. Although some elements of the scheme could be made acceptable, there were numerous reasons for refusal, and the lack of any affordable housing and flagrant ignoring of both the Brief for the site and the recently adopted plan were very disappointing.

 

(31)       Councillor Mac Cafferty considered that the District Valuer’s view in terms of viability should be accepted and that a divergent view by the applicant did not represent grounds for deferral. The District Valuer’s assessment had been made independently using a consistent approved model, which would not suggest that the District Valuer’s professional opinion was either erroneous or flawed. He was also concerned that the Planning Brief and adopted had plan had been disregarded, particularly in relation to provision of affordable housing with no cogent reasons for departure from these documents given. Councillors Inkpin-Leissner, Miller, Morris and Wares concurred in that view.

 

(32)       Councillor Wares stated that clearly approval did not hang on the two issues highlighted by the applicant’s representative - a very large number of grounds for refusal had been cited, far more than the few that were usually the case. That suggested to him that the current applications fell very far short of anything which could be considered acceptable.

 

(33)       Councillor C Theobald considered that the lack of any affordable housing was not acceptable and agreed overall with the reasons for refusal.

 

(34)       Councillor Wealls stated that whilst he had concerns in respect of air quality and traffic flow it was his intention to abstain.

 

(35)       The Chair Councillor Cattell stated that she concurred with all that had been said, there were a number of issues which remained to be addressed and she would be voting in support of the officer’s recommendations

 

(36)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 10 with 2 abstentions planning permission was refused in line with the recommendations set out in the officer report.

 

178.1    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 set out in section 7 and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in section 11.

 

              NB: References to the “City Plan” in the reasons for refusal to be changed to “Brighton & Hove City Plan. Part One.”

 

              MINOR APLICATIONS