Agenda item - BH2017/00482 -Brighton College, Eastern Road, Brighton

Erection of a two storey temporary classroom with ancillary temporary two storey changing rooms, single storey temporary toilets & storage unit.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Queen’s Park

              Erection of a two storey temporary classroom with ancillary temporary two storey changing rooms, single storey temporary toilets and storage unit.

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and a satellite view showing the proposals in the context of the site as whole. The development site formed part of a multi games court area and was located at the north end of the site in close proximity to the listed boundary wall which ran along Walpole Terrace and College Terrace. The application sought consent for a two storey modular classroom and 4 temporary ancillary buildings including a two storey changing facility, two storey toilet/showers, single storey toilet and showers and a storage unit.

(2)          It was explained that the main considerations in determining the application related to the impact of the temporary classroom building on the appearance of the site, the setting of the adjacent listed buildings and boundary wall, the wider College Conservation Area and the amenities of adjacent occupiers. The facilities were required for a three year period to facilitate the construction of the recently approved sports and science building which it was envisaged would take approximately two years to complete.

(3)          Whilst it was acknowledged that the proposed buildings would not be an attractive addition to the school, they would however be set below the existing high boundary wall along College Terrace. As a permanent structure they would result in clear harm to the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed wall and the College Conservation Area.. The proposed temporary buildings were considered acceptable only as a temporary installation whilst works to implement the planning permission were carried out and approval was therefore recommended.

              Questions for Officers

(4)          Councillor Morris referred to the ongoing works at the site and sought clarification regarding how the works would impact on access in the vicinity. Currently, for instance, a temporary crossing had been provided in Freshfield Road and had been removed subsequently, and he understood that further hoardings would be erected as the scheme progressed. In response it was explained that the proposed structures on site were considered minimal in the context of the overall scheme. Works to the highway would require the appropriate licenses which fell under the remit of licensing legislation.

(5)          Councillor Gilbey sought confirmation regarding the height of the proposed structures in relation to the adjacent listed boundary wall and it was confirmed that the gap between the proposed temporary structures and the wall was such that it was considered there would be no significant structural impact.

(6)          In answer to questions by Councillor C Theobald it was explained that if temporary structures would only be permitted for the duration of the other works being carried out. If those were completed ahead of schedule then the temporary structures would be removed at an earlier date.

(7)          Mr Mustoe, stated that CAG which he was representing that day had recently received details relating to another temporary structure at a recent meeting and enquired why it had not been possible for both applications, this one and that, to be considered together. It was explained that applications were processed in the order that they arrived and were submitted to Committee for decision once all necessary work had been completed.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)          Councillor Morris stated that he was grateful for the clarification received and confirmed that on the basis of the information provided he was able to support the officer recommendation.

(9)          Councillor Taylor stated that he was familiar with the site which was surrounded by dwelling houses and blocks of flats. He was aware that trees on the site provided screening and considered that the proposals were modest as evidenced by the small number of objections and was able to support the officer recommendation.

(10)       A vote was then taken and the 10 Members present voted unanimously that planning permission be granted.

7.5         RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report.

              Note: Councillor Mac Cafferty was not present during consideration or voting in respect of the above application.