Agenda item - BH2017/01891 - West Blatchington Primary & Nursery School, Hangleton Way, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of existing school buildings. Erection of Primary school and nursery schools (2 form entry) replacing existing school buildings and erection of secondary school (5 form entry including 6^th form).

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Hangleton & Knoll

Demolition of existing school buildings. Erection of Primary school and nursery schools (2 form entry) replacing existing school buildings and erection of secondary school (5 form entry including 6^th form) including re-provision of sports pitches and provision of new access and parking and associated landscaping.

 

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

 

Officer Presentation

 

2)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings and that in addition to the representations on the Additional Representation List a further six letters of objections had been received. The additional representations did not include any new material planning considerations in addition to those set out in section 4 of the Committee report.

 

3)               The current buildings on the site would be demolished and temporary buildings would be provided for West Blatchington Primary and Nursery School to the west of the site. Kings School needed a new school within the city and this site would also provide a sixth form college and it was estimated that Kings School would reach its maximum size of 1050 pupils within five years. The capacity of West Blatchington Primary School would increase by 20 pupils and an autistic support unit and nursery would also be provided. There were two separate proposed accesses to the site and each school would have two proposed car parks.

 

4)               The buildings would be a combination of one and two storeys in height. There would be a blended brick effect on Kings School and West Blatchington Primary School would have a different colour scheme in brick. It was noted that the final materials were secured by condition.

 

5)               The Principal Planning Officer noted that there would be a loss of playing fields and an objection had been received from Sport England; however, the Brighton & Hove City Council Sport Facilities Team supported the proposal. Some of the playing fields would be retained for Kings School and would provide a senior football pitch, two smaller football pitches, a training grid, a cricket wicket pitch, two athletics tracks and three multi-use games areas. West Blatchington Primary School would retain their multi-use games area and have a smaller football pitch. A financial contribution of £150,000 towards the enhancement of sports facilities would also be secured.

 

6)               As part of the proposal, 20 trees would be removed. There had been no objection received from the Arboriculturistas these trees were not protected and substantive planting would be secured as part of a comprehensive landscaping master plan. Due to the sensitive location of the site a landscape visual assessment was submitted of the affected views.

 

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

 

7)               Ms Lynch spoke in objection to the application in her capacity as a local resident. She stated that she was the CEO of the Russell Education Trust and was objecting to one of the s106 Heads of Terms regarding the introduction of a minibus service. She explained that the Russell Education Trust could not make the commitment due to the funding and wished to encourage students to walk to school. She explained that Kings School actively discouraged parents from dropping the children off at school and there was a local bus service in the area that could be used. She requested that Members removed the requirement from the s106 Heads of Terms.

 

8)               In response to Councillor Yates Ms Lynch explained that she was supportive of the application; however, she wished to object to the one head of term.

 

9)               In response to Councillor Hyde the Principal Planning Officer explained that the Russell Education Trust were the prospective occupiers and not the applicant. The Senior Solicitor noted that obligations in a s106 were enforceable against the landowner and it was the duty of the landowner to ensure the obligations were complied with. 

 

10)            In response to Councillor Hill Ms Lynch explained that she did not want the Committee to refuse the application but to remove the requirement for a mini bus.

 

11)            Councillor Janio spoke in his capacity as a Local Councillor. He stated that he was fully supportive of the application and the facilities were desperately needed. It would be beneficial in the Hangleton area; however, he had concerns for the traffic in the area as there would be twice the amount of pupils. He requested a zebra crossing in the area as it was currently dangerous and would be made worse with the extra trips a day. The roads were currently too narrow for two buses to pass. He noted that although he was supportive of the application, transport solutions were needed.

 

12)            In response to Councillor Hyde Councillor Janio explained that he often received complaints from local residents that they could not get the bus in the morning as they were full.

 

13)            In response to Councillor Miller it was explained that the local residents did not have any consultation with the applicant and noted that it would be positive if the Ward Councillors, interested parties and the applicant could meet to discuss transport options.

 

14)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was agreed that additional buses in the area could help; however, it was already chaotic in the area during the rush hour.

 

15)            Ms Tipper spoke in support to the application in her capacity as the agent and stated that the proposal had been the subject of a detailed pre-application presentation to Planning Committee Members and pre-application discussions with officers. She explained that the proposal would increase the capacity of West Blatchington Primary School and provide a site for Kings School which could potentially help provide school places to the increase that would be produced from the Toads Hole Valley proposal. There was a loss of playing fields; however, it was considered that this was the most effective development of the site. The proposal would meet the individual needs of both schools and included a significant enhancement of sports facilities.

 

16)            In response to Councillor Yates Ms Tipper noted that all elements of the travel plan had been considered and they were satisfied that the development would be suitable for the area. She had spoken to the Case Officer regarding the amendment of the S106 Head of Terms regarding the wording being broader for the requirement of a minibus.

 

17)            In response to Councillor Morris Ms Tipper explained that the applicant had met with Sport England as part of the pre-application presentation and it was considered that the diversity and quality of the provision being offered for both schools and it being available to the public through leasing agreements was considered acceptable.

 

18)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was noted that advice had been sought from the structural engineers and due to the location of the development any solar panels installed would not meet health and safety regulations. It was also noted that the applicant was mindful of the visual element from the South Downs National Park.

 

Questions for Officers

 

19)            In response to Councillor Hamilton the Senior Solicitor noted that the Security of State could call the application in for his own decision and this could delay the decision by months.

 

20)            Councillor Miller queried whether the sport contribution could be released at the earliest opportunity to mitigate the loss; however, the Principal Planning Officer explained that this would not be appropriate as it was standard practice for the contributions to be pre-commencement.

 

21)            In response to Councillor Miller it was noted that it would be acceptable for the Committee to agree to an informative encouraging the applicant to meet with the Ward Councillors to discuss travel options.

 

22)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was noted that condition 23 secured that the development would achieved a minimum BREEAM rating of 60% in energy and water sections of relevant BREEAM assessment within overall 'Excellent'. This was the responsibility of the applicant and officers would help them to achieve this.

 

23)            In response to Councillor Yates the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that there was no requirement specified as to how the minibus would be funded.  

 

24)            In response to Councillor Morris the Principal Planning Officer believed that the proposed panels were both decorative and for insulation. It was explained that the fire safety aspect of these would be a building regulation matter.

 

Debate and Decision Making Process

 

25)            Councillor Miller stated that he did have concerns regarding the sports facilities; however, he had been reassured through the discussion. He would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

26)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner explained that the proposal would provide a new teaching facility which was positive. He stated that he did not agree with the Sport England objection because although there was a loss of playing fields, additional facilities were being provided. He explained that he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

27)            Councillor Hyde agreed with Councillor Inkpin-Leissner regarding the objection submitted from Sport England. She noted that she attended the site visit and was surprised about the size of the site. The design and colours were aesthetically pleasing.

 

28)            Councillor Yates noted that the minibus would provide a good service as children attending the school would not necessarily be in the catchment area. He noted that he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation. 

 

29)            Councillor C. Theobald noted that a new school was much needed in the city and the design of the proposal was good. She noted concern for the current traffic issues in the area; however, she hoped the review of the traffic plan would resolve this.

 

30)            Councillor Littman noted that he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

31)            Councillor Morris suggested that the applicant could install wind turbines on the roof of the development. He also noted that there was a need for a school in the city and would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

32)            Councillor Hamilton noted that the temporary building for Kings School in South Portslade was currently at full capacity and it was important for this site to be developed.

 

33)            Councillor Bennett noted the positive design and that it was a large site. The school was needed in the city and included a huge improvement to the West Blatchington Primary School and the nursery.

 

34)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be minded to granted was carried unanimously.

 

44.4       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permissionsubject to the Secretary of State deciding not to call in the application for determination, and the s106 agreement, conditions and informatives set out in the report as amended by the amended S106 Head of Terms, amended conditions and the additional informative set out below:

 

 

i)          Amend S106 heads of terms 7^th bullet to read:

·      A Travel Plan including car park/drop-off area management plan, commitment to introduction of a dedicated bus or mini bus service or enhancement of existing bus services, inclusion of the construction period and use of the site outside school hours;

 

ii)         Amend Condition 21 to read:

 

Prior to first occupation of each respective phase of the development as agreed under condition 3, unless an alternative timescale is agreed by the Local Planning Authority, details of the car park layout to include circulation roads, vehicle swept paths, drop-off areas, disabled parking, motorcycle parking and pedestrian routes including dropped kerbs shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented and made available for use prior to the first occupation of the respective phase of the development and shall thereafter be retained for use at all times.

 

Reason: To ensure the development provides for the needs of pedestrians, disabled staff and visitors to the site and motorcycle users and to comply with policies CP9 of the City Plan Part One and policies TR7 and TR18 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and SPD14 guidance.

 

iii)       Amend Condition 22 to read:

 

Prior to first occupation of each respective phase of the development as agreed under condition 3, unless an alternative timescale is agreed by the Local Planning Authority, details of secure cycle parking facilities for the occupants of, and visitors to, the development and safeguarded areas to allow for future expansion of cycle parking shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall be fully implemented and made available for use prior to the first occupation of the respective phase of the development and shall thereafter be retained for use at all times.

 

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory facilities for the parking of cycles are provided and to encourage travel by means other than private motor vehicles and to comply with policy TR14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

iv)       Amend Condition 26 to read:

 

No development above ground floor slab level for each respective phase of the development as agreed under Condition 3 shall commence until a Scheme to Enhance Nature Conservation interest within the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Scheme shall include provision of a minimum of 8 bird nesting boxes (house sparrow and swift), 2 bat nesting boxes, and provision logpile and meadow habitats, and the following:

 

a)    purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed works;

b)    review of site potential and constraints;

c)    detailed design(s) and/or working method(s) to achieve stated objectives;

d)    extent and location/area of proposed works on appropriate scale maps and plans;

e)    type and source of materials to be used where appropriate, e.g. native species of local provenance;

f)     timetable for implementation demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phasing of development;

g)    persons responsible for implementing the works;

h)   details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance;

i)     details for monitoring and remedial measures;

j)      details for disposal of any wastes arising from works.

 

The approved Scheme shall be implemented before first occupation of each respective phase of the development (or in the first planting season following occupation with regard to meadow habitat) and retained thereafter.

 

Reason: In the interests of enhancing biodiversity, to comply with policy CP10 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One.

 

Additional Informative:

The applicant is requested to discuss the transport provisions associated with the development with ward councillors and local residents at the earliest opportunity.