Agenda item - BH2017/02680-St Aubyns School, 76 High Street, Rottingdean- Full Planning

Conversion of existing building of Field House and part of its northern extension, Conversion and alteration of existing terraced cottages and Rumneys to residential use (C3). Retention of existing sports pavilion, war memorial, water fountain and chapel; demolition of all other buildings and redevelopment to provide a total of 93no new dwellings (including conversions), incorporating the provision of new/altered access from Steyning Road and Newlands Road, landscaping works, car and cycle parking, refuse facilities, alterations to boundary flint wall along Steyning Road and The Twitten and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

Conversion of existing building of Field House and part of its northern extension, Conversion and alteration of existing terraced cottages and Rumneys to residential use (C3). Retention of existing sports pavilion, war memorial, water fountain and chapel; demolition of all other buildings and redevelopment to provide a total of 93no new dwellings (including conversions), incorporating the provision of new/altered access from Steyning Road and Newlands Road, landscaping works, car and cycle parking, refuse facilities, alterations to boundary flint wall along Steyning Road and The Twitten and other associated works.

 

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

 

            Officer Presentation

 

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Chris Swain, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to photographs, site plans and elevational drawings detailing the proposed scheme and its constituent elements; views across the site from various aspects were also shown. It was noted that two further late representations objecting to the scheme had been received neither raised any new issues which had not been addressed in the officer report. The officer presentation covered the planning and listed building applications.

 

(2)          It was noted that the main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of the proposed development including the partial loss of the playing field, financial viability and affordable housing provision, the impacts of the proposed development on the visual amenities of the site and surrounding area, including the Rottingdean Conservation Area and its setting and the impact upon the special architectural and historic significance of the listed buildings located within the site and their setting, the proposed access arrangements and related traffic implications, air quality, impacts upon amenity of neighbouring properties, standard of accommodation, ecology and sustainability impacts. A planning brief for the site had been prepared in order to guide the future redevelopment of the former school site following its closure in April 2013. Whilst Planning Briefs did not form part of the Local Development Framework and so could not be given full statutory weight the guidance within the brief had been subject to public consultation and had been approved as a material consideration in the assessment of subsequent planning applications relating to the site.

 

(3)          The brief had been prepared in partnership with Rottingdean Parish Council and the purpose of the brief had been to provide a planning framework which would bring forward a sensitive redevelopment of the site which also needed to be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Determining the acceptability of the principle of development on the playing field was also a key consideration. Weighing against the proposal was the partial loss of the playing field where there was a conflict in policy terms (including an objection from Sport England) and the potential heritage harm associated with the redevelopment of the playing field which would erode the visual separation between the development associated with the historic Rottingdean village and the suburban development to the east.

 

(4)          In relation to the playing field which was currently in private ownership and inaccessible to the public a significant proportion of this space would be made open to the public in perpetuity. Notwithstanding the objection received by Sport England the gradient of the field was such that it did not provide an ideal surface for turf sports. An off-site contribution would also be provided to compensate for loss of the playing field which would be secured via the s106 agreement. It should be noted that the previously refused planning application had not cited loss of the playing field as a reason for refusal.

 

(5)          It was also acknowledged that loss of part of the playing field would enable a viable policy compliant redevelopment of the campus site to take place which would include the existing vacant listed buildings, this had been confirmed by the District Valuer Service. The proposed use would secure the re-use and conversion of the principal Grade II listed building Field House and the listed cottages, including Rumneys which were currently vacant and were subject to ongoing dereliction and decay. These would be brought back into use which would secure their future conservation. Removal and replacement of the modern buildings in conjunction with the conversions and new builds would significantly improve the site in heritage terms. The Chapel and Sports Pavilion would also be secured and whilst the future use of these retained buildings could not be secured, conditions were recommended regarding repairs to the retained structures in addition to a conservation management plan in order to ensure that they were restored and preserved. Whilst there would be some impact on the road network this was not considered to be severe, had been assessed and was considered to be acceptable.

 

(6)          The public benefits from the proposal would include the contribution of 93 residential units towards the city’s housing target, 40 % of which would be affordable units. The overall design approach of the development on both the campus and playing field was also considered to be appropriate in height, scale, form, density and materials and other factors including impacts relating to amenity, standard of accommodation, ecology, archaeology, sustainability and land contamination had been assessed and were considered to be acceptable.

 

(7)          Overall, it was considered that the public benefits of the scheme as a whole were such that they outweighed any harm that would occur due to partial loss of the playing field and the proposed redevelopment. Approval of planning permission was therefore recommended subject to the Secretary of State deciding not to call the application in for determination, the completion of a s106 planning legal agreement and to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and to the amendments and corrections set out in the Late/Additional Representations List.

 

Public Speakers

 

(8)          Mr Flanagan spoke on behalf of local objectors detailing their representations. He stated that notwithstanding that Members had received detailed information in respect of the application and had visited the site the proposed scheme was not compliant with the council’s own policy and was deficient in many respects. The viability case put forward by the applicants was not accepted and loss of the existing green space would be detrimental and would give rise to overlooking and loss of privacy. The additional traffic which would be generated would exacerbate congestion problems in the local area including the High Street to/from Woodingdean and along the coast road in an area which was far too narrow to take the increased volume which would be placed upon it. Air quality was also an issue, nitrogen dioxide levels were already very high and could only significantly worsen as a result of this scheme.

 

(9)          Councillor Mears spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the proposed scheme. Whilst pleased to see development of the schools frontage which sat on the High Street and was in dilapidated state and had been subject to constant vandalism, she was concerned with the density and overall appearance of the proposed development on the greenfield area of the scheme. It appeared that the scheme would only be viable if a large area of the former playing field was built which was concerning as this could seriously impact on the character of the village. Given the proposed number of units there were concerns about the impact due to additional traffic detrimental in terms of higher levels of pollution and increased congestion as well as impact on the local primary, school, doctors’ and dental surgeries which were already oversubscribed.

 

(10)       Councillor Hyde enquired whether/what arrangements were in place to ensure that the affordable housing was allocated to local people and it was confirmed that lay with another committee and fell outside the responsibilities of the Planning Committee.

 

(11)       Councillor Bennett enquired regarding arrangements for use of local doctors’ surgeries, noting the comments received from the surgery situated in Saltdean, the fact that the practice located in Woodingdean was in the process of closing down.

 

(12)       Mr Bryant spoke on behalf of Rottingdean Parish Council detailing their general support for the scheme. The proposals to convert the original Field House and retention of other features including the flint boundary wall, historic twitten and Rumney cottages and restoration of the retained buildings were welcomed as was the proposal to make some of the former playing field available for public recreational use. The style and design of the brownfield elements was considered acceptable. There were concerns however in respect of air quality and the potential impact of any increase in vehicular traffic in the High Street.

 

(13)       Councillor Miller enquired regarding the progress of negotiations with the developers’ representatives in relation to the future responsibility for the playing field.

 

(14)       Councillor Hyde asked whether there was a date by which it was anticipated that this matter would be resolved. It was confirmed that negotiations were on-going and that whilst the Parish Council had concerns in relation to some elements of the scheme as outlined, they were supportive.

 

(15)       Councillor Morgan enquired as to the status of any agreement reached in relation to future use and availability by the public of the retained playing field should the planning application be agreed. It was confirmed that any agreement reached would be legally binding into the future as would any obligations agreed as part of the s106.

 

(16)       Mr Allin spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He stated that the application before the Committee that day had resulted from work in concert with the planning department and sought to deliver 40% affordable housing provision whilst respecting the character setting and heritage elements of the site.

 

(17)       Mr Gowans, CAG, referred to the garage building located to the left of the Field House enquiring regarding treatment proposed to the roof and, enquiring whether the applicants would be prepared use a pitched roof rather than a flat roof, the former being more in keeping with the character and appearance of that building.

 

(18)       Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the number of dwellings proposed on site and whether in view of that thought had been given to whether it would be appropriate to make the development car free, particularly in view of the concerns which had been expressed regarding the volume of traffic which would be generated. Councillor Mac Cafferty also referred to the concerns which had been expressed in relation to air quality and the level of nitrogen oxide emissions which were already very high.

 

(19)       Mr Allin explained that whilst making the development car free had not been explored specifically, travel plans and traffic management plans had been discussed in some detail, as had the option of introducing car clubs and electric charging points within the site for use by those using electrically powered vehicles.

 

(20)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he was surprised given the density of the proposed form of development and the availability of public transport nearby that this option had not been explored.

 

(21)       Councillor Marsh referred to the number of cycle parking spaces to be provided on site and to the number of car parking spaces which also seemed high, enquiring regarding the rationale for that. It was explained that the number of spaces set would exceed the maximum standard and that on-site provision had been set in order to ensure that overspill parking did not occur.

 

(22)       Councillor Moonan enquired regarding cycle ways access across the site.

 

(23)       Councillor Littman referred to planting in order to screen the site enquiring regarding arrangements proposed especially along the High Street frontage where they would need to be of sufficient density.

 

(24)       Councillor Robins sought clarification regarding the circumstances which triggered the requirement that a development be car free, stating that it was his understanding that was considered appropriate when a development was proposed in a Controlled Parking Zone. It was confirmed that was so.

 

Questions of Officers

 

(25)       Councillor Littman referred to the previous reasons for refusal seeking confirmation that they had been addressed. It was explained that they had and that in preparing the reports before the Committee that day that they had been incorporated across the two. In considering the current scheme an assessment had been made by the impact of the constituent elements of the scheme overall.

 

(26)       Councillor Miller referred to the open space/play provision contributions stating that he considered it would be more appropriate for the sum agreed or a greater proportion of it to be used in Rottingdean itself and in closer proximity to the site itself, asking whether it would be possible for that to be done and whether if Local Ward Councillors could be consulted regarding where those monies would ultimately be spent. He had the same view in respect of the provision towards education. Councillor Hyde sought confirmation in respect of the same issues. It was confirmed that advice had been sought regarding the sums to be included/requested as constituent elements of the s106 legal agreement. Whilst the overall sums to be provided were determined using an agreed formula, Local Ward Councillors could be consulted and consideration could be given to the sums within the overall allocated figure, if it was permitted/practicable to do so.

 

(27)       Councillor Hyde stated her preference would be for money to be provided to a local charity PARC which provided play equipment locally and towards provision locally, and improvements at St Maragaret’s, which was the local LEA school and which to her knowledge had a number of significantly undersized classrooms which would benefit from improvement. Councillor Miller concurred in that view stating that he considered that a proportion of the Education contribution should also go towards provision at Longhill School, the local LEA secondary school. It was noted that although Councillor Miller that was a governor of Longhill School that did not constitute a declarable or prejudicial interest.

 

(28)       Councillor Hyde enquired regarding the rational for inclusion of comments received from Hove Civic Society in the officer report, as they did not have any locus in the Rottingdean area. It was explained that comments received were included and Members could see where they had originated from.

 

(29)       Councillor Hyde also referred to the provision of “live time” boards stating that the locations at which these were proposed were not the most appropriate siting for them, requesting whether consideration could be given to alternative locations. The Development and Transport Assessment Engineer, David Farnham, explained that this could be looked at. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, confirmed that contributions sought would need to be assessed in accordance with the Council’s developer contributions’ guidance and monies allocated to an agreed formula but that subject to that proviso whether there could be any flexibility around the allocations made could be explored.

 

(30)       Mr Gowans, CAG, suggested that the proposed bin store in front of the south wing of the listed school building could be better designed and that some relief to the proposed blank wall fronting the High Street could be introduced. The Principal Planning Officer, Policy, Projects and Heritage, Tim Jefferies, suggested that an additional condition could be added requiring larger scale details of the proposed store to be approved by officers and noted that the proposed store was slightly smaller than the existing garage.

 

 

(31)       Councillor Moonan sought confirmation regarding how parking was to be distributed throughout the site and in respect of access to the playing field area. Further to her earlier question in relation to cycle arrangements it was confirmed that there would be full accessibility across the site for cyclists and that the arrangements to be put into place would be secured by condition.

 

(32)       Councillor Littman enquired whether it would be possible to encourage provision of all-weather pitches.

 

(33)       Councillor Mac Cafferty queried whether the proposal was policy compliant or, contrary to SU9, stating that he had grave concerns in relation to the amount of vehicle parking to be provided on site and the impact that the commensurate increase in vehicular activity would have on the neighbouring road network when it was acknowledged that air quality was already an issue. He failed to see how what was proposed would not affect the area negatively, enquiring regarding any independent assessment which had been carried out. He also asked why the developer had not been encouraged to make the development car free, he referred to the fact that this had been pressed for on other major developments. The Regulatory Services Manager, Environmental Protection, Annie Sparks explained that a thorough assessment had been carried out by her Senior Technical Officer which had taken account of local conditions and national guidance. Modelling had been carried out on that basis and, the proposed mitigation measures were considered to be acceptable.

 

(34)       The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, confirmed that under current legislation, car free developments could not be sought unless a proposed development fell within an existing Controlled Parking Zone. As this development failed to meet that test the applicants could not be required to meet that requirement.

 

              Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(35)       Councillor Hyde stated that she had found consideration of this application which was located in her own ward very difficult. She was aware of strong views both in favour of and in opposition to the scheme. Having visited the site she was aware that it had deteriorated significantly since she had visited in conjunction with the previous application. A number of the listed buildings were now close to being derelict, the site had been subject to acts of arson and vandalism and the proposed scheme would ensure their renovation and use. The scheme would provide much needed housing for local people on the free market and would provide an open space use which would be available for public access. Whilst the current space was larger, it was not available to the public. Councillor Hyde did not consider it would be appropriate for this out of town development to be car free considering that to do so would give rise to unacceptable levels of overspill parking. The site had remained empty since the school had closed and was deteriorating rapidly. On balance she considered that the benefits of the scheme outweighed any detrimental impact and she would be voting in support of the officer recommendation.

 

(36)       Councillor Morgan concurred that there were a number of factors to weigh up in determining the application. Whilst he had some concerns about traffic generated by the site which would undoubtedly be of a greater volume than when it was a school, he considered that was a broader issue to be addressed as was the allocation for funding for education and open spaces and impact on the local doctors’ surgeries; the proposed conditions and terms of the s106 needed to be applied robustly. The proposed development would provide much needed housing and had been sympathetically designed and would restore the listed buildings on site; the real time bus signage was also welcomed, on balance he would be voting in favour of the application.

 

(37)       Councillor Littman stated that it was very much a matter of balance considering that it was clear that a great deal of work had been carried out in order to overcome the previous reasons for refusal. Whilst there were some issues remaining to be addressed the protection of local heritage assets and housing provision were welcomed and he felt able to support the application.

 

(38)       Councillor Miller stated that the application before the Committee that day was significantly different from that which had previously been refused. The buildings on site had deteriorated greatly during that period and would continue to do so if not attended to. Whilst he had concerns about air quality issues in the area, that was not caused by locally generated traffic and the imposition of a Controlled Parking Zone, or making the development car free would exacerbate rather than remedy that. The mix of units was welcomed as was the involvement of Rottingdean Parish Council. The availability of the albeit reduced green space for public use where that was not currently so was also positive. Councillor Miller was also pleased to note that approval of materials and finishes would be referred back for approval by the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokesperson’s and that the Local Ward Councillors would be advised/consulted further in relation to where s106 monies would be allocated; he would be voting in support.

 

(39)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, commended the scheme and the hard work which had taken place in bringing forward this application and the efforts made to counter any negative impacts. She had been shocked by the level to which the buildings on site had deteriorated, including the listed pavilion which was currently weed choked and would be restored as would Field House and the other listed buildings on site. In its current condition the site benefitted no-one. The percentage of affordable housing to be provided and public open space use would be positive.

 

(40)       A vote was taken and in a vote of 9 to 1 by the 10 Members of the Committee who were present Minded to Grant planning permission was granted.

 

54.1       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the Secretary of State deciding not the call the application in for determination, a Section 106 agreement to secure the Heads of Terms and subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before 16 weeks from the date that the Secretary of State decides not to call in the application the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 9 of this report. This permission is also subject to the additional conditions and informatives set out below and in the amendments and corrections set out in the Additional/Late Representations List.

 

S106 Heads of Terms

Open space contribution should be £64,606.94, rather than £291,502.30.

 

Additional Head of Terms - Walkways Agreement

 

Conditions

Alterations to Conditions 10, 22, 23, 37, 38, 39 and 42 and additional Condition 48 as in Late List.

 

Additional Condition 49:

Notwithstanding the details shown on the drawings hereby approved, no development above ground floor slab level of the bin store to the west of the front elevation of Field House shall take place until elevational details of the bin store have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The bin store shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to comply with policies HE1 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and CP15 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One.

 

Informatives

Additional Informative 13:

Condition 19 requiring the approval of samples of external materials will be determined by the Head of Planning following consultation with the Planning Committee Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

 

MINOR APPLICATIONS