Agenda item - BH2018/02404- Varndean College, Surrenden Road, Brighton- Full Planning

Relocation of 2no modular classroom blocks and erection of a two storey Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) centre with associated cycle parking and landscaping alterations (part retrospective)

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Withdean

              Relocation of 2no modular classroom blocks and erection of a two storey Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) centre with associated cycle parking and landscaping alterations (part retrospective).

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to photographs, site plans and elevational drawings detailing the proposed scheme. It was noted that the application was seeking permission for the relocation of 2no modular classroom blocks and the erection of a specialist two storey Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) building including 4 science labs and 6 teaching classrooms, with associated cycle parking and landscaping alterations. The objective was to provide fit for purpose permanent teaching space.

(2)          The main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of the scheme, design and visual impact, impact on neighbouring amenity, highways and ecology issues. In terms of visual impact there was no objection to the relocation of the temporary classrooms to the east of the site. As the potential increase in student numbers was up to 20 it was not considered that the development would result in significant noise disturbance above that already existing, nor  was it considered that the fact that the relocated temporary classrooms would be slightly closer to properties in Friar Walk and Friar Crescent that that would cause significant nuisance in terms of increased activity and noise. The proposed STEM building represented the first phase in the delivery of a wider masterplan proposal to provide improved permanent teaching accommodation, enabling the removal of the existing cluster of temporary teaching space on site, much of which was now coming to the end of its functional life. Longer term masterplan proposals on site would seek the provision of a new 'horseshoe-shaped' building to complete the masterplan and enable the removal of temporary buildings from the site. However it is uncertain when this application will be forthcoming as it is dependent on future funding.

(3)          The main considerations in determining this application related to the principal of the scheme, design and visual impact, impact on neighbour amenity, highways, sustainability and ecology issues. Whilst generally, loss of open space was to be resisted, due to its typography the  area which would be lost comprised as well as the clusters of temporary classrooms, a grassed area which due to its sloping nature was at a lower level than the adjoining playing field. This area of the school grounds also appeared predominantly to consist of pathways between the main building and the temporary classrooms themselves. The relocated temporary classrooms would bring the temporary buildings slightly closer to the properties in Friar Walk and Friar Crescent. However, given that they were still in excess of 40m from the boundary of the rear gardens of these properties, it was not considered that they would cause a significant nuisance in terms of increased activity and noise. A minimal (potentially up to 20) increase in student numbers was proposed; therefore it was considered that the development should not result in significant noise disturbance above that already existing.

(4)          The Council's Highways team had no objections to the scheme in principle. Access to the site would remain unchanged; no additional car parking spaces had been included; and extra cycle parking provision was proposed, all of which is deemed acceptable. The Highways team had recommended however that a trip generation assessment was resubmitted based on the increase in floor space, to accommodate potential future increases in students; This had been requested and additionally the report recommended that an updated travel plan was requested as a condition of permission being granted. Also, that there needed to be a financial contribution for transport. Overall, the proposals were considered to be acceptable and approval was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers

(5)          Mr J Davies of “Keep Varndean Green” and Mr Muzio spoke on behalf of neighbouring residents setting out their objections to the scheme. In the view of objectors the proposed STEM building would encroach on the area for which Asset of Community Value status had been applied. No decision on this application should be taken until that had been decided. It was not considered that sufficient information had been provided in that the Design and Access Statement was not sufficiently detailed and that no further applications should be determined until the college had submitted a Masterplan which stakeholders could comment upon. They were in agreement that the application was contrary to the city plan and did not agree that the space on which the temporary structures had been located was unusable space, that notification of the application had not been sent to adjoining residences as it should have been and that it represented unnecessary expansion by the college.

(6)          The Democratic Services Officer, Penny Jennings, read out a statement on behalf of Councillor Taylor one of the Local Ward Councillors for Withdean who was unable to be present setting out his objections to the scheme. Councillor Taylor stated that whilst recognising the important contribution made by the college he considered that the strategic importance of the college needed to be carefully balanced with the needs and concerns of the local community. The green space provided was very important and for many months the local community had led an application for parts of the field to be listed as an Asset of Community Value. This development was just one part of the jigsaw and needed to be carefully considered in a full strategic way. The huts this space replaced would otherwise have been green space, this would now be permanently lost. As there were two other applications being made in respect of the site he considered that they needed to be considered in a more holistic way. He considered that the application should be refused due to loss of open space CP10 and CP16 and due to the ridge height of the proposed building.

(7)          Mr Harland, the Principal of Varndean College, spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He explained that the proposals were the next stage in the college’s plans to improve its facilities and that they were intended particularly in relation to the new STEM block to update and improve the current outdated facilities but would not result in significant increases to current student numbers nor would they generate additional numbers.

(8)          Councillor Hyde sought clarification regarding use of the of public access to the space and it was confirmed that the area adjacent to the college was not public space but that the public were permitted access to it. The location of the proposed new structures and their distance from the nearest residential dwellings was confirmed. It was also confirmed that when the college building works had been completed all temporary structures would be removed.

              Questions of Officers

(9)          Clarification was sought of the area of the application site which could be impacted by the application site of the Asset of Community Value Status. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, explained that the ACV nomination had not yet been determined so was not capable of being a material planning consideration. In any event it was noted that that part of the application needed to be considered on its planning merits and it would not be appropriate for it to be delayed pending any future decision on the ACV nomination.

(10)       In answer to questions by Councillor Littman it was confirmed that no trees in residential roads nearby and the accompanying planning application confirmed that no trees on site would be effected by works to the roadway which was located to the north of the site.

(11)       In answer to further questions of the Chair regarding the status of the green space at the college it was confirmed that it was open space in the ownership of the college to which the community were permitted access.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(12)       Councillor Miller stated that the proposals which would improve the facilities available to students attending the college were welcomed. He did not consider in view of the gradient of the site that they would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring residential properties. He hoped that further funding would be forthcoming in order to enable all of the intended works to be completed.

(13)       Councillor C Theobald expressed her support for the scheme which would enhance the facilities currently available to students.

(14)       Councillor Hyde, supported the scheme considering that it might be appropriate for public access to be revisited.

(15)       Councillor O’Quinn supported the scheme but hoped that it would be possible for the public to continue to have use of the green space surrounding the college.

(16)       Councillor Gilbey, welcomed the scheme stating that she considered that it was vitally important that the existing facilities and STEM building were updated as proposed.

(17)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, welcomed the scheme stating that there was an identified need for the improvements proposed. Given the location of the proposed building and the fact that it would be located in a dip she did not consider that it would have a detrimental impact, including in respect of the open space; noting that it was intended that all of the temporary buildings on site were eventually to be removed.

(18)       A vote was taken and the 10 Members of the Committee who were present when the vote was taken voted unanimously that Minded to Grant Planning Permission be granted.

65.3       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and are MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of a s106 planning obligation  to secure a transport contribution of £19, 522 and to the conditions and Informatives also set out in the report.

              Note: Councillor Mac Cafferty was not present at the meeting during consideration or determination of the above application.