Agenda item

Papers for this agenda item include the following:

1.  11 January 2023 Application report.

2.  Sustainability statement.

3.  Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) - Form 1: CIL Additional Information.

4.  Design and Access Statement (DAS).

5.  Site Plan.

Planning permission was granted, subject to conditions.

6.1  PROPOSAL:

Construction of a single storey extension to existing teaching block along part of the southern boundary of the site.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS:

  Amendment to the application form.

6.2  The Planning Officer introduced the application as published. During the course of their presentation reference was made to the published addendum outlining amendments to the published application report. In the addendum it was noted that the plans had been slightly amended to better show the variation in height of the boundary wall. The amendments also showed the existing boundary wall more accurately.  The officer explained that this did not materially affect the proposed development or the merits of the application, and did not therefore require further consultation.

6.3  The Sub-Committee heard from local residents who raised a number of concerns about the application. These included disunity between the plans provided, noise and artificial light disturbance, loss of natural light to neighbouring rear properties and how the proposals might lead to further school expansion and an increase in student numbers.

6.4  The applicant explained that the  application was for a modest set of  proposals. They acknowledged that previously there had been some discrepancies but these had now been corrected. They added that the proposed new building would be built within the existing confines of the site.

6.5  During the discussion phase a number of points were raised including the following:

·  Five roof lights were proposed. They were considered not to have significant impact as they would be small and would not produce a significantly greater impact relative to the existing windows in the south elevation of the host building. Also they would only be used during school hours compared to a residential dwelling which would produce more light during the day. It was also highlighted that several existing residential dwellings in the immediate vicinity already had installed roof lights;

·  On a point of clarification, when reference was being made to rooflights the planning service were referring to windows where light could potentially escape through;

·  It was noted that there would be no changes to the existing west elevation;

·  The proposed extension would not exceed the height of the existing boundary wall along the southern boundary of the site;

·  If approved a Construction Management Plan would be added as part of the proposals to ensure there would be  no impact upon neighbouring properties and surrounding highways during construction;

·  The proposals would not lead to an increase in student numbers on site. The Planning Service were assured that the proposed new building would not be used for extra-curricular activities outside of school hours;

·  It was clarified that the area under discussion as part of the application was not part of the play space provision;

·  Local residents' concerns were noted over the integrity of the boundary wall and the impact of construction upon it, however, it was not a planning matter. Under the proposals no modifications would be made to the boundary wall. Issues around the structural integrity of the boundary wall and construction was for the school to resolve;

·  The inclusion of a condition to ensure the school turned off lights outside of school hours would not meet the statutory test. It would be  seen as unnecessary in terms of making the proposals acceptable in relation to planning;

·  The applicant highlighted that with previous school-based projects they had submitted an Operational Management Plan (OMP) which included a section on lighting which referred to timers. If the committee was minded to approve the proposals the applicant would agree to a condition to include an OMP;

·  In terms of materiality, a condition was included that would ensure that the proposed extension’s roof in the same material as the existing school building;

·  It was noted that one of the two drainage conditions required a Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDs) feature to be included in the proposals. The applicant confirmed they would be happy to include a green roof to be secured by condition;

·  It was reiterated that the structural integrity of the boundary wall was not a planning matter and therefore the Planning Service could not comment on the impact of construction work upon it. If an issue was to arise it would be a building regulations issue.

The Sub-Committee noted:

Condition 4 (SUDS) would be amended as follows:

Prior to the commencement of the relevant part of the work, the applicant shall submit, and have approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a detailed layout, cross sections (scale 1:20), full specifications and a detailed management and maintenance plan of the biodiverse roof with a minimum substrate depth of 80mm, not including the vegetative mat. Further details associated with the green wall should also be submitted. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details thus approved and shall be fully implemented before the premises are first occupied.

REASON: To ensure that the proposed green roof is of sufficient quality to contribute towards flood mitigation.

A new Operational Management Plan (Condition 7) would be included:

Prior to the occupation of the approved extension the applicant shall submit, and have approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority an Operational Management Plan confirming the hours of use of the approved extension and details of the proposed lighting arrangements.

REASON: To ensure that the use of the approved extension does not cause disturbance to neighbouring residential uses.

Cllr Levy and Cllr Sadek arrived at the meeting during the discussion on agenda item 6. Therefore they would not participate in either the remaining discussion or the vote for the application.

Vote:

For:  Cllr Desmond, Cllr Narcross, Cllr Race, Cllr Laudat-Scott, Cllr Young and Cllr Webb.

Against:  None.

Abstention:   None.

RESOLVED:

Planning permission was granted, subject to conditions.