Agenda item

An Amendment Sheet wasprovided to the Committeein advance of themeeting, detailing changes since thepublication of the original report.

The representative of the Head of Development Management made the following points by way of introduction:-

1. The application was for the demolition of a vacant caretakers house and construction of educational facility for 1220 pupils with sports hall facility, artificial sports pitch, multi-use games area, car, minibus and cycle parking, landscaping, access and associated highway works;

2. 561 properties were consulted and the responses received expressing concern regarding the significant visual impact, the loss of 58 trees and the impact on street parking;

3. The design was a three storey - roof building consisting of gold metal cladding and presented a prestigious presence and positive identity. The City Design Group had some concerns regarding the entrance but did not consider that the mass and scale was harmful to the street scene;

4. Five residential properties were affected by the sports pitch being 2m higher than their garden. The fence reduced noise levels to 2 db. A condition restricting the use of the pitch until 9pm on weekdays and 6pm on weekends would be imposed;

5. Floodlights would be restricted to use until 9pm. The LUX plan shows that light spill to nearby properties will be well beneath the maximum allowable level;

6. The Air Quality team have raised objections that there will be an impact on a number of receptors at the Muller Road/Shaldon Road junction although this could be mitigated by electric vehicle charging, car sharing spaces, a Travel Plan and measures to offset the impact on the local highway. The Highways team also outlined measures being secured under a memorandum of understanding and other highway works being carried out in the area that could improve options for alternative modes of transport.

7. The Sustainability team made no objection subject to conditions;

8. Officers therefore recommended approval subject to the conditions set out in the report and the Amendment Sheet and an additional condition to address overheating (climate change).

The following points arose from discussion:-

1. The Transport Development Manager confirmed that the figure of 264 additional vehicular trips was accurate based on evidence from other schools in the area. This increase can be met subject to improvements to the walking and cycling network, bus infrastructure, school travel planning and staggering arrival times between the two schools;

2. Councillor Denyer expressed disappointment regarding energy efficiency and why it had not been possible to achieve the highest BREEAM rating of ‘excellent’. It was agreed that in future reports more detailed reasons would be provided regarding the BREEAM ratings. She agreed that that there was a net impact on air quality with fewer, shorter journeys and that the walking and cycling infrastructure was good and she supported the application;

3. The calculation of 48 cycle spaces per 188 staff was based on the policy of 1 space per 5 staff. The Travel Plan would include a clause stating that if this proved insufficient than more spaces should be installed;

4. No representations were received regarding the height of the fencing;

5. Consultation regarding the sharing of space with the community would be taken into consideration by the school;

6. Councillor Hance move the officer recommendation to grant subject to conditions and this was seconded and on being put to the vote it was:-

Resolved (Unanimous) – That Planning Permission be granted subject to conditions set out in the report and the Amendment Sheet.