Agenda item

The case officer for this Planning Application made the following points during his presentation:

·       Details of the location for this school were provided. It was noted that the school currently operated on two sites and that the development would bring the whole school under one site – the historic Claremont House and other additions and extensions

·       Henleaze Infant school and was located to the south of the site and residential areas to the north and east

·       The development would include the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 2 storey extension alongside the general refurbishment and an alteration to the front entrance

·       There would be the creation of new designated minibus bays and staff cycle parking

·       The existing school capacity was indicated, together with the increased capacity for both students and staff

·       Windows would include obscured glazing to address concerns about overbearing at the site

·       There had been objections to the proposal on the grounds of amenity, highways, noise and design

·       Amenity – whilst it was acknowledged that there would be some overbearing to nearby properties which was not ideal, the applicant had minimised these as much as possible. Details were provided to the Committee of planning guidance in relation to planning applications for schools. It was considered not sufficiently harmful to refuse on these grounds

·       Highways – there was no objection on highways safety grounds

In response to members’ questions, officers made the following points:

·       The request for a Traffic Management Plan by the local Councillor was noted. Road safety was a very important part of any proposal for a school. Most pupils were brought to school by minibus  and the number of trips involved would be minimal. However, this situation would be closely monitored. It would also be possible to apply for Safer Schools funding if this was required. There was very little traffic generation from this application

·       There would be a condition relating to noise to help avoid disturbance from the neighbourhood

·       Whilst it as not ideal that category 3 trees would be removed, this was unavoidable. There would be a Tree Replacement Plan

·       It was also noted that the scale and masing of the development had been reduced from the previous proposal to one storey which would be sufficient to outweigh any harm

·       The distance between the development and the neighbouring properties was approximately 19 metres

·       It was noted that there were concerns about potential pollution via the roof top plant. However, the control of these had been assessed and this was deemed acceptable subject to technical changes

Councillors made the following comments:

·       This development would double the number of special needs children to be schooled and provide them with a building with modern conditions. Whilst there remained some concerns about access and egress, there were not  sufficient grounds to refuse the application

·       Additional SEND places at schools were badly needed. The development would also provide jobs for staff. The conditions would mitigate any concerns. Therefore, the scheme should be supported

·       Whilst there was some sympathy for neighbours, this was a good development which complied with planning policy

·       The scheme should be supported, although the inclusion of a strong travel plan and a re-siting of machinery would also help

Councillor Richard eddy moved, seconded by Councillor Philippa Hulme and it was

RESOLVED (unanimously – 9 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions) – that the application be granted subject to conditions.

·