Agenda item

The representative of the Service Director – Planning and Development made the following points by way of introduction:-

1. The application was for the proposed relocation and expansion of the school to create a combined two-form entry primary school with a nursery and Autistic Condition Spectrum School;

2. The existing St Johns Ambulance building would be demolished and would become a car park and drop off facility for the Autistic Condition Spectrum School;

3. Trees -  3 A grade trees would be removed, it wouldn’t be possible to retain these trees without a fundamental redesign. 33 trees would be removed and replaced with 73 on site in accordance with the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard;

4. Scale –  the building would consist of one and two storey masses, the materials would be white render and timber cladding. It was considered that the design and scale would cause no harm to the character and appearance of the area given the limited visibility from the street;

5. Amenity – this was a key issue. It was accepted that the site was not ideal for a school but the applicant had looked at alternative locations but this was considered the most suitable as the existing school site had been identified under the Priority Schools Building Programme as beyond its life and requiring rebuilding and it would be difficult to achieve the desired increase in capacity at the current site. Locating  all elements of the school on the same site would improve cross phase working and sharing of resources. The proposed site was largely disused as car parking and a walled garden area. To expand in any other location would impact negatively on the designated Important Open Space and would compromise the playing and sporting facilities;

6. The site would be approximately 23m from the rear elevations of properties along Gatehouse Avenue. There would be some overshadowing of some sections of rear gardens at certain times of the day and of some sections of the properties in the Winter. The end terrace property – No 8,  Smithmead would be 6m away from the new school building. As a consequence of officer concerns regarding overbearing the scheme was redesigned to reduce the impact. Officers were now satisfied following a balanced assessment that the overbearing impact on No.8 Smithmead would not be harmful enough to warrant refusal in this instance. 7. In conclusion, it was considered that the public benefits of providing an important educational establishment outweighed the harm and was therefore recommended for approval.

The following points arose from discussion:-

1. There was no case law regarding the tipping point on overshadowing. It should be considered on a case by case basis and with the scheme as a whole. It was primarily gardens and only some properties in the Winter months that would be affected by overshadowing and it was therefore, on balance, considered not harmful enough to warrant refusal;

2. Officers were satisfied that BREEAM would achieve ‘very good’ and ‘not excellent’ for the reasons set out in the report;

3. Councillor Stevens referred to policy BCS9 which states that A grade trees should be retained wherever possible. He believed that the developer should have designed around these trees and applied this policy at the outset. In response, the Committee was informed that trees were A grade but not considered worthy of TPO protection. A fundamental redesign would be required to retain these trees. The 33 trees lost would be replaced with 73 as mitigation;

4. Councillor Sergeant remarked that it was important to provide good quality school buildings but this appeared unacceptably close to neighbouring gardens albeit the impact would not be as significant at all times of the year. She believed residents would be very disappointed if the Committee approved it;

5. Councillor Dudd stated that he was initially open-minded but now agreed with the previous comment – it was unacceptably close and was a loss of privacy for neighbouring properties. He believed this would not come forward had it been in Clifton;

6. Councillor Mead noted that the loss of a view was not a material planning consideration. The overshadowing was not a big issue for him but agreed with the previous comment regarding the area for such a proposal. He did not support the scheme design and was minded to reject on those grounds. He also noted that there was an existing primary school site nearby and questioned whether this could have been redeveloped;

7. Councillor Jones agreed with previous comments stating that the development was incongruous and overbearing. He appreciated the importance of education establishments but the nature of the building and its proximity to neighbouring properties meant he would vote against it;

8. Councillor Stevens would vote against for the reasons of loss of privacy, amenity and trees;

9. Councillor Clarke would vote for the proposal as it would provide a much needed autistic facility. He felt the BREEAM condition should be changed to ‘excellent’;

10. Councillor Brook noted the need for good quality schools and facilities for autistic disorders. Its design was outweighed by the need for a school;

11. The Head of Development Management in responding to comments regarding where the proposed development was, robustly defended officers protecting amenity in every area of Bristol. This decision could have been taken under delegated authority but was brought to Committee due to level of objections received. The decision was clearly a balanced one for the need for a school and amenity due to the proximity to nearby properties. He highlighted to the Committee paragraph 72 of National Planning Policy Framework which states that great weight should be given to the need for schools. He referred to the shadow diagrams and stated that Committee needed to be satisfied of the impacts and balance these against the great weight to the need for schools;

12. Councillor Dudd moved that the application be rejected for the reasons of overshadowing, overlooking and the loss of A grade trees. This was seconded by Councillor Stevens. On being put to the vote, it was:-

Resolved – (6 for, 4 against, 1 abstention) That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

i. Overlooking, overbearing and overshadowing of neighbouring dwellings;

ii. The loss of 3 A Grade trees.