Agenda item

The erection of a 4-storey block to accommodate a new science and sixth form centre, and the re-surfacing of the play space fronting Vincent House to facilitate car parking with associated works

Recommendations: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

The erection of a 4-storey block to accommodate a new science and sixth form centre, and the re-surfacing of the play space fronting Vincent House to facilitate car parking with associated works

Officers introduced the report and addendum, highlighting that the application had been deferred from a previous Committee meeting to allow for a site visit, which took place on Friday 14 June 2019. Officers confirmed that revisions relating to the scheme’s design had been submitted by the applicant, and included change of materials, roof design, and the link to the nearby locally listed building.

In addition, the applicant had circulated details of the community benefits that they felt would result from the development. However, some of the purported benefits were policy requirements, for example employment generation.

It was confirmed that, in line with NPPF guidance, the Committee must determine whether the application would promote sufficient public benefits to outweigh any potential harm to the area. It was felt that the potential public benefits did not outweigh the harm caused by the development, which included concerns over size, scale, bulk, height, design, proximity to listed buildings and impact on traffic and highways. For these reasons, the application was recommended for refusal.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in support of the application. Points raised included:

·         At the site visit, comparison was made to the emerging TfL scheme at Northwood Station. To confirm, the school’s scheme was discrete in size and scope, and had support from residents, the residents association, Councillors and the local MP. The TfL scheme was located in a prominent location, whereas the proposed science building within a school site setting on a secondary road.

·         The need for the new building was immediate, and without the building all science facilities would need to be removed from the campus.

·         Following meetings with Council planning officers, a number of amendments had been made to the design of the scheme, in order to make the project more palatable to Members.

·         Regarding the height and mass of the science building, the road was on a gradient, and so the ground floor would actually sit below the level of the road. The height of the building was similar to that of the adjacent building and the recessed top floor could not be seen from the road.

·         The building was not out of keeping with the local area.

·         The building was needed to promote science within the school and address the gender imbalance that existed within stem related fields.

·         The building could not be any smaller, as the current design showed science classes to be 10sqm smaller than recommended by the DfE.

·         The glazed link to the adjacent listed building, this was required for access to toilets.

·         A site feasibility study showed that the only suitable position for the science building was in the proposed location.

·         Planning officers had confirmed that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the conservation area. Regarding the NPPF test regarding public benefits, these benefits were discussed at the Committee meeting held on 15 May 2019.

·         The majority of the school pupils were residents of the Borough, and the school as aiming to deliver a well-rounded curriculum to the girls at the school.

Members sought further clarity on a number of points. In response to questions, the petitioner confirmed that the site would also be used for community events and 6^th Form areas. In addition, it was confirmed that there was an objection from the local History Society, while the residents association had neither objected to the scheme nor offered support.

Officers confirmed that, as set out in the addendum, the Council’s access officers had raised concerns that opportunities had not been taken to promote wider accessibility at the site, which was felt to diminish the wider public benefit argument. In addition, it was highlighted that the petitioner’s comments on the TfL site were not relevant, as that scheme was not referenced within the officer’s report.

Members discussed the application. Some Members felt that the need for the school outweighed the harm it would cause. Other Members felt that, while the need for the building was understood, concerns remained over the size, scale, bulk and height of the building itself. As such, it was felt that the scheme was not in keeping with the character of the local area and that the potential public benefits did not outweigh the harm to the area.

Members asserted that there were no planning grounds that could disagree with the officer’s recommendation, and on this basis, the officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, agreed by a vote of 6 to 1.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.