Agenda item

Report of the Service Lead, Infrastructure, Planning and Development recommending that the Panel refuse planning permission in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

The Panel considered the report of the Head of Planning and Economic Development recommending that the Panel refuse planning permission in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

Erection of a part 4 and 5 storey school building with rooftop playground following demolition of existing buildings (Departure from Local Plan)

Peter Badger (agent), Steve Wright (applicant), were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The presenting officer reported that the reason for refusal in regard to the failure to enter a section 106 would need to be amended to add an additional clause around public art.

The Panel then considered the recommendation to refuse to grant planning permission. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that the Panelrefused to grant planning permission for the reasons set out below:

1.  REASON FOR REFUSAL – Unsafe Flood Risk

Notwithstanding the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and further information, the proposal fails the Exception Test set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) by failing to demonstrate that staff and pupils within the development would be safe during a flood event due to the following reasons:

·  The application has not demonstrated that safe access and egress can be provided throughout the design life of the development;

·  It is not clear that the design of building (finished floor levels) could withstand a flood event, taking into consideration the impact of climate change and sea level rise;

·  The provision of a refuge on the upper floor, due to lack of facilities (food and toilet facilities), when young children could have to remain on site for a period of anywhere between 2 to 6 hours is insufficient;

·  The location of the proposed muster point is unacceptable. It lies just outside of the present day flood zones 2 and 3 and, due to the development sites vulnerability, access to this muster point will be restricted by 2075 when taking into account climate change and sea level rise with only one potentially suitable access route on St Marys Street from Northam Road;

·  The proposal could result in parents/guardians inadvertently putting more people at risk by seeking to collect pupils in a flood event. Therefore, increasing the burden for the emergency services having to manage a large group of vulnerable people. Notwithstanding the outdoor location of the muster point, the wellbeing of the staff and pupils waiting at the point has not been satisfactorily addressed.

Therefore, the proposal fails to take into consideration the impact of climate change and sea level rise, and the vulnerability of the users on site. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy SDP1 of the adopted City of Southampton Local Plan Review (amended 2015) and policies CS20 and CS23 of the Council's adopted LDF Core Strategy (2015) and policy AP15 of the City Centre Action Plan (2015) as supported by paragraph 160 of the NPPF (2019).

2.  REFUSAL REASON - Failure to enter into S106 agreement

In the absence of a completed Section 106 Legal Agreement, the proposals fail to mitigate against their direct impacts and do not, therefore, satisfy the provisions of Policy CS25 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2015) as supported by the Council's Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (2013) in the following ways:-

  i.  Site specific transport works for highway improvements in the vicinity of the site which are directly necessary to make the scheme acceptable in highway terms have not been secured in accordance with Policies CS18, CS19, and CS25 of the Southampton Core Strategy (2015) and the adopted Developer Contributions SPD (2013);

  ii.  In the absence of a mechanism for securing a (pre and post construction) highway condition survey it is unlikely that the development will make appropriate repairs to the highway, caused during the construction phase, to the detriment of the visual appearance and usability of the local highway network;

  iii.  Submission, approval and implementation of a Carbon Management Plan setting out how the carbon neutrality will be achieved and/or how remaining carbon emissions from the development will be mitigated in accordance with policy CS20 of the Core Strategy and the Planning Obligations SPD (September 2013).

  iv.  Submission of a Training & Employment Management Plan committing to adopting  local labour and employment initiatives, in accordance with Policies CS24 & CS25 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Adopted Version (as amended 2015) and the adopted SPD relating to Planning Obligations (September 2013).

  v.  Submission and implementation of a Travel Plan.

  vi.  A community use agreement in accordance with CS11 of the Core Strategy.

  vii.  Submission approval and implementation of either a scheme of measures or a financial contribution towards a public art strategy for the site.