Agenda item

 

Application Number:			15/01162/FUL
Location:	Pittville School, Albert Road
Proposal:	Erection of indoor sports centre, artificial turf pitch, tennis courts, floodlighting, associated parking and landscaping including demolition of two dwellings
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Permit
Letters of Rep:		15	Update Report:		Additional representation

 

LW introduced both application at Pittville School, the first as described above, and the second an outline for 58 dwellings, with access only to be agreed and all other issues relating to design, appearance, layout and landscaping to be considered at reserved matters stage.  Access to the dwellings would be via the new estate roads through adjoining Starvehall Farm leading onto New Barn Lane, and also include cycle and pedestrian links to Albert Road and Cakebridge Road.  These are stand-alone applications, but were submitted alongside each other and are entirely interrelated, with the residential scheme presented as an enabling project to cover the construction costs and delivery of the new sports facilities.  This provides justification for the loss of the playing field which the Council would otherwise not support.

 

The applications were deferred from the January meeting to allow time to reach agreement on the triggers for phased release and occupation of the housing scheme, to ensure the construction of the sports centre is started before commencement of the housing development, and that the sports facilities are complete and fit for purpose prior to completion of the housing scheme.  The construction of the two sites should run roughly in parallel and the legal agreement delivers this.  It has also been confirmed that construction costs of the sports hall will be covered by the value of the residential scheme which will also provide 40% affordable housing. 

 

Officers now have confidence for the proposed delivery mechanisms and the recommendation is therefore to permit both applications subject to conditions and the applicant entering into bilateral legal agreements and a final draft of the S106 agreement now in place and agreed. 

 

A holistic approach has been taken in assessing the two schemes, but two debates and two votes are needed. 

 

GB:  the sports hall application will be considered first.  The County highways officer is present, and also a representative of the Local Lead Flood Authority – Matthew Panou –to answer questions  relating to drainage and flood risk.

 

 

Public Speaking:

 

Mr Michael Canning, local resident, in objection

His and his neighbours’ homes are vulnerable to flooding from Wyman’s Brook between Prestbury Road and Albert Road, which flooded in 2007 and is officially a high flood risk area in Environment Agency records.  The Albert Road culvert is the smallest of local culverts and therefore a bad pinch point, causing the brook to back up and flood, and to make matters worse, water is delivered to this section from local run-off and from tributaries bringing water from further afield.  With four new building developments, yet more water could be delivered into this already over-loaded section at times; residents need solid assurance that the sustainable drainage systems will work in practice, and expert opinion on the flood impact on Wyman’s Brook of the totality of these developments.  One so-called tributary mentioned in the officer report is Albert Road itself; in extreme conditions, water comes down the road’s surface water drains, down the road itself, and into the ditch by the school hedge, entering the brook upstream of Albert Road bridge.  If the SuDS scheme is inadequate, all extra Albert Road water will take this route, resulting in extra flooding. The Lead Local Flood Authority acknowledged the problem in respect of this development but actually as valid for all four proposed developments, stating that it is ‘paramount that the application demonstrates that the development will have no adverse impact in terms of the flood risk to the site or elsewhere’, making it clear that there should be no adverse impact on the Wyman’s Brook area.

 

Objects to the proposal as it stands and seeks assurance that the development will not be allowed until the Flood Authority endorses a SuDS solution  which takes full account of the capacity and all the demands on this section of the brook.  Would like to see this reflected in a condition to any approval that may be granted.

 

 

Mr Richard Gilpin, applicant, in support

Speaks on behalf of Pittville School as its head teacher.  Is proud of the changes there:  it is now recognised as a good school, with the number of students rising and oversubscribed in Year 7, reflecting an improving reputation across the town.  It is right that sporting facilities for students are improved.  With a wide and varied catchment, the school strives to provide the best opportunities for its pupils; access to an excellent education should not be a postcode lottery.  Child poverty in St Paul’s, a main feeder area, is amongst the highest in the country, and the number of disadvantaged children in the school is expected to reach 50% over the next two years.  These students and others deserve access to the best facilities and opportunities; it is the school’s moral responsibility and duty to do this

 

The new facilities will provide opportunities for high-quality teaching and learning, through curricular and extra-curricular programme, supporting students’ physical and emotional well-being and hopefully promoting healthy living into adulthood.  Sporting provision can also be extended to the wider community, not currently possible given the inadequate and obsolete sports facilities.  The sports centres will be used to extend partnerships with feeder junior schools as well as sports clubs and societies.  The lack of hockey facilities limits sporting experience for students;  there are are no dedicated hockey facilities in this part of Cheltenham, and much interest has been expressed.  The community use agreement will place Pittville School at the heart of the local community and further strengthen education outcomes for young people in our town. 

 

The school has investigated other funding streams through the local authority, Sport England and the lottery, to no avail.  It is being pragmatic in looking at alternative ways to deliver much-needed facilities.  There will be additional benefits for students, and as the school grows, the new facilities will free up other space to support the development of other curriculum areas. 

 

The site has challenges and a range of options have been considered, sensitive to ensuring minimal impact on neighbours. Is confident that, by working in partnership with the community, and with careful and sensitive management of the Sports Centre, the young people in the community will benefit.  Asks members to approve the joint applications as recommended. 

 

 

Member debate:

JF:  is worried about flooding.  Will the SuDS be adequate to protect the area from further flooding?  Hopes the flood official can provide the answer.

 

BF:  notes the conservation officer’s concerns in the report – she objects to the materials used and the quality of the building – as do the Architects Panel and other consultees.  Changes have been made, but there are no further comments from the conservation officer to say that her concerns have been resolved.  The site is in the conservation area, and the proposal does not sit well, in the opinion of the conservation officer and of BF.  Went on Planning View,  and then went back for another look.  Noted the football pitches and one rugby facility in use, at the front of the school. If this school is going to grow, it won’t only be indoor sports facilities which are needed, but outdoor facilities as well.  Played sports as a young man, mostly outdoors.  Has serious concerns that Members have not seen any business plan.  This is a county-supported school, not an academy, so if the sports centre is not successful, it would have to be supported by the County.  There are questions still to answer about the materials used and the view from the conservation area and the GI-listed building.

 

PB:  the loss of any playing field is significant both locally and under national planning policy, and there must be serious reasons in its favour if anyone is going to support it.  Accepts that land is finite and that we must make the most of it, but is 100% behind this application.  It is right that pupils on the north side of town enjoy the same excellent facilities that are currently enjoyed by Bournside and Balcarras pupils in the south.  Not long ago, Pittville School was very much out of favour, but this has now been turned round; it is an achieving school, rated as ‘good’ by OFSTED, with a waiting list to join – despite it serving a more difficult part of town.  Yes, the loss of a playing field is concerning, but the new sports centre will provide pupils and the community with excellent sporting facilities.  The business plan is not our concern.  There is no question that this application should be approved.  Looking at the Pittville School website, can see that the school is using performing arts, which will also be expanded in the new sports centre, to increase confidence, self-esteem, team work and commitment.  It is critical that children who may not be academically strong are given to opportunity to achieve well in sports and performing arts.  His own children attended Balcarras and St Edwards, where they received superb sporting and arts education, which helped turn out confident, well-rounded adults.  This scheme aims to promote education excellence; we should get behind it and support the head teacher’s dream.

 

PT:  joins JF in her concern about flooding.  This site is subject to a double whammy of a sports hall, exacerbating the flood risk with hard standing for parking etc, in addition to the 58 dwellings on the side.  It’s clear from the letters that local residents are very concerned.  Wants to support the scheme but is not comfortable with it.

 

CH:   the flooding issue is for debate later on when discussing building houses on the sports field.  The sports centre itself won’t make much difference.  For a SuDS to work, the flood risk has to be no worse than what it currently is.  A number of fields around the site have clay soil, which only requires one day’s worth of rain to act like concrete.  So if the drainage scheme is done right, it should in fact improve the situation rather than exacerbate it.

 

Regarding the indoor sports facility, we must think about what it will provide for the school, particularly in view of the catchment area which Pittville School serves.  It is about Pittville students being offered the opportunity to do other things, such as dance.  A lot of children from his ward attend Pittville School and have low self esteem issues, particularly the girls, and their health and mental well-being is a concern.  This  facility will do a lot of good in this respect, and will provide something very important for this group of people.  The application should be permitted.

 

KS:  thinking back to her own schooldays at Pates, notes that the south-facing aspect of the proposed building includes a lot of glass, and with the potential for the sun to be shining on these windows all day, it could make it a very hot space for exercise.  Is there any way to help keep the inside of the building cool?

 

MS:   is happy to support this part of the application.  It will provide a 24/7 facility for sport, play and recreation, regardless of the weather, and will be a huge plus.  The pictures don’t do the building justice; on Planning View, noted that the building would be located behind the University media centre and apartments – it will blend in well and won’t be as intrusive as it appears on the plan.  Regarding the flood risk, the amount of run-off won’t be that significant, but we need to keep alert to the need for water attenuation.  A lot of work is proposed for Wymans Brook to slow down the flow from the escarpment, with retaining bunds at Priors Farm, to reduce volume of flow at times of heavy rain.   The sports centre will be a real benefit and the making of the school.  It has been turned round in the last 3-4 years, and is now a popular school.  Has noted that youngsters coming out from the school seem well behaved and respect the area.  Will support the scheme.

 

AL:  would like to support the school and the application – it is a good scheme – but has reservations about the flooding problem.  Has looked up the figures – the site area is 1.3h, and the report claims that only 0.62h is likely to contribute to run-off.  Tonight, Members have been told there will be no run-off from multi-use games area, so how much rain will it take before it starts to run off?  Will it drain to existing sewer?  How much rain falls in Cheltenham in a year?  How much rain would this scheme be able to cope with when the ground is saturated. The NPPF says we have to consider climate change.  It’s clear that climate change is accelerating, as shown by record rainfall in Cumbria this winter.  Cannot be happy with the scheme until he understands what amount of rainfall it is able to take without run-off causing Wymans Brook to flood.

 

DS:  understands that the two applications are separate but interdependent.  Noted on Planning View that there was not much evidence of use of the playing fields, and swapping an underused field for this facility is a no-brainer.  More people are likely to exercise in the dry than in adverse conditions on grass.  Will support the sports centre development.

 

MPan, in response:

-       has reviewed both applications, and recommended for approval, with conditions.  The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) started to review the schemes back in April, and required all information to make judgement.  For this application, conditioning of the site was deemed feasible, and the drainage could be developed or improved;

-       the question has been asked how can the SuDS ensure that the flood risk doesn’t increase? The answer is that it doesn’t have to - it must ensure that run-off is the same – and in is line with the LLFA’s recommendations;

-       when originally looked at this application and the surface water discharge location, noted that the connection to the combined system – surface and foul – did not meet planning requirements and a connection to the ditch along Albert Road was not viable.   In discussion with the engineer for the site, MPan has recommended a condition requiring that information is submitted demonstrating  other discharge locations/types are possible before using the combined sewer network as a discharge point can be agreed;

-       what amount of water till run-off is required?  As soon as it rains, the area will produce run-off.  The drainage system will be designed to accommodate a critical storm for the 1-in-100 year event plus climate change.   Any more than this is deemed unnecessary and impractical for this type of development.

 

LW, in response:

-       the conservation officer’s comments related to the earlier scheme, and largely focussed on the materials to be used and their impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area..  She has no issue with the form, general design and layout  of the proposed sports hall in principle;

-       the previous design featured timber cladding above a brick plinth, and the conservation officer questioned whether timber was appropriate, the amount of timber proposed and how it would weather, and the orientation of the building.  More detail about the cladding was requested and subsequently submitted but after much discussion with the applicant a revised scheme was submitted, with a rendered upper level and stone-clad lower plinth.  The revised details have been discussed with the conservation officer and she is happy with these revised proposals. 

 

PT:  is not sure she has understood MPan.  Flood risk is not supposed to be worse than existing.  He has said that the SuDS will actually make it better than before but hasn’t said by how much.  Has seen pictures of the existing flooding.  If there is going to be building on the field, this should be addressed, and we should say the situation must be very much better, not just improved.

 

MS:  understands that the excess water will be held in an attenuation tank and then spill out gently – this is common practice – but who will maintain the tank, pay for clearing it out etc?  Is there any reassurance about this, to ensure that due maintenance will not cause any problems in the future?

 

BF:  is delighted that Pittville School is improving and looking after its pupils so well, but these are moral issues, not planning reasons.  The comments of the conservation officer are quite clear – the proposal will harm the setting of Pittville Pump Room – this is a planning reason to refuse.  Sport England has objected to the proposal and should be listened to.  It does not approve of playing fields being sold off for housing; there is a lot of green space in private ownership, and to take it away harms the ambience of the town.  The proposal will harm the conservation area, in contravention of CP7’s requirements for high architectural standards which this is not – another planning reason to refuse.  The flooding issue remains a concern – another planning issue.  The floodlighting will harm the conservation area, the proposal will harm the setting of the listed building – this doesn’t comply with planning and heritage requirements. We can ignore the conservation officer’s advice but isn’t convinced that all she said has been addressed.  This is a good school, doing well, with good sports facilities, though maybe not the best, but does not feel this application is right yet and may move to refuse. 

 

KS:   still hasn’t had a reply to her earlier question.  This is a nice field, with valuable space to relax away from the school building.  It is a shame to build on it, and questions whether what is being proposed will be a really nice facility, not just on design grounds, but with the sun beating down on it and making it uncomfortable.

 

AL:  understands from the NPPF that climate change has to be taken into account, and we should therefore be seeking a better solution to the situation we already have.  Regarding run-off, the site is 1.3h; flood assessment has considered the run-off from 0.6h.  MUGA suggests a lot more of the site will generate run-off, making the Flood Risk Assessment inaccurate in this case.  Regarding the 1-in-100 year assessment – what is this for Cheltenham?  Would we cope with that?  This is a wonderful field to the back of the school – why has it not been used for sport for 10 years?

 

CH:  regarding flooding, we should be trying to improve situation, or at least make sure it is no worse.  This scheme should improve matters.  If it is rejected, the flood situation won’t get any better.  If it is permitted, it will get better.  There are clearly some issues re outlets [as an aside, flood issues are raised on developments throughout the town; some planning training, looking at what is taken into consideration, what can/can’t be done, would be very useful.]  Would like to understand how much attenuation there would be if a green roof is added to the building?  Could it have a significant effect?  Some people are saying why not use the field, but rain makes it unusable.  An all-weather pitch and indoor sports hall will be a huge improvement for the school.  Schools change, times change, and facilities need to change too.  The best schools have these facilities, and this schools needs these facilities too; we owe it it the children.

 

PB:  it is quite right that a lot of the debate has been taken up by talk of flooding.  The resident spoke with experience and sincerity, and obviously people do not want their houses to be flooded.  A condition is included to take account of a 1-in-100 year flood event and climate change, to address the flood risk in the area.  Disagrees with BF;  planning is about looking after the future of our town – and if that’s not about educating our children and bringing them forward, what is it about?

 

LW, in response:

-       to BF, it’s  accurate to say that the setting of the Grade I listed building and the conservation area  are  planning considerations, and there has been much negotiation on the design of the proposed sports hall.  Officers and the conservation officer are now satisfied that the proposals achieve a good design, and will not result in harm to the listed building or the conservation area;

-       regarding floodlighting, this will apply to the hockey pitch only which is set back 25m from the road and shielded by boundary fencing from the south, and obscured by the University’s media building to the north.  Environmental Health officer has no concerns in relation to the size and number of lighting columns, and they will only be used during the evenings and at certain times of year;

-       regarding Sport England’s objection, they were consulted on both applications, and some of their previous concerns  have been addressed concerning the proposed sports hall application - size and layout of some internal spaces and terminology used for the hockey pitch.  The objection remains that the applicant’s playing pitch assessment didn’t cover a wide enough catchment area – a two-mile radius to the north, east and south of Cheltenham.  Given that this catchment area in fact covers the majority of Cheltenham Borough and part of the neighbouring Tewkesbury Council, Officers consider this is proportionate to what is proposed, and therefore  acceptable;

-       there are only two hockey pitches in the catchment area, neither of which are available to the public, and this facility will be available to the community as well as the school.  It is very important to note that the proposed sports facilities would primarily be provided for the school, and the community use is a bonus.  It isn’t a provision solely for the public, but for the school and its students;

-       to KS, re. the glazing of the south elevation, this will equally result in heat loss as well as heat gain, and building regulations will be considered here.  In addition, timber louvres are proposed at the front and south, which will provide shading to these elevations.  A viewing gallery – essentially a passageway rather than a classroom space – is situated immediately behind the louvred sections of the south elevation;

-       regarding the flooding issues - the question was whether the proposal could offer a ‘ better betterment’ and certainly not make the situation any worse. It is not for the proposed development to fix existing flooding issues in the area.  This scheme represents a betterment, and cannot be required to secure improvements to a wider flooding issue.  These are more strategic matters which do not fall within the remit of this planning application or the responsibility of the applicant;

-       to MS, re maintenance of the water storage tanks, doesn’t know the answer to this question.  Will hand over to MPan to discuss further.

 

MPan, in response:

-       Members have asked questions about the maintenance of the storage tank, the impact of climate change, the MUGA and surface water run off, and the amount of rainfall experienced annually in Cheltenham;

-       tank maintenance falls to the owner, and the LLFA would expect to see a maintenance regime indicating how the tank is cleaned, how often, what checks are carried out etc within the Detail Design.  Open attenuation has been suggested so that any failures can be seen and not hidden underground.  Tanks are resilient to blockages by nature; it is how they are designed;

-       a 20% increase allowance for climate change– the accepted amount for buildings such as this - has been included in the attenuation; this is 20% on top of any other benefit;

-       MUGA is intended to be permeable – replicating the rate at which a green field drains.  It should be remembered that any surface produces a certain amount of run-off;

-       to AL’s question re annual rainfall expected in Cheltenham:  the design does take this particular statistic into account but the calculation runs in the background information.  Cannot therefore provide this figure;

-       the calculation in based on a 1-in-100 year event; the flood of 2007 was a 1-in-100-250 year event – it is hard to pinpoint exactly but gives an indication of rainfall and what the SuDS has to manage.

 

HM:  in the report, it says that the application will have to go to the National Planning Policy Casework Unit for consideration.  Can officers tell Members what powers that unit has?  Can it reverse the local authority’s approval or alter conditions?  Can further representations be accepted?

 

KS:  is still worried about the window; a lot of children from her ward in south Cheltenham are now going to Pittville School.  The Architects Panel and the conservation officer raised the issue.  One side of the building will be cool, with no sun, the other side will be very hot.  Is not convinced by the officer’s response; with a small design tweak, this could be made a lot better.  It is a big project and the last thing we want is to create a sports centre which is not very pleasant for the children using it.

 

BF:  also has concerns about the officer response.  The hockey pitch has not been moved from the original scheme, when harm resulting from floodlights in the conservation area was mentioned.  Planning is about the law, about historic environment, about good practice, about the effect of a proposal on a listed building in the conservation area.  If a proposal doesn’t comply with planning law, it shouldn’t be permitted. Is minded to move to refuse.  Sport England isn’t in favour.  We have to look after the town, and should comply with the NPPF, which some of this application doesn’t.

 

MJC, in response:

-       to HM, the Planning Casework Unit is a branch of government to ratify decisions made against the advice of a statutory consultee – in this case, Sport England.  It is an additional check.  The draft decision and officer report is sent there, and could be agreed or not – it is a process which has to be gone through;

-       the objection from Sport England is technical.  The building functions as it should, Sport England considers the study radius  is not large enough, but officers, who know the area, think it is;

-       to KS, on the solar gain issue, this is difficult to comment on.  As LW has said, building regulations will cover this, and things may well have changed a lot since KS was at the school.  We must have faith in the architect; there are all sorts of ways to reduce or lose heat from a building, and the architect will want to create a good building;

-       to BF, regarding the conservation officer’s comments:  these reflect a pure, one-dimensional view, but the planning system and case officers need to balance one view against another.  The fundamental consideration with this application is the school, and officers have to consider what is more important.  In this case, the benefit to the school of the sports hall has tipped the balance in its favour, as far as officers are concerned.  It is up to Members to endorse this view or not, but officers are firmly in support of the application and the school;

 

AL: has not had a response to his earlier question:  at what point would MUGA start to allow run-off – straight away, after a short while?  Members need to understand.  MUGA covers half the surface area of the site and is not being considered in the attenuation plan.    Is not happy that the flood scheme takes this into account at present.

 

MPan, in response:

-       in the assessment, MUGA considered as a permeable surface (grass), water will infiltrate to the ground as soon as it rains.  If grass, run-off will still be produced as soon as rain is on the ground;

-       the amount of run-off is what is being looked at.  MUGA – amount considered same as grass pitch next to it.  Nationally, this is not considered serious amount of run-off –car parks, rooves, and roads are the areas of concern.

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

2 in objection

PERMIT