Agenda item

Application for determination:-

Erection of a Primary School and associated infrastructure with car park and pedestrian and vehicular access from Clearwater Drive and pedestrian access to Eldersfield Ciose on land at Clearwater Drive, Quedgeley.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report which detailed an application for the erection of a primary school and associated infrastructure with car park and pedestrian and vehicular access from Clearwater Drive and pedestrian access to Eldersfield Close on land at Clearwater Drive, Quedgeley.

She drew Members’ attention to the late material which contained further information from Gloucestershire County Council (Education and Capital). Gloucestershire County Council Asset Management, additional representations in support and in objection to the application together with further comments from the Case Officer on outstanding issues and an amended recommendation.

Councillor Hannah Norman, as Ward Member, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

County Councillor Mark Hawthorne, speaking as a member of the public addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

Nathan McLoughlin, planning consultant, and Mrs Rachel Howie of the Diocese of Gloucester Academies Trust addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Members expressed concerns in respect of the following issues:-

·         Loss of important open space used by the public

·         Proximity of MUGA and playing pitches to residential properties

·         Potential for surface water run-off to affect residential properties

·         Noise and disturbance to neighbouring residential properties

·         Insufficient provision for drop off and lack of parking spaces within school grounds

·         Vehicular access and parking congestion via Clearwater Drive at peak periods

·         The demand for the school is not coming from the local area.

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons:-

Reason 1

The development of this site would result in the loss of an important open space highly valued by local residents, in an area where there is already a shortfall of open space. Insufficient mitigation or replacement facility has been proposed to compensate for this loss. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy SD4, SD14 and Policy INF3 of the Joint Core Strategy, Adoption Version 2017, Policy SR2, ST3 and BE21 of the Gloucester City Council Revised Deposit Local Plan 2002 and guidance within the Planning Policy Guidance and the NPPF

Reason 2

The layout of the proposal constitutes poor design in that it proposes to site the multi-use games area and playing pitches in close proximity to neighbouring dwellings and therefore is likely to result in unacceptable noise and general disturbance for residents of nearby dwellings. Therefore it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policies SD4 and SD14 of the Joint Core Strategy, Adoption Version 2017 and Policies ST7, BE4, BE7, BE21 and FRP10 of Gloucester City Council Revised Deposit Local Plan 2002, and contrary to the Gloucester City Council Supplementary Planning Guidance “New Housing and Open Space and the guidance and principles set down within the Planning Policy Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason 3

The applicant has provided insufficient information relating to the proposed external lighting details and therefore on this basis, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed lighting would not have a harmful effect upon ecology or residential amenity and is therefore contrary to policies SD9, SD4 and SD14, of the Joint Core Strategy, Adoption Version 2017 and policies  B2, BE21 and FRP 9  of the City of Gloucester Revised Deposit Local Plan 2002 and the guidance and principles set down within the Planning Policy Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason 4

The applicant has provided insufficient information relating to the proposed level changes across the site and there are also discrepancies between plans  and therefore on this basis, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed levels would not result in surface water run off to neighbouring  properties and is therefore contrary to policies INF2, SD4 and SD14, of the Joint Core Strategy, Adoption Version 2017 and policies FRP6 and BE21  of the City of Gloucester Revised Deposit Local Plan 2002 and the guidance and principles set down within the Planning Policy Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason 5

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the comings and goings associated with vehicles entering, leaving and manoeuvring within the car park would not cause unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance to residents of neighbouring dwellings. Therefore the proposal is contrary to policies SD4 and SD14 of the Joint Core Strategy, Adoption Version 2017 and policies ST7, BE4, BE7, BE21 and FRP10 of the City of Gloucester Revised Deposit Local Plan 2002 and the guidance and principles set down within the Planning Policy Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework.