School development at Brighton College Preparatory School Walpole Lodge, Brighton

The sites and earlier scheme

Members were told that the proposals were on school land, differed from an earlier refused scheme and involved several college sites.

“Councillor Nann was informed that the application is different from the previously refused scheme, with the proposals on school land and not outside the existing site. The school travel plan will increase sustainable transport usage. The application is not considered to be contrary to planning policy SA6 regarding sustainable neighbourhoods. There will be no reduction in pupil numbers.”

“Councillor Sheard was informed that the closure of council schools in the city was irrelevant to the application before the committee. Changes have been made to the travel plan including the removal of coaches in favour of minibuses, bus discounts for staff, car sharing scheme for staff and parents. Looking at reducing Eastern Road use with travel being free for 1 to 4 years. BN1 and BN2 families to use a proposed double decker bus.”

Minutes

Consultation and transport

The applicant said the scheme had been amended after consultation, while transport changes included minibuses, bus discounts and car sharing.

“The applicant, Steve Patten, addressed the committee and stated that they were director of projects at the school, which been in existence for 180 years. The school takes 12,000 students from BN post codes and is proud of the impact on the city, with support for local businesses and charities, which the pupils support. The college is a Brighton institution. The application will make better use of open space. The boarding house will remove pressure on local housing.”

“Sports England and the Heritage team have no objections to the application and conservation officers agree. Local businesses benefit from the college. The transport officer has agreed the road schemes. Most pupils and staff are from the Brighton area. The proposals understand the issues in this conservation area led design. The scheme was amended after public consultation. It is predicted that the traffic measures will lead to a 25% reduction in traffic.”

Minutes

Concerns raised

Residents and councillors opposed the application because of policy, housing, traffic, parking, amenity, local services and neighbourhood character concerns.

“Neighbouring Ward Councillor Wilkinson addressed the committee and stated that they were concerned about transport issues, access and road safety. Residents are concerned about traffic congestion particularly at opening times. The application is against planning policy. The sustainable transport is not sufficient, and traffic will delay ambulances into East Sussex County Hospital at peak times. The narrow local streets will be blocked with traffic.”

Minutes

Who spoke

An objecting resident, three ward councillors and the applicant addressed the committee, followed by planning officers answering member questions.

Member debate

Members differed over the design, heritage, community use, traffic, site layout, public realm, monitoring and effects on neighbours.

“Councillor Loughran was concerned with the background to the application. The planning inspector considered the previous application would have noise issues, and this application would have more pupils. The layout of the site resulted in poor quality space. The design & massing of the convent site proposed building was a concern, as was the effect on the public realm. The sites cannot be separated and there are equality concerns.”

“Councillor Shanks did not consider the design of the convent site to be an enhancement. It was noted at the site visit that the neighbours would be impacted, and community cohesion would be an issue. If the boarding building was a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) there would be concerns. The councillor did not support the application.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted five in favour and five against, and the Chair used a casting vote to grant permission.

“A vote was taken, and by 5 for and 5 against, with a casting vote from the Chair the committee granted planning permission.”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was granted subject to a legal agreement covering monitoring, travel, boundary works, employment and training, plus planning conditions.

“RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to: A) Completion of a s106 Agreement and secure the Heads of Term as set out below: • Contribution for monitoring obligations relating to Biodiversity Net Gain (£TBC) • Travel plan monitoring obligations (£7249) • Submission of an agreed scope and schedule of works to the western…”

Minutes