New secondary school at Springfield School, Portsmouth

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions covered temporary library buildings, a drama studio extension, replacement windows and cladding, and pre-application proposals for a replacement school.

“App No 09/00405/FUL - Construction of single storey extension to existing drama studio to include facilities in roof space Decision - Approved Date 21.05.2009”

“App No 18/01726/FUL - installation of replacement windows and cladding to Block A Decision - Approved Date 11.12.2018”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was considered sustainable and acceptable in scale, design, amenity, drainage, highway safety and playing-field terms.

“The proposed development is on balance considered to be appropriate in regard to its scale, form, siting and design. As the site is an existing school, there should be minimal overall increase in noise to the local residents, only an alteration in the location of these noise sources which, for the reasons set out above is considered acceptable. There will not be an increase of flood risk caused by the building and the scheme's drainage proposals are agreed with the LLFA.”

“The proposals are considered to comprise sustainable development and accord with the Local Plan and the NPPF when taken as a whole.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Most consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while Active Travel England sought further work on cycle parking before giving full support.

“Sports England No objection to this application as it is considered to meet exception 4 of the Sports England Playing Fields Policy and to accord with Paragraph 104 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), subject to conditions.”

“At this stage there has been some positive response to ATE comments and ATE would be supportive of the changes to the travel plan. A condition is included above to help secure this. However, we remain concerned on the cycle parking design and would seek the issues we raise above are remedied before we fully support this application.”

Officer report

What residents said

Twenty representations objected to the scheme, citing flooding, traffic, parking, construction impacts, noise, pollution, scale and drainage concerns.

“Building in a flood zone • Increase in traffic along Grove Road • Water run-off from the hard standing into neighbouring properties • Trees planted too close to the boundary • Loss of parking along Grove Road • Noise and air pollution during construction • Little provision for community assets • No dedicated drop off area • Scale of the building • Traffic modelling underestimates the risk…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporting deputation and the agent addressed the committee.

What members discussed

Members welcomed the new school and the proposal’s design, entrances, drainage and answered building questions, while understanding concerns about construction noise and pollution.

“Members' Comments During the discussion, members made the following comments: • It is important to have a new school here. The current building looked tired even 20 years ago. • The building structure and drainage questions were answered well. • This is a well thought out proposal. • Having two entrances was thought to be a good idea. • They understood the objection due to concern about potential noise and air pollution during the construction.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted conditional permission in accordance with the officer recommendation.

“RESOLVED to grant conditional permission as per the officer recommendation.”

Minutes