Adult education facility at 31 Kingshill Road, Dursley

Officers recommended refusal over design and heritage

Officers recommended refusal because the building's height, bulky massing and complicated design failed to respect the surrounding area and caused less than substantial harm to nearby heritage assets without sufficient public benefit.

“The proposal was recommended for refusal due to the following reasons: • The proposed development was excessive in height, unbroken massing and had a bulky horizontal form which failed to respond appropriately to the established character and grain of the surrounding built environment. The design was over complicated, the detail lacked coherence and did not successfully upscale into a building of this scale.”

Minutes

Members and the town council back the scheme

Ward Members and a Town Councillor said the facility would bring jobs, footfall and training to the town centre, with the design complementing the nearby conservation area entrance.

The applicant sets out the benefits

The applicant said the town needed the education facility, students would gain qualifications not easily replaced by technology, and the fire escape staircases would not be visible from the road.

Heritage harm explained as significant

Officers explained that although the harm was less than substantial, it still carried great weight under national policy, and that the conservation officer's assessment should be a significant factor in the decision.

“In response to Councillor Hill, the Senior Planning Officer advised that although it stated less than substantial harm was identified by the conservation specialist it still afforded great weight in the NPPF. The Interim Head of Development Management highlighted that the NPPF stated ‘total loss’ and ‘substantial harm’ should be refused and everything else fell into ‘less than substantial’.”

Minutes

Benefits weighed against design concerns

Members proposed approval against officer advice, judging economic, educational and employment benefits outweighed concerns over heritage impact and design, while acknowledging the heritage and design issues raised.

“Councillor Ryder proposed to approve the application against the Officers’ recommendation for refusal. This was due to the balance between the economic, educational and employment benefits outweighing the concerns over heritage impacts and design. He added that he didn’t discount the heritage aspects and the design of the building however the Local Plan was there to also deliver economic benefits.”

“Councillor Ryder expressed that it was an opportunity to bring the development back into use and felt that the heritage and design were subjective. He was overwhelmed with the feedback from the community, Councillors and Dursley Town Council and felt that their voice was important.”

Minutes

Benefits judged to outweigh the harm

Members said the development's economic growth and education provision outweighed the harm to heritage assets, and that the design was acceptable when balanced against those benefits.

“The Interim Head of Development Management clarified that Members would be voting to grant planning permission for the reasons outlined by Councillor Ryder which was that the public benefits in the economic growth and education provision outweighed the harm to the heritage assets and the design was acceptable.”

Minutes

Approved unanimously

The committee voted unanimously to approve the application, subject to conditions and a legal agreement to mitigate the impact on the Severn Estuary protected site.

“After being put to the vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.”

“RESOLVED That planning permission is approved subject to conditions as deemed necessary by officers and the applicant voluntarily entering into an agreement under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to mitigate the impact of the development on the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation.”

Minutes