Proposed new 3 storey detached classroom block adjacent to sports field towards east of campus (rear).

Proposed new 3 storey detached classroom block adjacent to sports field towards east of campus (rear).

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Edney spoke in objection to the application.

The Senior Planning Officer made the following points: it was Sixth Form College policy to prohibit on site parking for students and the existing and proposed parking was for staff only; Sport England had no objection to this application; the development would improve the standards of classroom provision at the college, identified as an area for improvement in a recent Ofsted report.

Councillor NL Vaughan, a Local Ward Member, commented on the severe traffic problems in the area and felt that a travel plan had to be agreed before development commenced.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that a combined travel plan had been required as part of the original ‘learning village’ application but this had not been signed off; consideration was being given to the expediency of enforcement action relating to the breach of the condition.  Therefore, a separate and distinct travel plan was recommended in relation to this application.  The Senior Planning Officer outlined the measures taken by the college to discourage students and staff from using private motorcars.  Councillor Vaughan commented that alternative transport initiatives had been largely ineffective and emphasised the need for a co-ordinated approach to resolve the traffic problems in the locality.

Councillor DB Wilcox, the other Local Ward Member, noted that parking restrictions had been introduced in Folly Lane and Venns Lane and local residents were being consulted about potential restrictions in other nearby roads.  Nevertheless, indiscriminate student parking remained a problem and Councillor Wilcox considered that this development could exacerbate the situation.  It was noted that attempts had been made to bring the combined travel plan to fruition but the colleges were no longer working closely together and a separate travel plan for this development was required.  Councillor Wilcox supported the principle of replacing the poor temporary accommodation but felt that attention needed to be focussed on the travel plan.  The Central Team Leader explained the full wording of the travel plan condition but Councillor Wilcox considered that the travel plan not only needed to be agreed in writing but also implemented prior to the development of the new classroom block.

Councillor MAF Hubbard noted that it had been intended, as part of the learning village application, that decked car parking be provided to allow for multi-storey parking if required in the future but, as with the combined travel plan, this had not been progressed.  He also commented on the limitations of travel plans, particularly if they were not informed by the needs of users and the concerns of local residents.  He suggested that consideration of the application be deferred until the travel plan had been implemented and clarification had been sought about the parking arrangements.  Some members supported this suggestion.

Councillor WJ Walling, a member for the adjoining Tupsley Ward, noted that the development would replace existing mobile units and it was not linked to any increase in student numbers.  Therefore, whilst the concerns of local residents were noted, the relevance of the relationship between this particular application and general parking problems in the locality was questioned.  It was also noted that the Council’s ecologist had confirmed that the threat to the habitat of Great Crested Newts was negligible.

The Head of Planning and Transportation emphasised that the purpose of the application was to improve the standard of classroom provision and, whilst acknowledging concerns about traffic problems in the area and the need to ensure the integrity of travel plans, suggested that members should concentrate on the specific issues relating to the application under consideration.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes, also a member for the adjoining Tupsley Ward, commented that: the Tupsley Youth Centre was no longer a youth facility; local residents felt that this development would cause additional parking problems; the staff car park was not always full and this might provide an opportunity to provide some student car share parking, perhaps with a contribution towards other environmental initiatives; additional bus services had been largely disregarded by students; and concerns were expressed about non-compliance with conditions imposed under previous planning permissions.

In response to a question from Councillor PA Andrews about the effectiveness of travel plans, the Legal Practice Manager explained that an applicant needed to adhere to a travel plan condition, or be in breach of that condition.  However, it was noted that the contents of the travel plan could be changed in later years and this could potentially undermine the original intentions behind the imposition of the travel plan.

The Head of Planning and Transportation provided further guidance on the full wording of the travel plan condition.

In response to a question from Councillor AT Oliver about measures to minimise the environmental impact of the proposed building, the Senior Planning Officer commented that conditions had to be reasonable and explained the potential difficulties of enforcing compliance with emerging standards; he added that Building Regulations covered some environmental performance considerations.    Councillor Oliver felt that the college had an obligation to construct the building to the highest standards, with particular emphasis on measures to reduce energy and water consumption.  Councillor GFM Dawe supported this view and he also said that the travel plan should aim to reduce the number of car parking spaces rather than increase them.

In response to comments, the Senior Planning Officer re-iterated the purpose of the proposal and commented that many of the issues raised about parking in the locality were beyond the scope of this application.

Councillor Wilcox noted that parking would remain a significant material consideration with every planning application relating to the college campuses unless efforts were made to address the problems.  It was suggested that the recommendation be supported but subject to the approval and implementation of a travel plan prior to the commencement of the development, in consultation with the Chairman and the Local Ward Members; an undertaking was also given to keep the Tupsley Ward Members informed about progress.

A motion to defer consideration of the item was lost and a motion to approve the application, subject to the implementation of the travel plan, was then agreed.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the approval and implementation of a travel plan prior to the commencement of the development and subject to the inclusion of measures to reduce the environmental impact of the building [amended at following meeting on 6 August 2008], in consultation with the Chairman and the Local Ward Members, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other conditions considered necessary by officers:

1.      A01 (Time limit for commencement (full permission)).

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.      C01 (Samples of external materials).

         Reason: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings so as to ensure that the development complies with the requirements of Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

3.      G10 (Landscaping scheme).

         Reason: In order to maintain the visual amenities of the area and to conform with Policy LA6 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

4.       H13 (Access, turning area and parking).

          Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the free flow of traffic using the adjoining highway and to conform with the requirements of Policy T11 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

5.       H27 (Parking for site operatives).

          Reason: To prevent indiscriminate parking in the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan

6.       H29 (Secure covered cycle parking provision).

          Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for secure cycle accommodation within the application site, encouraging alternative modes of transport in accordance with both local and national planning policy and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

7.      H30 (Travel plans).

Reason: In order to ensure that the development is carried out in combination with a scheme aimed at promoting the use of a range of sustainable transport initiatives and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Informatives:

1.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans.

2.      N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC.