Agenda item

Demolition of a modern flat roof extension to Austin House, the remodelling of Austin House, a new building to provide boarding accommodation and a link corridor to link the new building to Austin House (as amplified and amended by plans and documents received 10 September 2020; 6 November 2020 and 09 February 2021).

The committee considered applications P19/V3211/FUL and P19/V3212/LB for the demolition of a modern flat roof extension to Austin House, the remodelling of Austin House, a new building to provide boarding accommodation and a link corridor to link the new building to Austin House (as amplified and amended by plans and documents received 10 September 2020; 6 November 2020 and 09 February 2021) at Austin House, 76 Bath Street, Abingdon.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting. Members of the committee had attended a site visit to Austin House on 29 March 2021.

The planning officer reported that the application site comprised a large residential property Austin House, which incidentally formed part of the surrounding wider Abingdon School site. Austin House had grade II listed building status and was located within the Albert Park conservation area, which was a grade II registered park and garden. The proposed development followed on from several pre-application enquiries commencing in 2017, which had sought to explore the potential to extend the existing boarding accommodation. The present application was supported by an updated site-wide ‘Masterplan’, which detailed future development of the school, as well as articulating the rationale for selecting Crescent House and Austin House as most appropriate to extend. The 2019 Masterplan was attached to the planning officer’s report at appendix 1.

The planning officer also reported that the application sought both planning permission and listed building consent to demolish the existing two-storey flat roof rear extension of Austin House and erect a three-storey linked extension. The proposed works to the listed building were of a limited nature, constituting some internal alterations and remodelling of a small number of rooms, to provide en-suites and the walkway connections to the new extension at first and ground floor level. Extracts of the key proposed plans were attached to the planning officer’s report at appendix 2.  The planning officer asked the committee to note that this application had been submitted in conjunction with an application to extend Crescent House (P19/V3213/FUL) which also sought a three-storey extension to consolidate boarding accommodation on the western part of the school site. Whilst this was a separate application under consideration and thus determined on its own merits, it was part of the wider masterplan to upgrade the school’s boarding facilities.  The committee noted that there was no intention to increase staff or boarding numbers, as the school had reached capacity; the application sought to consolidate existing accommodation which was scattered amongst different buildings

The main Bath Street elevation of the school would remain unchanged, with the roofline following neighbouring buildings. The impact of the proposals upon drainage and trees would be limited, but could be mitigated. The main impact of the proposed development would be upon heritage assets, namely Austin House being a listed building in a conservation area. Planning officers acknowledged that the proposals entailed some level of harm but that this was considered to be less than substantial when weighed against the public benefits to the local community and the prosperity of the school and local businesses. Additionally, if planning permission and list building consent were granted, a low quality existing extension would be replaced by a high quality building.

Hester Hand, of the Friends of Abingdon Civic Society, spoke objecting to the application. Ms. Hand stated that her remarks on this application also applied to the related application, also on the agenda for this meeting (P19/V3213/FUL, Crescent House, 21 Park Crescent, Abingdon).  Ms. Hand’s statement had been circulated to the committee some days prior to the meeting.

Stephen Sensecall, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

In response to a question regarding the extent of the benefits which the development would bring to Abingdon, Mr. Sensecall responded that the proposal would help the school to continue to compete in a very competitive school market. It would also assist in further outreach to state schools.  This would be a purpose-built accommodation, removing a 1950s-era housing block and provide a building which would be an asset to Abingdon, sympathetic to the conservation area and to the Albert Park surroundings.  The ‘boarding offer’ was important to the school and would provide funding to be invested into school activities. The existing good links with the community would be improved through increased public use of the sports centre and theatre. Mr. Sensecall repeated the economic benefits of the proposal (which were outlined in paragraph 6.6 of the report), namely that the school supported 650 jobs, either directly or indirectly, and provided £23m into the local economy. The UK taxpayer also saved £7m per annum by reducing the number of pupils in state education.

Councillor Eric de la Harpe, a local ward councillor spoke to the application. He declared an interest as a past parent of pupils at the school and as a user of the theatre and the swimming pool, the athletics club, and Tilsley Park, which was managed by the school,

In response to a further question regarding the public benefits of the proposal, the planning officer reported that the school was a community facility and that the national planning policy framework classified developing and altering the school as having a public benefit, in that this assisted the school in being fit for the future. The master plan, attached as appendix 1 of the report, demonstrated that there was limited scope to expand the existing accommodation. The development in planning terms could be regarded as sustainable development. The highways authority, Oxfordshire County Council, had no objection on the basis of there being no increase in pupil numbers attaching to the proposal. In the final analysis, the committee would determine whether the proposed development had sufficient mitigation to be regarded as constituting less than substantial harm.

A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning permission was carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission for application P19/V3211/FUL for the following reasons;

Standard conditions

1.       Full Planning Permission – three-year commencement

2.       Development in accordance with the approved plans

Pre-commencement conditions

3.       Tree Protection (submission of final Arboricultural Method Statement and details)      

4.       Construction Traffic Management Plan

5.       Schedule of Materials (Photographs)

6.       Archaeology; Written Scheme of Investigation

Pre-occupation conditions

7.       Submitted Landscaping implementation

8.       Submitted Drainage implementation

9.       Sustainable Design Features - as approved

Compliance conditions

10.      Submitted Ecology mitigation

11.      Piling Method Statement submission – if necessary

12.      Submitted External Lighting - no further lighting with LPA approval

Considering the application for listed building consent, the committee accepted that the proposed development would entail only limited works to the listed building, and that, in its entirety, the scheme would be in keeping with the existing buildings and that heritage harm would be minimal.

A motion moved and seconded, to grant listed building consent was carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to grant listed building consent for application P19/V3212/LB for the following reasons;

Standard conditions

1.       Commencement three-year commencement

2.       Approved plans

Prior works/relevant works

3.       Schedule of Materials       

4.       Details of glazed bridge