| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The application has not provided a suitable nor up-to-date Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to its position in Flood Risk Zone 3. As such it is not possible to ascertain that that: the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; nor that the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient such that, in the event of a flood, it could be quickly brought back into use without significant refurbishment; nor that it incorporates appropriate sustainable drainage systems, or whether there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate; nor that any residual risk can be safely managed; and nor is it able to provide evidence of safe access and escape routes being included as part of an appropriate emergency plan. The application is therefore contrary to adopted Policies CS13 and CS15 of the Core Strategy (2015) and Policies E1 and C2 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021), and also fails to satisfy the requirements and expectations of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 2. | As a building with a temporary-lifespan construction and modular building the development is not able to be designed to be of improved integration with the main school and nor does it provide a design solution that is more appropriate to longer term use and more durable, permanent construction. The application would be considered acceptable were it to be proposed on a temporary basis but as a permanent proposed development this would not be appropriate. Modular classrooms by virtue of their temporary construction are considered inappropriate for permanent retention. The proposed permanent use of the building would mean the application would fail to comply with Policy CS15 which ensures that green spaces, open spaces and playing fields are not permanently lost to development and policy CS9 which seeks appropriate designs of development. |
| 3. | Whilst there may be arguments in favour of the benefits of the development, the NPPF and local plan policies require that the Exceptions Test can only be passed if the development is demonstrated to be "safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall". Whilst it may be possible to predict the short-term risks and safety requirements for a short-term temporary use permission, the applicant has confirmed that they require and propose a permanent use and unrestricted permission; as such the development cannot be said to be safe for the lifetime of the development without increasing flood risks elsewhere, let alone reducing flood risks overall. It is considered that this is only possible for a permanent construction which can take a holistic approach to site selection and possible mitigation measures. The application therefore fail to address the requirements, aims and objectives of adopted Policies CS13 and CS15 of the Core Strategy (2015) and Policies E1 and C2 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021), and also fails to satisfy the requirements and expectations of the National Planning Policy Framework by being unable to demonstrate that the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk. |
| 4. | STATEMENT OF POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT (REFUSALS): In accordance with the NPPF, in determining this application for planning permission, the Borough Council has approached it in a positive and proactive way and where possible has sought solutions to problems to achieve the aim of approving sustainable development. Unfortunately, despite this, in this particular case the development is not considered to represent sustainable or an acceptable form of development and has been refused for the reasons set out above. |
