Agenda item
Wembley High Technology College, East Lane, Wembley, HA0 3NT (Ref. 13/2961)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Wednesday 12 February 2014 7.00 pm (Item 8.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 8.
Decision:
(a) Granted planning consent subject to amended and additional conditions, the referral of the application to the Mayor of London in accordance with part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, and;
(b) in the event of officers failing to agree mitigation measures that meet the requirements of Sport England, referral to the Secretary of State in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, and the DCLG letter of 10 March 2011.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Proposed new four form of entry primary school comprising 3 x 2 storey blocks and one single storey block - incorporating class rooms, multi-use hall, kitchen, library , staff and administration rooms, ancillary storage and plant rooms, and including new external multi use games area, external playgrounds, new access from East Lane, staff car parking spaces and associated landscaping and lighting.
RECOMMENDATION:
(a) Grant planning consent subject to the referral of the application to the Mayor of London in accordance with part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, and;
(b) in the event of officers failing to agree mitigation measures that meet the requirements of Sport England, referral to the Secretary of State in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, and the DCLG letter of 10 March 2011.
Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager with reference to the tabled supplementary, responded to the concerns raised on behalf of Sudbury Court Residents Association which referred to a High Court Judgement against a Council for failing to have due regard to the European Commission (EC) Habitats Directive. He clarified that an extended phase 1 Habitat Survey, a standard technique for classifying and mapping British habitats including the presence of protected species was conducted following the methodology of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Institute of Environmental Assessment. Members heard that no nature conservation sites with statutory protection within a 1 km radius of the survey area were identified. He added that whilst a number of semi-mature and mature scattered trees were of value and cannot be readily replaced if removed two mature horse chestnut trees would be removed to facilitate the construction of the new access road. No other habitats of notable consideration were identified on site. The Area Planning Manager drew members’ attention to the recommendations from the Phase I habitat and recommended the following additional conditions;
(i) Amendments to the landscaping condition to ensure sufficient implementation of appropriate planting to compensate for the loss of any mature trees.
(ii) Amendments to the lighting condition to limit impacts ‘dark’ areas/ corridors, suitable for use by foraging and commuting bats.
(iii) An additional condition requiring the submission of a scheme to be approved and implemented prior to the commencement of work to ensure any excavations that need to be left overnight should be covered or fitted with mammal ramps to ensure that any animals that enter can safely escape
He then submitted the following responses to a number of concerns raised by local residents;
(a) The alley way between East Court and Byron Road was a public footpath which had been identified as Public Right of Way 48 and maintained by the Council.
(b) The Council had 5 mobile camera cars which could be sited near schools on request to help enforce school travel plans and parking management.
(c) The applicant had undertaken checks revealing that while there were restrictive covenants on the school they were not considered to prevent the proposal from going ahead.
He explained that the distance of the proposed senior playground would be located 5 metres from the boundary with rear gardens in East Court and that the proposed junior playground would be 1.5 metres from the boundary with rear gardens in Byron Road. He drew attention to a condition requiring further details of enhanced landscaping along the sites boundaries. He added that playground noise was not raised as an issue by the Council's Environmental Health Team. Officers understood that the governors of Byron Court School had put themselves forward as a potential site for school expansion however it was not part of the current school expansion programme agreed by the Executive. The Area Planning Manager clarified that sewage infrastructure was the responsibility of Thames Water, however as the new school would require entirely new services the proposal could allow for an improvement in the sites sewage infrastructure which it was hoped would address any existing problems.
In response to concerns raised on behalf of 93 Byron Road about the potential impacts of opening a secondary access into the school from the East Court/Byron Road alley way, he submitted that a risk assessment had not been undertaken for the use of the alley way as a secondary entrance as the entrance as it was intended for year 5 and 6 pupils and only those who live in roads on that side of the school. The aim was to discourage parents from using East Court or Byron Road as an alternate drop off to the proposed designated drop off within the Sudbury Court Pavilion car-park on East Lane. In order to secure this, he recommended an additional condition that a management plan for the proposed secondary access from the alley be submitted to and approved prior to it being brought into use and that a review mechanism be introduced that in the event of the access proving unmanageable that it be closed.
In respect of traffic, he explained that the Council's Transportation Officer had carried out further assessment of the traffic modelling around the school and confirmed the impact on local junction capacity to be acceptable, subject to the conditions set out in the committee report. The Area Planning Manager made the following corrections;
2 full temporary reception classes were currently operating within the existing secondary school (not 1 class of 28 pupils, page 91 referred).
Preston Park rather than Wembley High (page 92 referred).
Condition 10, East Lane and not College Road (page 105 referred).
Krystal Foxcroft, solicitor representing the resident at 35A Byron Road reiterated her support for the objections raised against the proposed school expansion adding that it would breach an existing covenant. She continued that the use of the public footpath would raise serious safety issues for 830 school pupils and claimed that the matter could be referred to the Local Government Ombudsman for further investigations, if permission was granted.
Keith Barker objecting on behalf of Sudbury Court Residents’ Association (SCRA) stated that many of the roads around the site were narrow and with the area already congested as a result of the existing school, the proposal would aggravate the situation. He added that as parents parked to drop off or pick up children, Shelley Court and East Court, which were already heavily parked, would be reduced to single lane traffic. Mr Barker continued that the creation of a new entrance from the alleyway between Byron Road and East Court would cause congestion and disturb residents who adjoined the alleyway. He stated that the proposed 2-storey school, so close to the boundary with residential properties, would result in noise nuisance and detrimental impact on residential amenity. Mr Barker claimed that the Council had not had due regard to the EC Habitats Directive and therefore to grant planning permission would constitute a breach of a High Court ruling.
Councillor Ruth Moher, Deputy Leader of the Council and a School Governor stated that the Council desperately needed additional school places in order to comply with its statutory duty to provide education. Whilst she appreciated residents’ concerns, the need for school places could not be over-emphasised in view of demographic changes including the Borough’s population increases.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Daly stated that she had not been approached. Councillor Daly stated that the proposed expansion would present an unacceptable risk to local transport and could set an undesirable precedent. She felt that the travel plan was not adequately ambitious to address the potential concerns. Councillor Daly urged members to ensure enforcement of the travel plans including pick up and drop off being made available during term time only.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor McLellan stated that she had been approached by local residents and members of SCRA. Councillor McLellan stated whilst she supported the proposal for school expansion, she felt that there was a demonstrable need for traffic enforcement particularly during term time.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Colwill stated that he had been approached by local residents and members of SCRA. Councillor Colwill requested a separate report on the traffic impact of the application and a flood report on the land to be consulted upon with the residents. He added that the issues about the covenant needed to be addressed else, each member on the Committee could be surcharged and made personally responsible for any ensuing cost.
The legal representative advised that the restrictive covenant was not a material planning consideration and should therefore not be taken into account in deciding the application.
Mrs Gill Bal, head teacher of Wembley High Technology College in addressing the Committee stated that by providing a structured and disciplined working environment Wembley High had gained an established reputation for a strong focus on academic excellence. This had led to higher demand for its places and over-subscription. She added that the provision of land on which to build a primary school would provide “value for money” option and a seamless learning process within first class educational facilities.
In response to members’ questions, Mrs Bal stated that in order to control access to the alleyway, key fobs would be provided for those children who lived near to it which would be a maximum of 280. Mrs Bal continued that control of the number of children who would use the alleyway access would therefore be achieved via the admission criteria. She added that the provision of multi- use games area (MUGA) with all-weather sports pitches would be offered as compensatory package for use by schools in the area.
Sara Williams, Operational Director of Education, Children and Young People in setting the backdrop to the need for school places stated that the population census 2001 showed a marked increase in population of young children particularly in the Kingsbury and Wembley areas. This meant that the Council would be required to provide approximately one thousand (1,000) primary school places over the next five years in order to comply with its statutory duty to provide education . She confirmed that funds had been made available for the proposed school expansion.
In response to members’ questions, Sara Williams stated that in order to satisfy the administrative processes for school admissions, places for the proposed school were advertised in February and offers were to be made by 16 April 2014 for next academic year’s intake. She confirmed that nearby schools were full to capacity. The Operational Director did not anticipate significant traffic of children from the south of the borough to the new school.
The Area Planning Manager explained that the pavilion area would be used for drop off and pick up only during term time and not as a car park. The alleyway secondary entrance would be re-modelled with a condition for boundary treatment and management of its access. He added that an effective travel management plan coupled with robust enforcement measures would address potential traffic and congestion that may ensue and reiterated the information in the tabled supplementary in relation to habitat concerns. Stephen Weeks, Head of Area Planning, echoed the above, stressed the importance of the drop off proposal and added that the wider educational case for the scheme had been made clear. Members heard that officers were awaiting a response from Sport England on a package of mitigation measures that had been provided in response to their objection. He continued that if an agreement could not be reached with Sport England then the application would be referred to the Secretary of State.
DECISION: Granted as recommended.
Supporting documents: