Agenda item

Garages rear of 32, Crownhill Road, London (Ref. 14/4241)


Minded to refuse contrary to officer’s recommendation for the following reasons;

Impact on additional parking; noise nuisance; intensification of the site; access problems for emergency vehicles; constraints on site for up to 72 pupils..



Demolition of existing garages and erection of a single storey building to provide Junior School Annex to Maple Walk School with associated play area, waiting shelter, cycle storage and new fencing (amended plans and description)


RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the draft decision notice, additional informative and amended condition 15.


Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) outlined the proposed development and in clarifying the issues raised at the site visit, referenced the supplementary report.  He informed members that the applicant had indicated that physical education (PE) lessons would take place at the main school site, in addition to off-site sporting facilities.  In addressing concerns about fire safety, the Area Planning Manager advised members that the applicant would be required to comply with Building Regulations, as well as relevant Fire Safety legislation. In order to secure that, he added an informative requiring the applicant to discuss fire safety issues relating to the development with Building Control.  He clarified the height of the proposed building in relation to nearby properties and continued that in view of the height of the existing structures, on site boundary treatment and the separation distance to neighbouring properties, the proposed building was considered an acceptable scale and relationship with neighbours. In respect of its impact on neighbours by way of transmission of noise through walls, Andy Bates recommended an amendment to condition 15 as set out in the supplementary report.


Polly Walker, an objector, raised concerns about the impact of the proposed school on traffic and parking, noise and loss of privacy.  She added that as her bedroom would be directly above the playground and with an inadequate acoustic fencing, the impact on her amenity would be severe.


Chris Wickham (agent) and Peter Meyer (applicant) addressed the Committee. They informed members that the proposal, which complied with the Council’s SPG17 guidance, would assist Brent with additional school places. In their view, the proposal, which had been revised to address residents’ concerns including a permanent structure for acoustic fencing, would have no significant impact on light and outlook.


In the ensuing discussion, members raised concerns about the suitability of the playground for outdoor games, noise impact on neighbouring residents, traffic congestion, parking and access for emergency vehicles to the site and asked the agent for responses.  Members also queried the proximity of the electricity sub-station to the school site and its health impact.


Chris Wickham, the applicant’s agent stated that the size of the playground would be adequate with some sporting activities taking place off-site.  He added that measures including noise insulation, landscaping, separation distances and the amended condition 15 would address the impact on neighbours.  He drew members’ attention to the school’s travel plan which sought to address any inconsiderate parking and congestion that might occur and added that parents would be encouraged to use parking meters rather than the parking bays. Chris Wickham continued that due to the separation distance, there would be no health impact from the electricity sub-station.


Members took note of the responses submitted by the agent, however, in the discussions that followed, were minded to refuse the application for the reasons set out below.



Minded to refuse contrary the recommendation, for the following reasons;

Impact on traffic and additional parking; noise nuisance; intensification of the site; access problems for emergency vehicles; constraints on site for up to 72 pupils.


Voting on the amended motion for refusal was recorded as follows:


FOR:  Councillors Marquis, Agha, Choudhary, Ezeajughi and Mahmood  (5)

AGAINST: None                                                                                                      (0)

ABSTENTION: Councillors Colaccico and M Patel                                         (2)

Supporting documents: