Agenda item
Islamia School Centre, 129 Salusbury Road, London NW6 6PE (Ref. 10/2389)
Decision:
Planning permission granted subject to conditions as amended in condition 6 and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Erection of a part two-storey and part three-storey primary school building with a playground at roof level. |
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and procurement.
|
With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Andy Bates the Area Planning Manager responded to a number of concerns expressed by members during the site visit.
Design and Scale
A more modest redevelopment of the existing site as suggested by some residents would be unlikely to provide sufficient capacity for the relocation of the pupils currently taught at Winkworth Hall back to the main school site whilst also providing essential modern school facilities in an accessible (DDA compliant) and highly sustainable (BREEAM 'Excellent) building.
Railings
It was considered that the railings will be just one of many measures used to secure the school and that amending the design may lessen the attractiveness of the proposed boundary treatment.
Overshadowing & Amenities
As the proposed building would be located to the north of the Vicarage it could not interfere with direct sunlight and cause overshadowing to the Vicarage.
Property Prices
The impact of the proposed development on property prices was not considered a material planning consideration.
Transport Issues
An in principle agreement had been reached, whereby a contribution of £10,000 towards highway infrastructure improvements would be secured on material start which would be used by the Council to plant street trees, reinstate the redundant vehicular crossover and relocate the existing bus cage along Salusbury Road. In addition, the applicants had agreed to incorporate a £20,000 penalty clause into the proposed Travel Plan which would be paid should the school fail to meet the targets set in the Travel Plan.
Admissions Criteria
The Council's Admissions Officer had confirmed that a catchment area criterion would be applied to school applications from September 2011 giving priority to those pupils applying from residences within the south of the Borough (south of the North Circular Road). Whilst this catchment area would not affect existing school pupils, it would over the course of time increase the proportion of the pupils that live locally to the school thus reducing the need to travel to the school by car and rendering unnecessary the suggestion to provide bus services.
The Council's Transportation Unit had confirmed that the current number of staff parking permits issued to the school would not be increased as future travel arrangements and measures set out in the Travel Plan were expected to work.
Consultation
Having inspected the responses it was not considered that there had been any deliberate attempt to significantly alter the reported public response to the application. Andy Bates clarified that the majority of the letters of support received came in the form of a standard letter where the main text was replicated but were signed and addressed individually by the sender. He added that both in terms of use and size, it was not considered that statutory consultation with Sport England was required as part of the application.
Site Plan
Andy Bates also drew members’ attention to a revised site plan appended to the Supplementary Report which superseded the original site plan attached to the main Committee Report and an amendment to condition 6 as set out in the supplementary report.
Mr Bittu Kaulser objected to the proposed development for the following reasons;
i) The consultation undertaken for the application was not legitimate and therefore the application was invalid.
ii) The transport impact of the application had not been adequately assessed by the officers.
iii) The school’s admission policy did not give any preference or guarantees for local children to be admitted to the school
Mr James Hope raised the following objections on behalf of Queens Park Area Residents Association (QPARA);
i) The consultation undertaken was inadequate for a proposal which would have far reaching implications for the local residents.
ii) The scale and height of the proposed development would encroach on the residential amenities and would constitute an overdevelopment of the site.
iii) Traffic surveys for the application were inadequate as they failed to assess the full impact of the proposed development.
iv) The proposed development would result in 21 car parking spaces for staff without compensatory provision.
Mr Hope emphasised the need for the school and the local community to work in harmony to re-examine the application and achieve a satisfactory solution.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Green ward member stated that he had been approached. Councillor Green, whilst welcoming the proposed development felt that the consultation with interested parties and local residents were flawed adding that neither he as a ward member or QPARA were consulted. He continued that the scale and design of the proposal would adversely impact on the character of the area.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Denselow ward member stated that he had been approached. Councillor Denselow in welcoming the proposal stated that it would provide education for the children and assist addressing the shortage of school places. He continued that although there was a need for the traffic implications to be scrutinised through constant monitoring, he was confident that the Travel Plan and the section 106 legal agreement would minimise any likely traffic impact.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Arnold Lead Member for Children and Families stated that she had not been approached. Councillor Arnold stated that currently the Authority was failing in its duty as the Local Education Authority to provide adequate school places and therefore an application for expansion ought to be welcomed. She added that the admission criteria that would be in place as from September 2011 and would be monitored by the School Admission Forum would ensure that local children can gain admission to the school. In reference to claims about inadequate consultation, Councillor Arnold stated that in addition to sending out several letters and newsletters, the Council organised open days and public meetings including Area Consultative Forum at which residents were invited to express their views.
Mrs Annalia Saba a parent governor of the school speaking in support of the application stated that it would address the lack of school places and proper facilities at the school. She continued that the traffic and road safety issues that had been raised by some of the objectors were not unique to the school and that the Travel Plan and the Section 106 legal agreement would minimise any likely impact.
Julia Barfield the applicant’s architect stated that extensive consultation with all interested parties had been taking place since July 2010. She added that consultations had taken place at the local libraries, Brent website, Queen’s Park Open Day and Area Consultative Committee meetings. She continued that the scheme was revised as a result of comments made during the consultation period, leading to the design of a building that was fit for the 21st century as an educational establishment. Julia Barfield explained that that the design of the proposal was relatively modest so as to ensure that any likely impact including residential amenities and noise would be minimised.
In the ensuing discussion, Councillor Kataria enquired about measures put in place in response to criticisms about the school’s admission criteria. In a similar vein Councillor McLennan sought a clarification on the admission n criteria. Councillor Adeyeye asked about facilities for disabled persons. Councillor Mistry also sought a clarification on the consultation that had taken place with interested parties in connection with the application. Councillor Hashmi emphasised the need for a workable Travel Plan however he expressed his support for the scheme. Councillor Thomas requested the Head of Area Planning to clarify the advice received from Legal Services and Highways and Transportation Services.
In responding to the above, the Head of Area Planning stated that he had received detailed input from Legal Services, Highways and Transportation and Children & Families in relation to the application as well as the question of a potential judicial review. He reiterated the nature and extent of consultation as explained by the applicant’s architect in addition to the statutory consultation undertaken by Planning Services. He reported that the school’s admission criteria would give priority to Brent residents and invited a representative from Children & Families department to confirm that. Steve Weeks drew Members’ attention to the Travel Plan and the resulting penalty clauses as a means of addressing any highways issues that may arise. Andy Bates the Area Planning Manager added that the proposed scheme which would comply with the requirements of Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 2005 would offer improved facilities for the disabled in contrast to the existing building which fell short of the DDA requirements. He also added that the changes that resulted from the updated plan were not significant as to warrant re-consultation.
Raj Parmar (Head of School Admissions) confirmed that the school operated a catchment area policy within Brent boundaries and whilst priority was given to children of Muslim faith, the new admission criteria would take into account catchment area, faith and sibling connection with priority being given to Brent residents.
DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions as amended in condition 6 and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement. |
Supporting documents: