Agenda item
Preston Manor High School, Carlton Avenue East, Wembley HA9 8NA (Ref 10/3203)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Wednesday 23 February 2011 7.00 pm (Item 14.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 14.
Decision:
(a) Grant Planning Permission, subject to a s106 legal agreement, or
(b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to demonstrate the ability to provide for the s106 terms and meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document by concluding an appropriate agreement, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Erection of a one and two storey building to form a permanent primary school in the grounds of Preston Manor High School, with a new access between 109 & 111 Carlton Avenue East, comprising new classrooms, small and large halls, staff room, reception, kitchen and office space, with plant and photovoltaic panels, revised landscaping incorporating car park, a new Multi Use Games Area, (MUGA,) play areas, access paths, external amphitheatre and new trees
|
RECOMMENDATION: (a) Grant Planning Permission, subject to conditions as amended in conditions 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20 and 21, an additional condition on details of construction and surface treatment and a s106 legal agreement, or
(b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to demonstrate the ability to provide for the s106 terms and meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document by concluding an appropriate agreement, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.
|
Neil McClellan, the Area Planning Manager clarified the following issues raised at the site visit. He started by saying that the applicant’s pre-application consultation with residents had advised that the school was initially envisaged as single-storey but that the statutory consultation had described the building as proposed. He continued that the highway capacity study carried out by consultants and agreed by the Council’s Highways Engineer had confirmed that Carlton Avenue East was more suitable than Ashley Gardens. In respect of the locked vehicle barrier to deter fly tipping, he informed members that once the school was established, the barrier would be removed and with increased pedestrian activity and enhanced security measures such as CCTV the likelihood of fly tipping would be reduced. The Area Planning Manager added that concerns raised by residents on traffic and parking would in part be addressed through the applicant’s proposed Travel Plan. In reporting on land contamination he stated that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) had confirmed that further testing had confirmed that the site was not contaminated and as such conditions were no longer required to address that. He referred to amendments to a number of conditions and an additional condition as set in the tabled supplementary report.
Mrs Monica Patel objecting on behalf of Elmstead Avenue Residents’ Association raised the following issues;
(i) Lack of adequate consultation with the residents of Elmstead Avenue.
(ii) Members’ visit to the site was not properly conducted.
(iii) The proposed Travel Plan was flawed and failed to take account of extra 97 cars that would access the site.
(iv) There was no budget provision from Highways Unit to address the poor state of the pavements in the area.
(v) Contrary to the views expressed by the EHO, the site was contaminated
(vi) A covenant existed that prevented additional building on the site.
(vii) All 3 local schools; Preston Manor High, Wembley High, Preston Park Primary, Wembley Primary objected to the new primary school being built on the site.
(viii) With several primary schools in the immediate area including Ark- Academy, the claim about lack of school places in the area was unfounded.
In conclusion, Mrs Patel considered that the proposal to be ill-thought out with no other acceptable alternative plan put forward. She therefore urged members to refuse the application.
Mr Patel an objector stated that the proposed school building would generate increased traffic including commuter parking in an area that was already suffering from lack of parking. The situation would be worsened by the existence of a nursery and a church close by. Mr Patel added that the proposal which would be out of character with the neighbourhood would obstruct access to his home with consequent adverse impact on his residential amenities.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor HB Patel, ward member, stated that he had been approached by the residents/objectors. Councillor HB Patel started by echoing the allegation about lack of consultation with residents. He considered as unfounded the claim by officers that the school was required to meet the need for additional school places as there were several other schools nearby including Mount Stewart, Chalkhill, Preston Park and Ark Academy Primary Schools. Councillor HB Patel also considered that the proposed Travel Plan was flawed as it would not be able to address the consequent traffic and parking problems. He added that the proposal would lead to loss of open space as the site was not surplus to requirements as reported.
Aileen Thomas, the applicant’s agent stated that the impact of the proposal on local traffic would be temporary whilst the backlog of children from all areas of the Borough seeking school places were being cleared and that once this exercise was over, admission would be locally based, thus resulting in reduced school traffic. In addition the Travel Plan which would include car sharing, cycling, staggered opening times across both schools, walking buses and the review of other potential drop-off areas would reduce the congestion that could result.
Ms Carmen Coffey Head of Communication And Support Services (CASS) in clarifying the demographic issues and the need for school places stated that the rising birth rates coupled with movements into the area had resulted in demand for places in local schools outstripping supply. She added that majority of schools in Brent were full in all year groups including Wembley Infants School which had recently been expended from 3 to 4 form entry (90 to 120 children), Ark Academy and Preston Park Primary and that currently there were about 64 children without school places. She also confirmed that admission to Preston Manor High was not based on feeder school system as there were other neighbouring schools (Kingsbury, Claremont and Wembley High Schools) which also considered applications from local pupils. In response to possible impact of the changes arising from housing assistance and housing benefits, Carmen Coffey stated that it would probably take about 12 to 18 months before the impact was felt and by then the pressure on school admission would have eased.
Stephen Weeks clarified the consultations undertaken which included letters to 320 residents, site and press notices, all of which complied with normal guidelines. In reiterating the recommendation the Head of Area Planning drew members’ attention to the amended conditions as set out in the tabled supplementary report.
DECISION: (a) Planning permission granted subject to conditions as amended in conditions 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20 and 21, an additional condition regarding MUGA and on details of construction of access road and a s106 legal agreement, or
(b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to demonstrate the ability to provide for the s106 terms and meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document by concluding an appropriate agreement, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission. |
Note: Councillor Baker declared personal interest in this application withdrew from the meeting room and took no part in the discussion or voting.
Supporting documents: