Agenda item
Preston Manor High School - determination of proposal to alter Preston Manor High School
The reasons for the call-in are:-
· To fully establish the need, with evidence, of reception and primary school places within the immediate vicinity and local area surrounding the Preston manor High School.
· To fully understand the impact and consequences of increased Traffic which would lead to congestion, Parking problem, and disruption to the residents and users of Carlton Avenue East.
· Effect of the expansion of the School on the residents of the Carlton Avenue East, Preston Road, Holly croft Avenue and Ashley Garden.
· Impact of the loss of sports playing space on the school and local communities
· The impact of pre-existing covenant on Preston manor High school’s playing field.
Suggested action for the Call In Overview and Scrutiny Committee to take:-
· To receive full briefing from officers and the lead member on the above issues and to provide school places where the need is higher by finding an alternate site.
The Executive report is attached. The Lead Members and Lead Officers are invited to the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.
Minutes:
The reasons for the call-in were:-
· To fully establish the need, with evidence, of reception and primary school places within the immediate vicinity and local area surrounding the Preston Manor High School.
· To fully understand the impact and consequences of increased Traffic which would lead to congestion, Parking problem, and disruption to the residents and users of Carlton Avenue East.
· Effect of the expansion of the School on the residents of the Carlton Avenue East, Preston Road, Holly croft Avenue and Ashley Garden.
· Impact of the loss of sports playing space on the school and local communities
· The impact of pre-existing covenant on Preston Manor High school’s playing field.
Suggested action for the Call In Overview and Scrutiny Committee to take:-
· To receive full briefing from officers and the lead member on the above issues and to provide school places where the need is higher by finding an alternate site.
Councillor H B Patel, one of the councillors who had called in this item, outlined the reasons for call in, including the impact of the covenant on Preston Manor High School’s playing field and traffic concerns. He also expressed concern with regard to an apparent lack of consultation with local residents with regard to the proposals.
With the approval of the Chair, a number of local residents addressed the committee on this item. Jack Gordon, a local resident, began by claiming that Preston Manor High School had ignored previous out of court agreements with residents and an apparent refusal to cooperate with local residents. He stated that noise pollution at after school and weekend events was a problem, along with traffic congestion, whilst there was often unruly behaviour at bus stops by the school’s pupils who were also associated with generating litter in the area. Jack Gordon felt that the multi games facilities proposals contravened the Environmental Protection Act and the school premises would be in too close a proximity to residents’ gardens in Carlton Avenue East. He asserted that the site was already over capacity as it had been deemed appropriate for 700 pupils, however there were already 1,500 pupils and this would increase to 2,000 if the proposals were approved.
Ann Hadlow, a local resident, stated that pupil numbers at the school had been rising steadily and the proposals would see a reduction in the amount of playing fields in an area which was already deficient in such facilities. Although Sport England had not objected to the proposals, this was on the basis of fulfilling a number of conditions, such as the building being two storeys. The school had initially informed residents that the building would be one storey, however at the most recent consultation this had changed to two storeys which in her view would be overbearing and out of character for the local area, especially in respect of the roof design proposals. Ann Hadlow concluded by stating that she was still awaiting a reply from the council in respect of whether £7million funding would be withdrawn if the proposals were not concluded by 5 September 2011.
Martin Francis, the Chair of Governors for Chalkhill and Braincroft Primary Schools, began by expressing concern about the proposed building contractors for Preston Manor High School, stating that there had been problems with the firm in respect of the two schools he was involved in. Martin Francis stated that there was a need for more school places in the area and this was coupled with the fact that Preston Manor High School was in competition with the Ark Academy. He expressed the need to cater for demand for places in the area from nearby roads, however the council had widened the school’s prospective area for pupils for HAO and HA9 postcodes. He expressed concern that the automatic entry from primary to secondary school would effectively mean parents choosing secondary schools for their children at the age of four. In addition, Alperton and Wembley schools had also expressed an interest in opening primary schools and such a development would destabilise existing primary schools. Martin Francis also felt that the expansion of Preston Manor School would increase the inequality in amount of school facilities between the north and south of the Borough. He stated that the proposals had not included an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA), whilst the wider implications of the proposals also needed to be considered.
Melvyn Singer, a local resident, expressed his objection to the proposals because of increased traffic that would impact in particular on Carlton Avenue East and adjoining roads. The traffic problems would be exacerbated on Thursdays as this also coincided with refuse collection day and Melvyn Singer suggested that there would be a marked increase in the risk of accidents, with road safety a particular issue just outside the school. There was also a lack of car spaces in the area and there was a need to take a pragmatic approach in considering such proposals.
Monica Patel, a local resident and representing Elmstead Avenue Residents’ Association, outlined her opposition to the proposals. She stated that residents of Elmstead Avenue had not been consulted about the school’s planning application and some of the properties in this road were closer to the school than those in Carlton Avenue East. She felt that the 71 recorded responses to the application illustrated the lack of consultation and there had not been a proper site visit. The school’s travel plan was also flawed and there had been accidents in the area, contrary to what had been claimed. In addition, the school was failing to adhere to its current travel plan. Monica Patel enquired whether funding would be made available to upgrade the road in light of the proposals. Residents wished for the covenant in respect of the school’s playing fields to be upheld, whilst the proposed multi games facility was not necessary as Preston ward already had one. Monica Patel concluded by stating that attention should be focused on addressing the lack of school places in the south of the borough and residents wished that admission to the school be based on catchment area only.
Members then discussed this item. Councillor H B Patel referred to the 4,000 consultation documents sent to residents as set out in the Executive report and enquired where these had been delivered and how had they been distributed. With regard to the proposals, he enquired whether all Brent primary schools had been consulted and if so what had been their responses. With reference to the term ‘vicinity’ in respect of where the pupils would be coming from, he sought further details, stating that the HAO and HA9 postcodes mentioned both covered large areas. Councillor H B Patel also sought clarification with regard to how many additional school places were required in the borough and of the 500 students attending Brent schools who lived outside the borough, what distance did they live outside of Brent. Councillor H B Patel suggested that the timing during which the traffic survey took place may not be reflective of the actual traffic situation in the area, whilst the loss of a playing field was also regrettable as there was already a shortage of such facilities in the area. Although he understood the council’s need to provide extra school places, he stated that journey times should not be unreasonably impacted upon and that pupils should be provided with schools that were nearest and most convenient to them. The traffic impact on local residents also needed to be given serious consideration.
Councillor Gladbaum acknowledged the concerns raised by residents, however she stressed the borough’s priority need to increase school places. Furthermore, there was an immediate pressing need to provide additional school places in order to comply with what the council was legally bound to provide. Councillor Gladbaum sought views with regard to doubts expressed about the building contractors proposed and she also enquired whether the travel plan proposals were discussed at the Planning Committee meeting where the school’s application was considered. Councillor Denselow enquired whether alternative sites to provide the additional school places had been considered.
Councillor Lorber stated that providing school places was a big issue for the borough and the current situation was particularly acute. There were a number of factors to overcome with regard to providing places for pupils in the south of the borough and any opportunity to expand schools in Brent needed to be taken. Councillor Lorber also commented that any delay in plans to expand Preston Manor High School would put school places at risk.
In reply to the issues raised, Krutika Pau advised that the council had a duty to secure sufficient school spaces for all children in the borough and Preston Manor High School was playing a role in helping to achieve this. Members heard that, like many other boroughs in London, there was a severe shortage of school places in Brent and many boroughs were expanding their existing schools to address this. Krutika Pau stated that there were also wider factors to be taken into consideration, such as the significant increase in birth rate in the borough, with an additional 900 children in January 2011 compared to January 2010. A number of children were currently without school places and even with the Preston Manor High School expansion, the borough would still be short of school places. Members noted that the nearby Wembley Primary School and Ark Academy were both full, whilst Chalkill Primary School only had places available in year five. Slightly further afield, Sudbury Primary School and the Ashleigh Gardens Early Learning Centre were also full. Krutika Pau advised that there were there had been an additional 89 births in the planning consultation area of Preston Manor High School, which was equivalent to three forms of entry. The number of children without school places constantly fluctuated as new families move to the borough to search for school places and the council needed to respond to where there was demand for school places. Sites were constantly being considered for expansion potential and ongoing discussions with schools continued. A strategy was in place to address the immediate, short term and long term school places needs. Members were advised that all schools in Brent had been consulted in respect of the proposed expansion of Preston Manor High School. In order for a school to expand, the criteria included whether the school wished to expand and if it had sufficient space, whilst relevant planning factors also needed to be taken into consideration. Krutika Pau explained that a pupil’s admission to a school could not be discriminated on the grounds that they lived outside the borough and such situations the school concerned may be the pupil’s nearest.
Richard Barrett advised Members that the first traffic survey had been undertaken during heavy snowfall and so a subsequent one was conducted in January 2011 and it was this survey that the results were based on. It was acknowledged that parking spaces in the area was an issue and as a result the school had agreed to introduce a new travel plan to reduce the impact of the proposals, including considering staggering opening times and introducing ‘walking buses’. Breakfast, out of hours and after school clubs were also to be set up to help reduce the impact. However, it was felt that the roads in the area would be able to accommodate the additional traffic and the proposals for the playing fields had been approved by Sport England. The two under 16s football pitches would become fully drainable to prevent flooding, whilst the under 13/14s football pitch would be re-provided and there would be a full sized, floodlit astro turf hockey pitch, an additional cricket pitch at Eton Grove, badminton court, a replacement running track and a new MUGA five-a-side pitch. Richard Barrett confirmed that the consultation had been undertaken in line with council procedures and included consultation with residents and appropriate bodies.
The committee then decided not to agree a recommendation put forward by Councillor H B Patel that the Executive re-consider its decisions and consider in detail where school places are in most need and identify an appropriate site to provide these.
RESOLVED:-
that upon considering the report from the Directors of Children and Families and Regeneration and Major Projects, the decisions made by the Executive be noted.
Supporting documents:
- cf-preston-manor, item 4c PDF 183 KB
- cf-preston-manor-appa,c-f-v2, item 4c PDF 1 MB
- cf-preston app b excerpt, item 4c PDF 157 KB