Agenda item
The Crest Boy's Academy & The Crest Girl's Academy, Crest Road, London, NW2 7SN (Ref: 11/1698)
Decision:
To delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to approve the application subject to consideration of any new substantive comments received and any associated conditions from the Greater London Authority and Transport for London.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Phased development comprising enabling works including demolition of existing temporary structures, formation of new access road from Dollis Hill Lane and car park (44 spaces), erection of temporary school accommodation (2.5 year permission); Phase 1: erection of new school buildings comprising four no. four- to six-storey blocks with four-storey linking structures, associated hard and soft landscaping works and car park providing 61 spaces (6 accessible spaces), 238 no. cycle spaces, internal service road from Crest Road, grading, cutting and filling of ground, provision of building mounted mobile telephone antennae; and Phase 2: demolition of permanent school buildings, associated hard and soft landscaping works including one no. Multi Use Games Areas (MUGA) and one no. all-weather pitch with floodlighting (as amended by plans received 31/08/11) |
RECOMMENDATION: To delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to approve the application subject to consideration of any new substantive comments received and any associated conditions from the Greater London Authority and Transport for London.
|
Rachel McConnell, Area Planning Manager referred to the following queries raised by residents at the site visit: new access road; footpath from Dollis Hill Lane, service road from Crest Road; and visual impact of the new blocks on their amenities. She submitted the following responses:
(i) The road had been narrowed and the path moved during negotiations, to enable more existing trees to be retained and more new trees to be planted. Officers did not consider the limited impact on local amenity of this path would merit further alteration to this part of the proposal. She added that the Borough Highway and Transportation officer assessed the gradient of the access road and considered it acceptable.
(ii) The service road would be 4m at its closest points, from the garden edge of the properties at Vincent Gardens.
(iii) She was satisfied that the development would be in keeping with the character of the area and would not cause unacceptable harm to local amenity including visual impact.
Rachel McConnell informed members that new lighting plans received had been assessed by the Borough Environmental Health officer who confirmed the floodlights would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenity. The Area Planning Manager then referred to consultation responses from the Greater London Authority (GLA) and Transport for London (TfL) and in addressing the comments by the GLA, recommended additional conditions and amendments to conditions 2, 10, 20, 26 and 28 as set out in the tabled supplementary report. In respect of the negotiations with TfL she recommended that authority be delegated to the Head of Area Planning to approve the application subject to consideration of new substantive comments received and any associated conditions from the GLA and TfL.
Mrs R Garland, an objector, started by saying that she was not consulted on the revised plans for the academy. She continued that the traffic impact assessment for the application was flawed as it failed to recognise the impact of traffic from Staples Corner, Brent Cross and Wembley. She also considered the noise study as irrelevant and called for an independent research into the noise study and traffic impact. Mrs Garland urged members to reject the application until the above issues had been addressed.
Mr Tim Keogh in objecting stated that the six storey block would be excessive in height and out of character with the area. This would lead to loss of privacy to the rear gardens particularly for the residents of Vincent Gardens whose boundaries adjoined with the site for the Academy. Mr Keogh considered that residents would suffer from noise pollution during late hours. In urging the Committee to refuse the application, Mr Keogh stated that a precedent for refusal had been set when the Committee refused an application for 73-83 Draycott Avenue which was rejected for reasons of significant loss of residential amenity and loss of privacy.
Mr Allan Gunne-Jones the applicant's agent submitted that the applicant had been responsive to concerns and comments made by residents and TfL and amended the scheme within the financial, educational and physical constraints of the proposed development. He clarified that issues about traffic, noise, access road and floodlighting had been addressed by submitting amendments to the scheme which had been considered acceptable as the scheme complied with the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance 17 (SPG 17). He added that issues raised by residents about drainage, construction hours, traffic movements and bin stores and comments made by Sport England had been addressed. Mr Gunne-Jones concluded that the applicant had responded satisfactorily to all critical issues and urged members to endorse the recommendation for approval.
In response to members' questions, Mr Gunne-Jones stated that adequate measures including the provision of a screened receptacle would be put in place to address issues on waste and refuse collection. He added that issues about loss of privacy had been fully addressed and that the scheme complied with SPG17.
Rachel McConnell in response to Members' questions clarified that the additional consultation was primarily in respect of the multi-use games area (MUGA) which did not involve substantial revisions to other elements of the scheme. She also clarified that the scheme at Draycott Avenue to which the objector referred was a backland residential development which raised issues that were substantially different from those raised by the current application, adding that each application was decided on its own merits. She continued that careful consideration had been given to issues about privacy and residential amenity and on balance the scheme was acceptable. The Director of Planning added that the scheme as revised and as amplified in the report had addressed all key issues.
In bringing the discussion to a close, the Chair suggested that an informative be added on construction hours of work as a further measure to minimise impact during construction.
DECISION: Delegated authority to the Head of Area Planning to approve the application subject to additional conditions on green roof, internal alterations and blue badge spaces, revised conditions 2, 10, 20, 26 and 28, informatives on hours of construction and subject to consideration of any new substantive comments received and any associated conditions from the Greater London Authority and Transport for London. |
Supporting documents: