Agenda item

19/1388 Claremont High School, Claremont Avenue, Harrow, HA3 0UH

Minutes:

PROPOSAL:

Construction of an additional floodlit artificial grass sports pitch and cricket practice facility with incorporated batting cages, installation of 12 floodlights, erection of high boundary fences with associated gates, formation of pedestrian access stairs and ramp.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

To grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out within the Committee reports.

 

That the Head of Planning is granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out within the Committee report.

 

That the Head of Planning is granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committees decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the Committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the Committee.

 

That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by the Secretary of State pursuant to the Consultation Direction.

 

Ms Nicola Blake (Planning Officer) introduced the report setting out the key issues and answered Members’ questions.  She referenced the supplementary report that set out additional objections and officers’ responses to them.

 

Mrs Sue Wood speaking on behalf of Wealdstone Brook Residents objected to the proposal for several reasons including the following, referencing a video film she had had circulated to all members prior to the meeting:

·         18 floodlights would result in glare and thus severe impact on residential amenities and wildlife.

·         The proposal would exacerbate traffic and parking problems in the area.

·         Lack of noise and traffic assessment to support the application.

 

Mrs Nicola Boughey Executive (Executive Head Teacher) and Mr Gary Benn (architect) in remote attendance addressed the Committee and answered Members’ questions.  She raised several points in support of the application including the following:

 

·         The proposal, an extension to the current AstroTurf that was successfully created in 2009, would assist in meeting students’ demands for its use.

·         As the school field would be out of use from October to April (water logged / London clay), an AstroTurf would give the school and the students another all year round outdoor space.

·         The AstroTurf would not solely be a commercial venture as alleged by some objectors.  All lettings would be between 6pm – 9pm and weekends until 5pm with parking facilities accommodated on the school playground and managed by the school’s site team

·         The plans for the Astro have addressed issues relating drainage/plans from Environmental Agency. ecology survey, bat survey, illumination and light spillage.

 

In accordance with the planning Code of Practice, Councillor Kansagra (ward member) stated that he had been approached by Chair of Wealdstone Brook Residents Association.  Councillor Kansagra raised concerns with the application including the following:

·         Over-development of the school site

·         The use of microphones and the level of lighting for the Astro turf would increase noise levels and light spillage to the detriment of residential amenities.

 

In responding to the issues raised, officers stated that Environmental Health had not expressed concerns on the noise levels and lighting, in particular as the lighting would be angled to minimise any potential spillage.  Members noted that as the application was minimal in terms of traffic, it did not warrant traffic assessment.

 

With no further issues raised and having established that all members had followed the discussions, the Chair thanked all speakers for their contributions and asked members to vote on the recommendation.  Members voted by a majority decision to approve the application subject to the amendment and the additional condition set out within the supplementary report.

 

DECISION:

Granted planning permission as recommended and as set out in the draft decision notice.

(Voting on the amended recommendation was: For 5, Against 1).

Supporting documents: