Agenda item
Harlesden Primary School, Acton Lane, London, NW10 8UT (Ref. 13/2829)
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to additional conditions or undertaking and amendment to condition 6 as set out in the supplementary report, with the wording to be delegated to the Head of Area Planning.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a 2 storey building to include nursery classrooms, assembly hall and external rooftop multi-use games area (facing Minet Avenue), single storey extension to main school, new covered walkway linking main school to new building and associated soft play landscaped areas
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant planning permission subject to additional conditions or undertaking and an amendment to condition 6 as set out in the tabled supplementary report, with the wording to be delegated to the Head of Area Planning.
With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager responded to queries raised at the site visit. In reference to the drawings submitted, he stated that the updated drawings showed the correct footprint of the adjoining properties and plans formed the basis of the proposal. Members heard that the differences between the two sets of plans did not make a material difference to the overall assessment of the acceptability of the development. Additionally, the applicants had submitted a set of sunlight shading studies, including one for the existing situation and one for the proposed situation. In officers’ view, the proposal would not lead to loss of sunlight to No.91 Minet Avenue. The trees within the site were shown as being retained and conditions had been attached to ensure that even during construction they would be protected, drawing attention to condition 6 as set out in the tabled supplementary report. He clarified that the new entrance area would include a new 4m wide path and a planting zone, averaging 2m in width and 1.5m in height which would help to mitigate congestion at busy times of the day, whilst at the same time providing for a visually attractive access into the school.
In respect of potential noise, members heard that the Head of the School had amended the community letting strategy to accommodate the interest of the local community and had reduced community lets in an attempt to reduce possible impacts on neighbours. Whilst it was acknowledged that the proposal would have some impact on people living nearby, the increase from one form of entry to three and the impacts that it would have in terms of noise were considered to be within acceptable limits. He continued that an acoustic consultant had looked at the proposal and commented that as far as the multi- use games area (MUGA) was concerned the roof-top location would be no closer to existing dwellings than the existing MUGA and due to its height above ground and the parapet, would provide better screening.
Mr Jon Allen an objector stated that the noise impact from the proposal could not have been properly assessed by the Committee as the school was closed when members visited the site. He added that noise from the playground would be amplified when the school was not closed. In his view, the siting of the main entrance was inappropriate due to the narrowness of the pavement and the volume of traffic during drop off and pick up times. Mr Allen requested that robust conditions should be attached to address noise impact and to ensure that trees damaged during construction could be replaced. In response to a member’s question Mr Allen stated that noise activity was partly as a result of community hire of the school for parties until about 03:00 hours.
Mr Andrew Lloyd, the applicant’s agent referred to the acoustic consultant’s report which looked at the proposal and commented that as far as the MUGA was concerned the roof-top location would be no closer to existing dwellings than the existing MUGA. It would also have better screening as a result of its height above ground and the parapet. He was not aware of a planning requirement to submit noise assessment impact for school projects adding that noise impact would be significantly reduced due to staggered break times.
In response to a member’s enquiry about measures to minimise noise impact on No 91 Minet Avenue, Andy Bates clarified that access to the school would be via Acton Lane and thus no cars would use the Minet Avenue entrance. Additionally, adequate buffer distance and a sense of separation would be maintained. He added that trees lost during construction would be replaced as part of the conditions.
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended.
Supporting documents: