Agenda item
Islamia School Centre, Salisbury Road, London, NW6 6PE (Ref. 10/2389)
Decision:
Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal & Procurement
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Erection of a part two-storey and part three-storey primary school building with a playground at roof level.
|
|
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
|
|
Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager stated that although the issue about control over the potential to expand pupil numbers had been addressed in the main report, he clarified that any permission granted would be subject to conditions including limiting the number of pupils enrolled with each of the schools on the site as amplified in condition 3. He continued that if there were proposals to further increase pupil numbers in the future beyond those stated in the condition, the impact of this would be subject to proper consideration and a requirement to make a formal application to vary that condition.
|
|
Mr Tim Taylor objecting on behalf of a local community group, “We Love Queens Park” raised concerns about the application on grounds of uncertainties surrounding funding and delivery of the proposed development. He added that completion of the proposal depended on external funding including Partnership for Schools (PFS) and unless funding, viability and deliverability could be guaranteed planning permission should not be granted. Mr Taylor continued that in addition to funding issues, the application had been rushed through at a significant risk without proper regard to other material planning considerations such as daylight, accessibility.
In response to Councillor Sheth’s request for a clarification, Mr Taylor stated that in his view due regard to proper planning process had not been followed. He added that due to issues with funding and deliverability, local residents would consider a judicial review of the Committee decision if planning permission was granted.
|
|
Mr James Hope Acting Chairman of Queens Park Area Residents Association (QPARA) in objecting to the application stated that the Governors of Islamia School had shown a lack of business financial acumen to ensure deliverability of the proposed development. Mr Hope continued that the applicants had not signed a section 106 legal agreement to mitigate the impact of the proposal on the community nor submitted a full traffic management plan for approval. He added that there were few signs of local integration with the school and that community use of the building had not been established. In response to the Chair’s question on his comment about the soundness of the applicant’s business plan, Mr Hope cited as an example a nearby project associated with the governors of Islamia School which was still unfinished due to lack of funds.
|
|
Mrs Annalisa Baggio, a parent governor of the school stated that the proposal was to create a much needed facilities for the school in terms of a suitable playground, canteen and toilets for the pupils. She added that contrary to the claims by the objectors, the school had been designed to integrate the local community.
|
|
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Green ward member stated that he had been approached by “We Love Queens Park” and QPARA. Councillor Green objected to the proposed development on grounds of uncertainty about the funding required for deliverability and that it would contravene the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policy BE2. In view of the above and the overwhelming local opposition to the project Councillor Green urged members to defer the application.
Ms Julia Barfield the applicant’s architect stated that the school would be two form entry with a cap of 560 pupils and that a modest design had been maintained so as to minimise impact on adjoining buildings. She continued that full consultation on the application including attendance at Area Consultative Forum (ACF) meetings, website publicity, open days and public meetings took place at which comments made by local residents formed the basis of further modifications to the scheme. Ms Barfield added that the resulting proposal would create a school environment fit for the 21st century in which Queens Park would take pride and stressed her view that the planning benefits outweighed concerns over funding issues
Councillor RS Patel enquired about funding for the project and steps that the school would take to ensure the safety of the children. Ms Barfield stated that as the applicant’s architect she was not qualified to comment on funding issues. In respect of the safety of the pupils, Andy Bates drew members’ attention to condition 6 which prohibited ball games or any other projectiles in the roof top play area unless agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Councillor Cummins noted that the amended boundary of the application site introduced scope for some control of pupil numbers and other members referred to the need to consider and balance all material considerations.
In commenting on funding issues, Tony Vincett, legal adviser to the Committee stated members needed to weigh its relevance to this particular application and whether in planning terms a potentially half built structure would be a consideration material to this decision of this application. Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning added that although there was no clear indication that funding for the project had failed, approval of this application would not commit Brent Council to funding obligations. He advised that it would not be advantageous to defer the application and that the applications now sought a decision to an application that had been submitted in September 2010.
|
|
|
|
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Green ward member stated that he had been approached by “We Love Queens Park” and QPARA. Councillor Green objected to the proposed development on grounds of uncertainty about the funding required for deliverability and that it would contravene the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policy BE2. In view of the above and the overwhelming local opposition to the project Councillor Green urged members to defer the application
Ms Julia Barfield the applicant’s architect stated that the school would be two form entry with a cap of 560 pupils and that a modest design had been maintained so as to minimise impact on adjoining buildings. She continued full consultation on the application including attendance at Area Consultative Forum (ACF) meetings, website publicity, open days and public meetings took place at which comments made by local residents formed the basis of modifications. Ms Barfield added that the resulting proposal would create a school environment fit for the 21st century in which Queens Park would take pride.
Councillor RS Patel enquired about funding for the project and steps that the school would take to ensure the safety of the children. Ms Barfield stated that as the applicant’s architect she was not qualified to comment on funding issues. In respect of the safety of the pupils, Andy Bates drew members’ attention to condition 6 which prohibited ball games or any other projectiles in the roof top play area unless agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
In commenting on funding issues, Tony Vincett, legal adviser to the Committee stated members needed to weigh its relevance to this particular application and whether in planning terms a half built structure would be a consideration material to this decision of this application. Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning added that although there was no clear indication that funding for the project had failed, approval of this application would not commit Brent Council to funding obligations. He advised that it would not be advantageous to defer the application.
|
|
Supporting documents: