Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and supplementary report and the inclusion of an additional condition relation to the inclusion of active and passive EVC points.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of Youth Centre and the construction of a new Special Educational Needs School comprising a three-storey school building, MUGA, soft and hard landscaping, access, parking and drop off and pick up system.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)      That the Head of Planning being delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives as detailed in the report.

(2)      The Head of Planning being delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the committee's 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.

Nicola Blake, Principal Planning Officer, North Area Planning Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the application sought the demolition of the existing community use buildings on site in order to redevelop the site to provide a one to three storey Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) school, access, parking and turning area within the frontage and outdoor spaces, including a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) which would be situated to the southern end of the site. The site was not within a conservation area and there were no listed buildings within the site’s curtilage.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary report that detailed minor amendments made to the wording of the conditions.

The Chair thanked Nicola Blake for introducing the report. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speaker Councillor Afzal (Ward Councillor) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application.

The following key points were highlighted:

·                Councillor Afzal acknowledged the need for additional support for SEND pupils in Brent and as such welcomed the application to provide an additional SEND school in Brent to meet the needs of children that required this specialist education environment.

·                Queries were raised as to what considerations had been given to the impact of the increased footfall and traffic to the area as a result of the new school.

The Chair thanked Councillor Afzal for addressing the Committee and invited the Committee to ask any questions they had in relation to the information heard. In response, the Committee queried whether Councillor Afzal felt it would be useful for the Council to engage in further consultation with residents in relation to extending Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) hours once it had been assessed if there was an impact on local parking from the development, particularly in terms of the extended use hours of the MUGA. In response Councillor Afzal welcomed the opportunity for further discussions to be had as and when appropriate.

The Chair then invited the next speaker, Matthew Blythin (agent) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application.

The following key points were highlighted:

·                The application sought to meet the significant need for dedicated SEND provision in Brent.

·                The site had previously been the subject of a resolution to grant planning permission for high rise residential development of up to seven storeys.  In contrast the application presented would meet an acute and specialist educational need in a lower rise three storey buildings that was felt to represent a more sensitive and appropriate use of the site.

·                Extensive pre application consultation had taken place with officers, residents Members and other stakeholders.  These discussions had directly informed the evolution of the proposed design.

·                Following engagement with the Council’s Tree Officer in relation to the existing Tree Preservation Order on site it had been confirmed that, whilst regrettable, due to the nature of the development and site that tree loss would be an unavoidable consequence of delivering the school. However this would be mitigated by the provision of a comprehensive landscaping scheme to create a high quality, calming and interactive learning environment.

·                The design of the building had been closely developed with the Rise Partnership Trust, who would be operating the school to ensure that the design responded to the particular needs of the pupils.

·                The scheme utilised solar panels and air source heat pumps as part of a wide ranging suite of sustainable design measures that would deliver a net zero carbon building, designed to BREEAM Outstanding standards.

·                The facilities would be available for community use outside of the school day.

·                The layout had been designed to accommodate access for additional vehicles providing school drop off and pickups to ensure safe management and avoid issues outside of the site on the highway.

·                Staff travel by car would be managed and reduced as far as possible through the adoption of an active Travel Plan and the provision of minimal on site staff car parking.

·                On the basis of the application meeting the needs of SEND pupils in Brent and the wider community benefits, the Committee was urged to approve the application.

Following Mr Blythin’s comments, the Committee queried the rationale for using SEND schools in Kent as a comparator to support the application’s transport statement. Mr Blythin advised that the vast majority of SEND schools regardless of location and geography required enhanced mini bus and taxi services to support pupils access to school, therefore the data examples from Kent had been cross referenced with data from Brent Highways Team and demonstrated close correlation in support of the transport statement.

The Chair thanked Mr Blythin for responding to the Committee’s query and proceeded to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask the officers any remaining questions or points of clarity they had in relation to the application. The Committee had questions in relation to the potential increase in number of vehicles to the area as a result of journeys to and from school, if considerations had been given to using the site to provide residential homes, revised timings to the CPZ zone, tree loss, the suitability of the premises within its residential location, Electric Vehicle (EV) charging points, affordability of community facilities and permitted hours of construction work.

The following responses were provided:

·                Following a query in relation to the impact the development could have on increased traffic to the area, the Committee was advised that the development would generate less traffic than a mainstream school or in fact if the site had been used for a residential development, as the nature of transport to a SEND school included mini buses or taxis bring a number of pupils in one vehicle.  It was therefore concluded that there would not be a significant impact on neighbouring roads. In addition to this there would be staggered arrival times and an internal dedicated dropping off area within the site, that would not impact on the main highway.

·                Additionally, staff would be encouraged to use public transport as the Transport Statement indicated that there would be 80 members of full-time equivalent staff with a maximum allowance of 16 car parking spaces. The parking also incorporated 2 disabled parking spaces and 2 Electric Vehicle Charging (EV) spaces.

·                In response to the Committee querying why it was felt the site would be better utilised to provide a SEND school as opposed to residential homes that were equally high in demand in Brent, officers advised that following the previous plans for a residential scheme to occupy the site the DfE had advised that as the site was defined as educational land they were not minded to release it for any other use than the provision of an educational setting; therefore it would not be possible to develop the site for residential purposes. Demand for SEND provision in the borough was high, therefore it was felt the application provided support for much needed SEND places in Brent as well as the provision of community facilities and was consequently felt to be an application of wide reaching public benefit.

·                It was confirmed that the current CPZ times in place would provide adequate parking controls.  If parking issues presented due to community use outside of school hours, residents could request an extension to the CPZ hours at a later date.

·                In response to a Committee query in relation to the proposed developments impact on neighbouring residential amenities, officers advised that the use of the premises as a school was considered to be acceptable within the residential area given that there was very little impact in terms of neighbours exposure to noise, light or overlooking.

·                Following a Committee concern in relation to the loss of trees to accommodate the proposed development, officers advised that it was regrettable that trees would be lost as a result of the development. It was, however, noted that officers had given a great deal of consideration as to how tree loss could be limited but due to the nature of the site it had not been possible to avoid the loss of some trees or to re-provide all the trees lost. To partially mitigate the tree loss, staff car parking had been reduced to provide as much landscaping as possible, trees that were able to be retained would be protected via a tree protection plan during construction works and trees that were re-provided would be of increased trunk girth to achieve as much canopy cover as possible.in line with policy BG12, whereby it stated that where retention was not possible, the developers would provide new trees to achieve equivalent canopy cover. Given the significant benefits of the proposal to provide much needed SEND school places within the borough, the benefits associated with the proposal were considered to outweigh the harm as a result of the loss of some trees.

·                It was confirmed that two EV charging points would be provided in line with policy, however it was agreed that additional passive provision could be provided via condition.

·                Officers advised that the community facilities would be affordable and in line with other boroughs as set out in the accompanying conditions.

·                Following a Committee query in relation to any noise nuisance caused by construction work, officers advised that hours of construction operation would be secured via an Environmental Health management plan to limit disruption to neighbours throughout the construction phase.

As there were no further questions from members and having established that all members had followed the discussions, the Chair asked members to vote on the recommendations.

DECISION

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and supplementary report and the inclusion of an additional condition in relation to the inclusion of active and passive EV charging points.

(Voting on the above decision was unanimous).