Agenda item
Walburgh House, Jamiatal Ummah School, 56 Bigland Street, London, E1 2ND (PA/09/0299)
Decision:
Update Report Tabled.
Councillor Choudhury and Councillor Salique proposed the following amendments to the legal agreement and conditions which on a unanimous vote this was carried.
(i) Extending the planning permission to 5 years from 3.
(ii) Amending the legal agreement to include just the following two conditions:
- £30, 000 for the pedestrian improvement measures in the area
- £10,000 for traffic management and traffic order changes
(iii) Changing the opening hours to ensure they accommodate prayer hours.
(iv) Amending the ‘no amplified call to prayer condition’ to ensure 3 such calls to prayer are permitted.
On a unanimous vote on the substantive motion, it was –
RESOLVED
1. That the planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of an eight storey building plus three basement levels, including an open play area and terrace and erection of a new building to provide a two form entry secondary school, community centre, student accommodation, funeral facilities, library, multi-purpose sports hall, gymnasium, retail unit, cafeteria, crèche, health facility, basement level car parking; cycle storage and refuse storage facilities be GRANTED subject to:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement, to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, to secure the following:
- £30, 000 for the pedestrian improvement measures in the area
- £10,000 for traffic management and traffic order changes
Non-financial Contributions
- ‘Car free’ agreement
- Local labour in construction
- Travel Plan required
- Requirement to provide access to community facilities for members of the public
- Code of Construction practice
3. Any other planning obligation(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal
4. That the Head of Development Decisions be delegated power to impose conditions on the planning permission to secure the following
Conditions
1. That the Permission be valid for 5 years.
2. Submission of samples / details / full particulars of:
a. Façade design and detailing;
b. facing materials, glazing,
3. Hours of Construction (8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday 9.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sunday or Bank holidays)
4. Power/hammer driven piling/breaking (10am – 4pm Monday – Friday)
5. Contaminated land: desk study, site investigation, risk assessment and mitigation
6. Hours of opening – 06.00 – 22.30 hours Monday to Friday and 09.00 – 21.00 hours on Saturdays and Sundays (for all uses) subject to prayer hours.
7. Maximum of 3 amplified call to prayer
8. Submission of Service Management Plan
9. Submission of details of cycle parking
10. Submission of Construction Logistics & Management Plan
12. Details of two car parking space to be installed with an electric vehicle recharging point.
13. Details of waste arrangements and their collection should be conditioned.
14. Secure by Design Statement required
15. Details in the approved Energy Strategy shall be implemented
16. Details of refuse & recycling facilities for each use
17. Details of design of ventilation shafts
18. Details of noise mitigation measures
19. Management Strategy for the building
20. Installation of a heat networking supplying all spaces within the development
21. Details of energy cooling strategy
22. Details of BREEM Assessment
23 Schedule of highway improvement works
24. Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal.
6. Informatives
1. Section 106 agreement required.
2. Section 278 (Highways) agreement required.
3. Site notice specifying the details of the contractor required.
4. Construction Environmental Management Plan Advice.
5. Environmental Health Department Advice.
8. Metropolitan Police Advice.
9. Transport Department Advice.
7. That, if by 31st June 2010 the legal agreement has not been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, the Head of Development Decisions is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled.
Mr Stephen Irvine (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the report regarding Walburgh House, Jamiatal Ummah School, Bigland Street.
The Chair then invited representations from persons who had registered for speaking rights in accordance with the procedures for hearing objections, as set out in the Council’s Constitution.
Mr Tom Ridge speaking as an objector to the application . He reported that he was a former teacher in the Borough. He expressed concern at the loss of the existing building, a view supported by others including an objection from SAVE Britain’s Heritage and the Victorian Society. Neither organisations were listed in the committee report. In addition, SAVE Britain’s Heritage and the Victorian Society were not notified of this committee date. Mr Ridge expressed the views and the opposition of SAVE Britain’s Heritage and the Victorian Society to the scheme and explained that the building should be repaired and that the new building in the south should be erected to make refurbishment feasible. The site was well preserved and the school could still be adapted and made ‘fit for purpose’ at a reasonable cost. The facility could represent a unique mix of old and new that the community needs. The repairs could be undertaken in stages so to allow the prayers and the school to continue. Grants could help the applicant fund the repairs to the school. The architectural merits of the Queen Anne Board School was also expressed. The school was the only old style board school in London and the most densely populated one. No other London Borough had this feature. It was the only one that bares the Tower Hamlets name.
English Heritage had written to the Council saying that they were considering listing the existing building. In view of this Mr Ridge urged that the Application be deferred to explore the retention of the building.
Mr Mohammad Siddiquy, representative of the Applicant, considered that the scheme represented the aspirations of the local community and would enable the school to do better. He considered that the school had outgrown the existing premises. The applicant sets up and ran projects in the premises for the local community. However he considered that they had outgrown the premises. All of their projects were over subscribed due to lack of space. The premises didn’t meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. (DDA). There was a large Victoria roof, it was not fit for purpose. They didn’t have a proper library or office accommodation. They desperately needed a new centre so that they could continue to deliver award winning community projects. Many of their students had gone on to study at top universities. They hoped that the Committee would look favourable on the application.
Mr Harshad Patel, Project Architect, speaking in favour of the scheme spoke of the Applicant’s desire to provide a new facility for community led projects. The building was not listed building and was not located in a Conservation Area. It was out of context and incongruous with the surrounding area. The feasibility study showed that the current building was unsuitable and was not meeting the requirements of OFSTED. The retention of the building would restrict the provision of the proposed facilities due to its age and size. The design of the new development would be of high quality and would be energy efficient.
Councillor Waiseul Islam spoke in favour of the application on behalf of Councillor Shahed Ali who was a Ward Councillor for Whitechapel.
He read out a statement on behalf of Councillor Ali. He stated that the granting of this planning consent would enable the build of this beautifully designed building. He strongly believe this multi-use community building would become the centre-piece, the hub of our very proud and diverse multi-ethnic and multi-faith communities, a place where the theme of ‘One Tower Hamlets’ can truly be celebrated. The carefully designed structure would be an iconic addition to the many modern buildings in the immediate vicinity of the area; however, it respects the strong presence of culture and integration. He congratulated the project team in putting together such a responsive design.
He understood that 5 objections have been received, but 328 letters in support of the application, clearly demonstrating overwhelming support for this project. Whilst he was sympathetic to the character of the existing building, he believed many local authorities owned buildings of such design exist and therefore we can seek to preserve such opportunities elsewhere. This building was owned by the applicant and in order to ensure their positive charitable work can be expanded and developed to meet the demanding needs of the local community, we all need to support this design.
This is a charitable organization, seeking to produce a much needed project. It therefore requires the pro-active support of all stakeholder partners.
He therefore asked the Committee to consider the proposing the following amendments to the Recommendations.
Delete:
‘£105,000 towards open space improvements including contribution to Gosling Gardens Park which is located opposite the site’
Add in the ‘Non-Financial Contributions section:
Approximately 150 additional school places based on the calculation of the 12,342 per space, equating to £1,851.300.
Furthermore on Page 22, point 3.5 (condition 1), change to read: ‘Permission valid for 5 years’.
Councillor Ahmed Hussain also spoke in favour of the application. He considered that clearly the school was achieving a great deal. He stressed the need for the proposals to ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act. He considered that if this was a Council building, it would be modernised under the Building Schools for the Future Initiative. He drew attention to the cost of the scheme. Councillor Hussain also proposed that a number of the proposed contributions be removed bearing in mind the greater benefits of the scheme.
Following the presentations, Mr Irvine presented the detailed report. In which he reported the following points:
- Officers considered that the application provided a valuable facility for local residents in line with policy whilst respecting amenity.
- It was emphasised that the building was not listed or was it located in the Conservation Area. As a result, planning consent for the demolition was not required.
- It was not considered that the activity would create any adverse highways issues.
- In terms of sustainability, the scheme complied with policy.
- Clarified the scale of the development and that it just fell within the maximum threshold for this Committee.
Mr Irvine also responded to the request to reduce some of the planning obligations and explained that the Council’s Highways Engineer had considered the scheme and had raised concerns around the trip generations assessment and access to the site as detailed in the update report. It was considered necessary on that basis to secure the contributions for highway works in the legal agreement. The Committee were urged to carefully considered these points in the update report.
In reply to the presentation, Members raised the following points:
Members expressed support for the application but queried the reasons for requiring a number of the planning obligations given the scope of the proposed community facilities and community benefits. Specifically Councillor Choudhury queried the need for the contributions for Gosling Gardens Park and the street lighting/ improvement works.
Members also asked questions regarding the possibility of extending the permission from 3 to 5 years which were answered by officers. They also considered the merits of the amplified call for prayer facility in this context and discussed that a minimum number should be allowed.
Members also queried the proposed opening hours given prayer times fell at different times during the year.
Consequently, in view of the above, Councillor Choudhury and Councillor Salique proposed the following amendments to the legal agreement and conditions which on a unanimous vote this was carried.
(i) Extending the planning permission to 5 years from 3.
(ii) Amending the legal agreement to include just the following two financial obligations:
- £30, 000 for the pedestrian improvement measures in the area
- £10,000 for traffic management and traffic order changes
(iii) Changing the opening hours to ensure they accommodate prayer hours.
(iv) Amending the ‘no amplified call to prayer condition’ to ensure three such calls to prayer are permitted.
On a unanimous vote on the substantive motion, it was –
RESOLVED
1. That the planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of an eight storey building plus three basement levels, including an open play area and terrace and erection of a new building to provide a two form entry secondary school, community centre, student accommodation, funeral facilities, library, multi-purpose sports hall, gymnasium, retail unit, cafeteria, crèche, health facility, basement level car parking; cycle storage and refuse storage facilities be GRANTED subject to:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement, to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, to secure the following:
- £30, 000 for the pedestrian improvement measures in the area
- £10,000 for traffic management and traffic order changes
Non-financial Contributions
- ‘Car free’ agreement
- Local labour in construction
- Travel Plan required
- Requirement to provide access to community facilities for members of the public
- Code of Construction practice
3. Any other planning obligation(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal
4. That the Head of Development Decisions be delegated power to impose conditions on the planning permission to secure the following
Conditions
1. That the Permission be valid for 5 years.
2. Submission of samples / details / full particulars of:
a. Façade design and detailing;
b. facing materials, glazing,
3. Hours of Construction (8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday 9.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sunday or Bank holidays)
4. Power/hammer driven piling/breaking (10am – 4pm Monday – Friday)
5. Contaminated land: desk study, site investigation, risk assessment and mitigation
6. Hours of opening – 06.00 – 22.30 hours Monday to Friday and 09.00 – 21.00 hours on Saturdays and Sundays (for all uses) subject to prayer hours.
7. Maximum of 3 amplified call to prayer
8. Submission of Service Management Plan
9. Submission of details of cycle parking
10. Submission of Construction Logistics & Management Plan
12. Details of two car parking space to be installed with an electric vehicle recharging point.
13. Details of waste arrangements and their collection should be conditioned.
14. Secure by Design Statement required
15. Details in the approved Energy Strategy shall be implemented
16. Details of refuse & recycling facilities for each use
17. Details of design of ventilation shafts
18. Details of noise mitigation measures
19. Management Strategy for the building
20. Installation of a heat networking supplying all spaces within the development
21. Details of energy cooling strategy
22. Details of BREEM Assessment
23 Schedule of highway improvement works
24. Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal.
6. Informatives
1. Section 106 agreement required.
2. Section 278 (Highways) agreement required.
3. Site notice specifying the details of the contractor required.
4. Construction Environmental Management Plan Advice.
5. Environmental Health Department Advice.
8. Metropolitan Police Advice.
9. Transport Department Advice.
7. That, if by 31st June 2010 the legal agreement has not been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, the Head of Development Decisions is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
Supporting documents: