Agenda item
Christchurch Primary School, 47A Brick Lane, London, E1 6PU (PA/11/733 and PA/11/715)
Decision:
Update Report Tabled.
On a vote of 4 in favour and 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission and conservation area consent for the demolition of the existing youth centre and the building of a new nursery and community building in its place, along with a new primary school boundary wall and landscape works to the community gardens and school playgrounds be GRANTED.
2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions [and informatives] on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the circulated report.
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled.
Pete Smith, (Development Control Manager) introduced the report and tabled update report concerning Christchurch Primary School, 47A Brick Lane, E1 6PU.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Donna Dewick addressed the committee as an objector on behalf of the Spitalfields Society. She objected on the grounds of loss of open space. She requested that consideration be given to the alternative options which could create 1500 metres of additional space. The calculation included the community gardens but they had been made inaccessible. They could be returned to community use through better management but not by this scheme. It was indicated that the plans would protect the Conservation Area but this was too large for the site and would be out of keeping with it. Ms Dewick acknowledged Ofsted’s report. However this fell short of addressing this. The plans for the community facility conflicted with the old application and would not meet young peoples needs. She requested that all other options be investigated. In reply to questions from the Committee, she considered that the design extended across a much wider foot print of the grounds. The design was very contemporary and therefore out of keeping with the Churchyard and the surrounding area.
David Brymol Thomas addressed the Committee as an objector. He stated that he was a Trustee of the Friends of Christchurch and Spitalfields and had been directly appointed to speak on their behalf. He stated that the Church was a Grade 1 listed building which attracted a lot of public interest and the Churchyard was a separate asset and the setting itself listed. The report failed to recognise these points.
The plans contradicted planning policy (PP05). He contested the status of the 2009 lease agreement. It was merely an agreement to agree nothing more. The school only had a licence for the play area and nothing more. Therefore it should not be paid attention to. The impact from the re-development of Fruit and Wool exchange should also be taken into account when assessing the proposals.
In reply to questions from Members, Mr Brymol Thomas considered that the traffic assessment was inadequate. He requested that the impact on Commercial Road and the Fruit and Wool in terms of overall foot traffic be taken into account
Indigo Woolf addressed the Committee in support of the application. He drew attention to concerns of the London Diocesan Board about inadequate facilities. The school now had a strong management structure in place, performance was improving. The plans would provide the school with better facilities and eventually secure more gardens for public use. The applicant had devoted a lot of time to consultation and had fully considered the alternatives options. However all of the alternatives schemes had significant drawbacks. He also referred to the design of the building to be build as low as possible to fit in with the area. He was proud of the Church’s involvement in education. The application should be granted.
Richard Wasserfall also spoke in favour of the application as a school parent and a Trustee of the school. The school was working with Ofsted to raise standards at the school. Despite improvements there was evidence that the school was still underperforming. The scheme would enable it to realise this aim and meet its targets. The hall would be used for a range of school and community activities. There would also be a family learning room enabling the school to work closely with parents including a crèche and more space for special needs services. He considered that the plans were in keeping with the site recognising it was a national heritage site. It would much improve the learning environment leading to a healthier community overall.
Ila Robertson (Planning Applications Manager) made a detailed presentation of the report and the update. She described the planning history and the nature of this scheme.
She addressed the main issues and the objections. The scheme complied with planning policy with no significant impacts. The plans were supported by the Council’s Conservation team and broadly supported by English Heritage who felt that it would enhance the area.
Members than asked a number of questions around the following issues:
- The fall in pupil numbers at the school and the lower than expected capacity. How would the additional building help address this?
- The need for the materials to compliment the surrounding area. Clarification of how this would be managed.
- The involvement of Children’s Schools and Families.
- Scope of the plans. Whether it was just for nursery places.
- Presentation of the representations in the report. Noted that it now specified number of out of Borough representations.
- Clarification of the lease agreement.
Officers addressed each question. In relation to the capacity shortfall, a key reason for this was lack of space and inadequate facilities. The expansion would enable the school to take on more students addressing the shortfall. It was also proposed to upgrade the facilities which were currently below standard. LBTH Children’s Services were supportive of the scheme and had been fully involved from the start.
It was also required that details of the materials be submitted for approval to ensure they were suitable. In relation to the representations, they should be given equal weight regardless of where they lived. It was usually to specify whether they were out of borough in accordance with the terms of reference for the Development Committee set out in the Council’s Constitution.
Ms Robertson also clarified the terms of the lease agreement allowing for the alterations.
On a vote of 4 in favour and 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission and conservation area consent for the demolition of the existing youth centre and the building of a new nursery and community building in its place, along with a new primary school boundary wall and landscape works to the community gardens and school playgrounds be GRANTED.
2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions [and informatives] on the planning permission to secure matters listed in the circulated report.
Supporting documents: