Agenda item
The Robin Hood Gardens Estate together with land south of Poplar High Street and Naval Row, Woolmore School and land north of Woolmore Street bounded by Cotton Street, East India Dock Road and Bullivant Street (PA/12/03318)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Wednesday, 6th March, 2013 7.30 p.m. (Item 7.1)
- View the background to item 7.1
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 3 in favour and 4 against the Officer recommendation, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That the Officer recommendation to grant reserved matters consent (PA/12/03318) at The Robin Hood Gardens Estate together with land south of Poplar High Street and Naval Row, Woolmore School and land north of Woolmore Street bounded by Cotton Street, East India Dock Road and Bullivant Street be NOT ACCEPTED for submission of reserved matters for Woolmore School (Development Zone 1, Building Parcel R) relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of replacement school following outline planning permission dated 30th March 2012, reference PA/12/00001.
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over the loss of heritage value of the existing school building.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee, setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal, along with the implications of the decision.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Bill Turner, Carlo Gibbs, Stephanie Eaton, Peter Golds, Dr Emma Jones and Helal Uddin)
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Application Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the item regarding the Robin Hood Gardens Estate (PA/12/03318). The proposal was a reserved matters application for the replacement of Woolmore School following the outline planning consent granted by the committee for the wider scheme PA/12/00001.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Tom Ridge spoke in objection to the proposal. He referred the applicant’s ‘justification for demolition document’ that rejected option (b) due to the sewer works. (retaining the old building with a modern new school at the east). However, in the report, the option was dismissed at it divided year groups.
In the new building, a year group would be divided in several places at the upper level with an inadequate staircase.
The scheme would maximise disruption and place the sports and play area at the end of the site with the most pollution. The questionnaire was worded in favour of the plans – it asked do you agree with the plans that would increase school places? Mr Ridge questioned the accuracy of the heritage assessment commissioned by the applicant. It appeared that they were appointed to dispute the building’s historic value. This application should be refused and consideration should be given to his option of retaining the old school with an extension to the east
In reply to Members, he stated that the building was not listed due such issues as the plastic windows that should be replaced. However, this did not mean it was not of value and should be demolished. The building was a pre war L.L.C building. One of 33 schools of such type. Each had unique features. This school was the only one with the unique chimney stacks and vents. He disputed the opinion that the building was an arts and craft school that changed into a neo Georgian school. This was incorrect. In fact, it was the opposite. The comparisons with the grammar school were inaccurate as they were not ‘a like for like’ in terms of type and location.
Hugo Nowellspoke in support of the proposal. He emphasised the lack of heritage value of the unprotected building that was not in a conservation area. The existing building did not meet modern standards and had experienced alterations and bomb damage leaving little historic features. The applicant had fully considered the option of retention. However none of the options were appropriate and would meet the needs of the school. The alternatives proposed would require extensive changes to the building that would heavily impact on its character anyway. These alternatives were presented to the schools and rejected. The scheme would supply much needed extra school places for the Borough. It was proposed to build the school at the eastern side, as opposed to the north. Bullivant Street was not available due to a separate planning consent. There would be a larger play space and screening to protect the building from noise from the Blackwall approach. It was expected that the new school would be ready for use by September 2014 with the existing school still in full use in the meantime. The school and governors fully supported the scheme and it should be granted.
In reply to Members, he reported that every effort had been made to try to retain the school but this was not possible. The heritage assessment took into account the Conservation Officer’s expert advice and English Heritage views. The scheme would enable the school to meet moderns standards in terms of access etc. This was key.
Amy Thompson (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) made a detailed presentation of the committee report and tabled update, as circulated to Members. She explained the site location and the plans. She explained the outcome of the consultation with one letter in support and one objection. The concerns raised in this were addressed.
The current building was not fit for purpose on many fronts. The building was not protected. This needed to be given weight.
She explained the flaws with the alternative options, on investigation, that would result in less play space and substantial changes (as explained by the speaker in support). The proposal would also accommodate the additional school places. She explained the floor plans, noise insulation, noise buffer for the new play ground and the materials. In terms of amenity, the plans were found to be acceptable. Officers were satisfied with the level of detail submitted.
Also in attendance was the Borough’s Conservation Officer, Andrew Hargreaves who reported his views in support of the recommendation.
Officers were supportive of the proposal and were recommending it for approval.
The Chair then invited questions from Members, which covered the following issues:
- The noise insulation for the building itself in view of the nearby Blackwall approach.
- The accuracy of the heritage assessment.
- The historic value of the building. Members noted the need for the extra school places and a new school. However were worried about demolishing the school to achieve this. The school was unique and there was only 33 of its type. It was questioned whether the option of improving the current school to achieve the aims had been fully explored. Full details of this should be provided.
- The decision to discount option (b) due to the sewage system. It was questioned whether the option had been fully investigated to see if it could be built with the sewage system.
- The school’s views on the application.
Officers’ responses included the following information:
The noise insulation for the building was of a high standard and complied with the relevant standards. The building would be mechanically ventilated. The measures would prevent any noise impact from the Blackwall Approach. Officers showed slides of the options assessed and rejected. Officers explained in detail why they unsuitable. This was due to a number of reasons such as: unacceptable layout, less room for play space and the unavailability of Bullivant street due to the nearby planning consent. Option (b) suggested by Mr Ridge was not suitable due to the site constraints as well as the position of the sewer system.
The school had submitted a letter in support. This was a reserved matter application so the principal of the proposal had already been accepted.
On a vote of 3 in favour and 4 against the Officer recommendation, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That the Officer recommendation to grant reserved matters consent (PA/12/03318) at The Robin Hood Gardens Estate together with land south of Poplar High Street and Naval Row, Woolmore School and land north of Woolmore Street bounded by Cotton Street, East India Dock Road and Bullivant Street be NOT ACCEPTED for submission of reserved matters for Woolmore School (Development Zone 1, Building Parcel R) relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of replacement school following outline planning permission dated 30th March 2012, reference PA/12/00001.
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over the loss of heritage value of the existing school building.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee, setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal, along with the implications of the decision.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Bill Turner, Carlo Gibbs, Stephanie Eaton, Peter Golds, Dr Emma Jones and Helal Uddin)
Supporting documents:
- Final Woolmore School Committee Report (22 02 13) (3), item 7.1 PDF 334 KB
- Blackwall Reach Consultation Boundary, item 7.1 PDF 772 KB
- DRAFT Blackwall Reach Committee Report FINAL, 15/03/2012 Strategic Development Committee, item 7.1 PDF 950 KB