Agenda item
11 Solebay Street, London E1 4PW (PA/13/00444)
Decision:
Update Report Tabled.
On a vote of 2 in favour and 3 against the Officer recommendation, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission (PA/13/00444) at 11 Solebay Street, London E1 4PW be NOT ACCEPTED for change of use from office/warehouse use (Use Class B1/B8) to a two form entry primary school (Use Class D1) involving minor alterations to infill existing parking and service bays and a roof-top extension providing additional teaching and external play space.
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over:
· Health and safety matters.
· Congestion.
· Noise and Vibration – with relation to the rooftop playspace
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 and the implications of the decision.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Anwar Khan, Tim Archer, Judith Gardiner and Gulam Robbani).
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
The Committee considered the schemes regarding 11 Solebay Street, London E1 4PW for change of use at the site for a new primary school.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
John Veness spoke in objection to the scheme. He expressed concern about health and safety matters given the proximity of the proposed school to industrial units and other places such as the Council depot and ambulance station. He highlighted the difficulties in educating very young children about the traffic from such units. Therefore, the pupils were at risk of having accidents. He drew attention to the concerns of Environmental Health about the noise from the roof top terrace. This needed to be looked at. It was stated that the site had been marketed since August 2011. However, this was at a very height rate. Based on a more fairer price, it could be occupied and create jobs in the area.
In response to Members, he stated that his premises was an electrical contractor business with entrances that were very close to the entrance to the school. When open, this gave direct access to the shop. Also, their trucks would reverse outwards at a very short distance to the school. He suggested that both entrances be located in Toby Lane to protect pupil safety. He had submitted a written letter of objection to the Planning Department detailing these concerns.
Eion O’Connor spoke in support as the applicant’s agent. He highlighted the need for school places in the Borough and to relocate the existing school on this site as shown by the evidence. The policy stated that new schools should be positively considered. The new guidance on free schools supported this further. The site had been marketed since 2011(without success) and had no site allocation. The relevant professionals including TfL and the Council’s Highways Officers had considered that the scheme was acceptable on highways grounds.
Members sought assurances regarding the health and safety of the pupils. In reply, Mr O’ Connor highlighted the steps to ensure this. It was proposed to provide two entrances with an internal waiting area for pupils and to stagger opening hours. He also highlighted the Voluntary One Way System to manage traffic. All of this would be secured by the Travel Plan and would be constantly monitored. The applicant had explored other sites. However, it was felt that the site was the most suitable given the proximity to the pupil base and for viability reasons.
Members questioned whether both entrances could be located on Toby Lane in view of the safety concerns? In response, it was considered better to have the entrances at separate points and there were measures as listed above to minimise congestion on the street.
Benson Olaseni (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and update. He explained the application site, the existing use, the surrounding buildings, the access routes and the outcome of the statutory consultation. He addressed the main issues raised in objection around land use, highways impact, noise and pollution. It was considered that the site was suitable for a school use given the policy support for new schools and the unsuccessful attempts to market the site.
Officers also explained the proposed catchment area for the school, the trip forecast (that showed that most trips would be by sustainable means) and the measures to protect amenity and minimise the highway impact. Officers were recommending that the scheme should be granted.
In reply to the presentation, Members asked questions about the following points:
- The concerns of Environmental Health regarding the noise impact from the roof top place space.
- The impact of vehicle trips and pedestrian congestion from the school. Members questioned the adequacy of the plans to manage this. (paragraphs 8.33 and 8.34 of the report).
- The accidents rates in the area. It was considered that the rates were relatively high. Members sought comparative data to put the figures into context.
- The lower standard of accommodation for free schools.
- The quality of the teaching standards. Further information was sought on this.
- The room for expanding the site should demand increase in future
- The availability of the places to local children to address the shortage.
Officers addressed each point. The school would be a free school so would be subject to monitoring by central government (Ofsted) to ensure it was fit for purpose. There were conditions on the roof top play space to ensure the impact was acceptable including restrictions on the hours of use. A key concern was the impact of the play space on residents. However, the nearest properties were some distance away so it was unlikely that it would have an undue impact on residents in terms of noise. It was considered that the floor size was acceptable and could accommodate the expected pupil numbers.
Officers had carefully considered the accident statistics based on TfL data. Officers displayed a map of the area of reported accidents in a 400 metre radius of the site. Given that most of the incidences did not affect the site, Officers were satisfied with the safety of the site.
On a vote of 2 in favour and 3 against the Officer recommendation, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission (PA/13/00444) at 11 Solebay Street, London E1 4PW be NOT ACCEPTED for change of use from office/warehouse use (Use Class B1/B8) to a two form entry primary school (Use Class D1) involving minor alterations to infill existing parking and service bays and a roof-top extension providing additional teaching and external play space.
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over:
· Health and safety matters.
· Congestion.
· Noise and Vibration – with relation to the rooftop playspace
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 and the implications of the decision.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Anwar Khan, Tim Archer, Judith Gardiner and Gulam Robbani).
Supporting documents: