Agenda item
Units 24, 26, 28, 30 & 32, Mastmaker Road, London, E14 9UB (PA/13/01647)
Decision:
Update Report tabled.
On a vote of 5 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That application (PA/13/01647) at Units 24, 26, 28, 30 & 32, Mastmaker Road, London, E14 9UB be GRANTED for the variation to condition 5 (student numbers) and condition 6 (hours of operation) of planning permission dated 10 July 2013, reference PA/13/00116 for the "Change of use of existing light industrial units (Use Class B1) (numbers 24, 26, 28, 30 and 32) to a secondary school (Use Class D1) offering vocational courses for 14-19 year olds."
- Variation of Condition 5 (Student Numbers) to limit the maximum number of students on site to 490.
- Variation of Condition 6 (Hours of Operation) staggering the arrival time of staff and students as follows:
- Teachers and staff - 07:00 - 23:00
- 14 - 16 year old students - 09:30 - 15:00
- 16 - 19 year old students - 10:00 - 15:30
- Social enterprise units - 10:00 - 18:00
2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to recommend the conditions and informatives in relation to the matters set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader) introduced the report regarding units 24, 26, 28, 30 & 32, Mastmaker Road, London, E14 9UB for the variation to condition 5 (student numbers) and condition 6 (hours of operation) of planning permission dated 10 July 2013, (PA/13/00116) for the change of use of existing light industrial units to a secondary school offering vocational courses for 14-19 year olds.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Councillor Shiria Khatun spoke in objection to the proposal. Councillor Khatun expressed concern about the lack of consultation with local residents. Many of which only found out about the application and this meeting very recently due to non-receipt of a letter from the Council and as they did not receive the East End Life newspaper.
It was proposed to transfer many students from across the Borough to the new school. A major concern was the additional pressure that this would place on local transport that was already overstretched, especially at peak times, and the impact this would have on local residents in using these services. There was already a café nearby. Councillor Khatun expressed concern about increased anti social behaviour (asb) from congestion from the proposal, given the high levels of asb in the area.
In response to Members, Councillor Khatun considered that there was a lack of consultation by the applicant and confusion about the proposals. The Councillor questioned the exact scope of their consultation as the information provided about this was inconsistent. It was evident that some areas hadn’t been canvassed at all. In addition, the Councillor confirmed that she did not personally receive a letter from the Council about the scheme, as a local resident. The residents main concern was the number of students. Councillor Khatun requested that it be reduced to 280.
Eddie Stride spoke in support of the scheme. He explained the purpose of the scheme to help disadvantaged young people to find employment. The current Free School had a capacity of 486 learners. It was therefore necessary for the new school to accommodate this number to find all students a place. It was expected that most of the students would walk to the school and there would be staggered start and finish times for pupils to minimise the impact in the peak hour on the highway.
The applicant had held discussions at pre and post application stage with the objectors and had canvassed all of the surrounding area and left leaflets for the blocs where entry was not possible. Mr Stride reported on the measures to minimise asb. However, he considered that this was rarely a problem at City Gateway facilities. In fact, the evidence showed that such problems usually decreased where their projects were based.
In response to Members, Mr Stride explained that the current lease for their existing Free School accommodation was about to expire. The response from the community to the proposals was very positive and City Gateway regularly engaged with the community to seek feedback and address and issues. Mr Stride also explained the range of the course offered and the expected footfall from the social enterprise units, that would mainly attract local residents. There was a frequent turnover of learners. Many of which would attend courses off site. There were also internal areas where pupils could enter. Such steps should prevent students congregating outside the site. Mr Stride also explained the security arrangements to address any nuisance behaviour should it occur.
Mary O'Shaughnessy (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report. Ms O'Shaughnessy reminded Members that the principle of the development had already been approved (at the May 2013 meeting of the Committee). Therefore, the purpose of this application was to consider the variation only to condition 5 (regarding pupil numbers) and 6 of the planning permission (regarding the hours of operation). Ms O'Shaughnessy explained the scope of the consultation including letters, a site note and an advert in the East End Life newspaper. The application was before the Committee as it sought to vary the conditions agreed by the Committee not due to the number of representations. The applicant was requesting the changes as they found that the current conditions were overly restrictive in view of the needs of the school.
In response to Members, Officers explained the outcome of the transport assessment. This showed that a substantial number of journeys to the school would be by foot as well as by public transport. In addition, there would be staggered start/finishing times, as highlighted by the speaker and many of the students would be attending courses elsewhere. Such factors should minimise the number of pupils using public transport at any one time.
The applicant had attended a meeting with Transport for London (TfL) and the Planning Officer where there was much discussion about the impact on the transport system. TfL were now satisfied with the suggested capacity of 490, given the staggered operational hours, as this would ensure that the students would generally be travelling outside peak times.
It was also reported that the Student Management Plan would be secured by condition to manage the entrances and exists to the school.
On a vote of 5 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That application (PA/13/01647) at Units 24, 26, 28, 30 & 32, Mastmaker Road, London, E14 9UB be GRANTED for the variation to condition 5 (student numbers) and condition 6 (hours of operation) of planning permission dated 10 July 2013, reference PA/13/00116 for the "Change of use of existing light industrial units (Use Class B1) (numbers 24, 26, 28, 30 and 32) to a secondary school (Use Class D1) offering vocational courses for 14-19 year olds."
- Variation of Condition 5 (Student Numbers) to limit the maximum number of students on site to 490.
- Variation of Condition 6 (Hours of Operation) staggering the arrival time of staff and students as follows:
- Teachers and staff - 07:00 - 23:00
- 14 - 16 year old students - 09:30 - 15:00
- 16 - 19 year old students - 10:00 - 15:30
- Social enterprise units - 10:00 - 18:00
2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to recommend the conditions and informatives in relation to the matters set out in the Committee report.
Supporting documents:
-
(2013-08-30) PA_13_01647 - Mastmaker FINAL_MAS, item 7.3
PDF 114 KB
-
Committee Report Map PA_13_01647, item 7.3
PDF 871 KB