Agenda item
Site south west of the junction of Glenworth Avenue and Saunders Ness Road, E14 3EB (PA/15/00360)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 25th November, 2015 7.00 p.m. (Item 6.2)
- View the background to item 6.2
Proposal:
Construction of a 1,705 GIA sq. m. 3-storey primary school to accommodate 280 pupils and approximately 30 staff.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
Councillor Marc Francis (Chair) for the remaining items of business
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the proposal for the construction of a 1,705 GIA sq. m. 3-storey primary school to accommodate 280 pupils and approximately 30 staff.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Sandra Ireland and Kathy McTasney (local residents) spoke in objection to the proposal, objecting to:
· The lack of benefits for local children. Given this, it was questioned whether the funding would be better spent extending the existing schools for local children.
· Impact on neighbouring amenity – due to noise and nuisance from the scheme especially during the construction phase, the proximity of the waste storage for the scheme to residents properties.
· Duplication of existing services.
· Design was too big for the site
· Impact on the highway from the school runs.
Anna - Marie Hulme (resident) and Sarah Counter (Applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the scheme. They spoke about the quality of the existing Canary Wharf College and felt that the plans would allow other children to benefit from such facilities. The highway impact would be minimal as detailed in the technical assessment. It was expected that most of the pupils would walk to the school. The scheme would be car free. The measures to mitigate the impact from the school run on the highway were noted.
The plans would be in keeping with area. The new building would be of a high quality design and be a decent distance from the nearest neighbouring properties. The measures to mitigate the construction impact were noted.
In response to questions from Members, Ms Counter described the colour of the proposed brick work. She also explained that that all 50 staff come on foot or public transport that was in their contracts of employment, places are offered by distance to the school and 100 children were in temporary accommodation and it was intended that they would be moved to the new site. She also answered questions about the expected student profile for the college and also their admissions policy. However, at this point, Officers advised that Members must only take into account the material planning matters in considering this application.
Jane Jin (Team Leader, Development and Renewal) gave a presentation on the application describing the site location and surrounds, the proximity to listed buildings and the St Luke’s School. Consultation on the scheme had been carried out and the issues raised were set out in the presentation slides and the Committee report.
Members were advised of the proposed facilities, expected pupils numbers, the layout of the scheme, the design, height and massing that would accord with the surroundings and the measures to prevent disturbance from the play ground.
In terms of amenity, the scheme met the tests in policy for sunlight and daylight and there would be no direct overlooking from the school. Therefore, no adverse impacts on amenity were anticipated.
The application had been accompanied by a transport plan (that looked at the cumulative impact of the proposed school and other schools on the local highway). The study found that the impact would be acceptable given the measures to mitigate the impact. Highway Services had not expressed concern with the scheme.
In view of the merits of the scheme, Officers were recommended that it be granted planning permission.
In response to the presentation, Members asked questions about:
· The impact on the highway from the development with regards to school drop off and pick ups given the existing pressures on the highway and the number of children expected to travel from a distance
· The transport assessment in view of the above.
· Adequacy of the proposed play space and disturbance from this.
· Size of the school in relation to the site.
· Proximity to residents and the impact on amenity.
· Loss of trees.
In response to further questions, the Chair reminded members that they must stick to material planning considerations. Officers also reminded Members that this application is for a school and that the composition of the teachers and children was not a material planning consideration. The Chair also advised that there should be no interjections from the public gallery.
In response, Officers explained that none of trees at the site were protected. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer had considered the scheme and felt that the proposals were acceptable given the limitations in providing new trees on the site. It was felt that the height and scale of the scheme could be accommodated at the site and was consistent with similar schemes.
Careful consideration had been given to the highway impact including a site visit by Officers at 3pm to witness first hand the impact on the highway of the school run. Given the findings along with the nature of the scheme (the staggered start times, the catchment area, the predication that most of the pupils would travel by foot and the measures in the transport plan), Officers did not consider that the scheme would cause any major harm in this regard.
In response to further questions, Officers explained in greater detail the measures in the travel plan to minimise the impact on the highway (including the promotion of alternative modes of transport). They also gave examples of the type of issues that may considered in assessing whether the site could accommodate a school of this size (in the absence of any specific planning guidance regarding the amount of school space per pupil).
In relation to the Cruise terminal, it was reported that the planning permission would include measures to mitigate the impact of the scheme. It was also noted that there was a presumption in national planning policy in favour of state school developments. It was hoped that the new school would open in time for the start of the new school next September.
Councillor Mahbub Alam proposed and Councillor Shah Alam seconded a motion that the planning application be DEFERRED for a site visit.
Accordingly on a vote of 4 in favour, 1 against and 2 abstentions it was RESOLVED:
That the planning application be DEFERRED at Site south west of the junction of Glenworth Avenue and Saunders Ness Road, E14 3EB (PA/15/00360) for a SITE VISIT to enable Members to better understand the impact of the scheme on the area
Under Procedure Rule 17.6, Councillor Peter Golds requested that it be recorded that he voted against this decision.
Supporting documents: