- 134 -
Committee PLANNING COMMITTEE ( C) Item No . 15 Report Title SEDGEHILL SCHOOL AND ADJOINING LAND, SEDGEHILL ROAD SE6 Ward Bellingham Contributors Geoff Whitington / John Mathieson Class PART 1 Date 12 APRIL 2007
Reg.No s. DC/06/64389 and DC/06/6 4389A
Application dated 18.12.06 revised 12.3.07
Applicant Atkins Limited on behalf of Learning 21
Proposal Demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a new build school in a campus style group of five buildings (gross floor area 15,818 sq m) together with landscaping, including play areas, sports pitches, provision of cycle and car parking spaces and the diversion of a footpath.
Applicant’s Plan Nos. 3799 -PA -S-A(0)1001 A, 100 2B, 1003 B, 10 04 B, 10 05 B, 10 06 B, 10 07 B, 100 8B, 1009 B, 10 10 B, 10 11 B, 10 12 B, TLP -06404 - S-PA01 A, 06404 -S-PA07, Planning Statement December 2006 Revised Design and Access Statement (March 2007) , Extended Phase I Habitat Survey Report November 2006 , Landscape and Visual Assessment Report December 2006 , Report on Renewable En ergy December 2006 , Ther mal Analysis Report , BREEM Pre A ssessment Estimator December 2006 , Sedgehill School Specification, Transport Statement December 2005 updated 2 March 2006 , Generic Heads of Terms Tr avel Plan December 2005 , Report on Environmental Mod elling December 2006, Mechanical & Electrical Services Technical Specification December 2006
Background Papers (1) Case File - LE/237/C/TP (2) Adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) (3) The London Plan (2004 ) (4) PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Dev elopment (5) PPG2: Green Belts (6) PPG13: Transport
Zoning UDP Metropolitan Open Land, Green Chain Area, Site Proposal 33 - 135 -
1.0 Property/Site Description
1.1 The application site is situated to the north of Beckenham Hill Road and is bounded to the north by Sedgehill Road comprising mainly two -storey houses which run continuously opposite to the school . Part of the eastern site boundary adjoins the Brethren’s Meeting House site. This comprises a single storey building in use as a religious meeting place w ith an extensive car park .
1.2 Adjoining the south west boundary is the Beckenham Hill Estate which comprises blocks of 5-storey flats. To the west are the rear gardens of properties fronting Braeside , generally 2 -storey s emi -detached properties , in the Lond on Borough of Bromley.
1.3 It is understood that, in terms of pupil numbers, Sedgehill School is the 4 th largest school in South East England.
1.4 The existing school buildings are located round a quadrangle, occupied by a hard surface play area adjacent to the boundary with the Beckenham Hill Estate. The quadrangle is enclosed by a large 3 storey block and a smaller 2 storey block on the west side, with a separate, more recent, 2 storey block on the eastern side.
1.5 The site slopes away from west to east, with t he existing school buildings located on the highest part of the site.
1.6 A footpath currently runs from Beckenham Hill Estate down to Sedgehill Road, through the application site. The footpath boundary to the east of the site is lit by high lighting columns , whilst t here is a strong line of mature and semi mature trees running alongside the footpath.
1.7 To the east of the school site is an overgrown area (the “L ewisham Association for People with Disabilities (L APD ) Land”) which has been used on an informal basis for trail biking. The area has also attracted dumped and burnt cars, fly tipping and other forms of undesirable activity. Part of the fencing between the footpath and the LAPD land has been broken down, with very limited security being afforded to th is part of the site. Beyond this area of scrubland is the site occupied by the Brethrens’ Meeting House .
1.8 Further east and beyond this application site is Sedgehill School’s main sports playing field. This area is the subject of a separate planning appli cation for an artificial pitch and related changing rooms etc.
1.9 The main vehicle and pedestrian access onto the school site is off Sedgehill Road. Adjacent to the entrance is a car park and a plant building with a high level boiler and chimney. The frontag e around the entrance comprises decorative steel railings.
1.10 A second vehicle entrance onto the site is via a gated access at the bend of Sedgehill Road. Here there is a smaller car park area bounded to the north by a relatively recent building used as a performing arts space. To the south of that car park is one of the original buildings (3 storeys in height).
1.11 To the north of the performing arts building is a hard surfaced play area which is surrounded by a wire mesh fence approximately 3 metres high. - 136 -
1.12 Opposite this area of hard play area, on the opposite side of Sedgehill Road is the single storey Sedgehill Centre which, in turn, i s located between groups of two - storey terraced housing. Behind the Sedgehill Centre is an adventure playground.
1.13 To the nor th of the hard play area is a fenced and gated footpath bounded by a fence and the side elevation of relatively recent two storey houses forming part of the development of Hawkins Way, a housing association development dating from the mid 1990’s.
1.14 The grou nd levels of this part of the school site drop sharply downwards towards the north -eastern boundary of the site and Braeside properties. There is an additional vehicle access (which appears to be used only in emergencies) located towards the southern corne r of the site, which leads out onto Highland Court (a residential cul - de -sac).
1.15 The school buildings are approximately 500 metres from Beckenham Hill Railway Station. The nearest bus stops are on Beckenham Hill Road and Southend Lane. The whole of the site is designated as Metropolitan Open Land.
2.0 Planning History
Sedgehill School Site
2.1 There is no record in the Council’s planning files to indicate when planning permission was granted for the erection of the main school buildings. At that time, plan ning permission would have been granted by the former Greater London Council.
2.2 In September 1994, the Council granted permission for the erection of 3 metre high paled fence, along part of the eastern boundary to replace an existing fence.
2.3 In October 199 4, the Council granted planning permission for the erection of a new two storey performing arts block on the west side of Sedgehill Road, the refurbishment of the existing hard playground to form 3 new tarmac tennis courts and perimeter fence to replace ex isting courts of the site of the building, together with the erection of a replacement prefabricated fence on the south side of Sedgehill Road and the formation of a new crossover onto Sedgehill Road.
2.4 In April 1996, the Council granted permission for the erection of a two storey teaching block of 6 classrooms, meeting room/office, toilets and storage/plant room.
2.5 In November 2001, the Council granted planning permission for the erection of a 2.4 metre high metal fencing and gates.
LAPD Land
2.6 In respect o f the proposed extension of the school eastwards onto the neighbouring LAPD land, this particular site was previously part of the former Forbanks Sports Ground located on the sloping ground between Beckenham Hill Road and Sedgehill Road. When the former pa vilion building was demolished in the 1980s, the play ing fields were largely unused, however, t he eastern part of the site was developed in the late 1980s as a religious meeting place for the Plymouth Brethren. P lanning permission was granted on 27 October 1989 for the use of the vacant area (measuring 1.2 hectares) as a horse riding school for the disabled with the erection - 137 - of an indoor riding school/stables. That permission was renewed in March 1994, May 1997, October 2000 and February 2004.
2.7 A S.52 Agre ement (now S.106) dated 27 October 1989 was entered into in respect of this land. This Agreement was attached to the initial grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of part of the former Forbanks Sports Ground for religious purposes. (The church use is now occupied by the Brethrens). The signatories were the Council, the Cheviot Trust and the Lewisham Association for People with Disabilities (LAPD).
2.8 The Agreement, among other matters, bound the LAPD to preserve the site for the purpose for whic h planning permission was granted.
2.9 The planning permissions for the horse riding school were subject to a number of conditions, including a limitation on the use of the site to a riding school and stables and for no other purpose, including any other purp ose in Class D2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.
2.10 The reason for the imposition of the condition was to give the local planning authority an opportunity to consider the appropriateness of alternative uses, in the context of the open space use of the land. The most recent planning permission remains valid.
2.11 These planning permissions were reflected in the adopted Unitary Development Plan as Site Proposal 33. The latter allocates the LAPD land for leisure purposes, with the provision for disabled people in accordance with Metropolitan Open Land allocation.
Existing Outline Permission for the School
2.12 In May 2006, the Council granted outline planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings at Sedgehi ll School and the adjoining “LAPD” land and the construction of new secondary school buildings (16,444 sq metres gross floor area), provision of external play areas, hard surfacing, diversion of footpath, site works and the provision of 66 car parking spa ces.
2.13 This outline permission approved the siting and means of access, as well as floor area for each of the eight buildings then proposed.
2.14 That permission was granted after the required referrals to the London Mayor and Government Office for London.
3.0 Present Application
3.1 The application proposes the demolition of all the existing school buildings on the site together with the schoolhouse and the electricity sub -station along the Sedgehill Road frontage.
3.2 These buildings would be replaced by five 3-storey school buildings further east than the existing school complex in a campus style arrangement, sited around a central landscaped external space (“Agora”). Demolition and construction works would be undertaken in two phases, allowing for school less ons to proceed with minimal disruption. No temporary classroom facilities would be required during works. - 138 - 3.3 The supporting statements confirm that the total footprint of the new buildings would be 7,188 sq m (compared to the existing 8,778 sq m footprint of the various existing buildings comprising Sedgehill School).
3.4 The proposed development seeks to incorporate the sloping topography into the overall design, with the slope integrated into the design and function of the internal landscaped spaces and link ing the various built elements.
3.5 The pedestrian and vehicle accesses would be from Sedgehill Road, close to the right -angled bend of Sedgehill Road.
3.6 The main building facing Sedgehill Road would be a 3 -storey hig h convex curved entrance building which wou ld accommodate the various administrative, organisational and communal parts of the school (including indoor sports, entrance hall, library, assembly hall, dining facilities) as well as the 6 th form accommodation and music and dance facilities.
3.7 This part of the building would rise to an overall height of approximately 16 metres (the main entrance foyer space and associated administration accommodation) with reduced (approximate) 13 and 11 metre high elements.
3.8 Part of the proposed second floor, accommoda ting the proposed music studios and rehearsal rooms, would be set back by approximately 21 metres from the Sedgehill Road building line, thereby reducing the apparent scale bulk of the entrance building when viewed from Sedgehill Road as the land slopes aw ay to the east.
3.9 The main entrance foyer would be full height glazed with the administrative accommodation faced with curtain walling. The elevation of the frontage would comprise rendered blockwork, textured fair -faced blockwork, London stock brickwork a nd powder coated coloured metal cladding to the upper levels of the proposed sports hall.
3.10 On the southern side of the entrance would be a circular open performance space with opportunities for amphitheatre seating (taking advantage of the slope topography ).
3.11 Each of the four main teaching blocks (Science, Mathematics, English and Design and Technology pavilions) would fan out from this central courtyard space with hard and soft landscaping between the blocks, providing opportunities for formal and informa l teaching and open space use.
3.12 Access to all of the pavilion buildings would be via a gently sloping ramp around the central courtyard area, exploiting the site ’s sloping topography. The upper levels of the central courtyard would be more formal seating as grassed landscaped areas and each entrance would be marked by a light -weight canopy structure.
3.13 Each of the teaching blocks would be approximately 13 metres high with a reduced 11 metre eaves height. The predominant facing material would be rendered bl ockwork and fair -faced textured blockwork (to lower levels).
3.14 Entrances to each of the pavilions would be identified by a different coloured render element and also by a full height glazed entrance screen. Windows would be timber framed, from a sustainabl y managed source. - 139 - 3.15 The main servic e area would be accessed from Sedgehill Road and would be along the eastern boundary of the frontage block. Turning facilities for service vehicles and refuse vehicles would be provided on site.
3.16 Staff parking for 66 spac es (4 of which would be allocated to disabled drivers) would be accessed via a new service path close to the existing access at the right angled bend of Sedgehill Road.
3.17 200 bicycle spaces would be provided adjacent to the staff car park.
3.18 It is proposed to relocate the existing footpath that currently cuts across the site further to the east, alongside the boundary with the Brethren’s Meeting House.
3.19 It is proposed to re -landscape the areas of the site currently occupied by existing school buildings to f orm extensive areas of landscaped parkland. The applicant has proposed retaining the existing hard court areas close to the northern end of the site, close to the boundary with Hawkins Way. It is suggested that this area of hard surface could be used as an area of over -flow car parking.
3.20 The application is supported by a number of documents including a Planning Statement (with annexed report on Construction Traffic Impact), a Design and Access Statement, a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, a Trans port Statement (with Generic Travel Plan Heads of Terms) an Extended Phase I Habitat Survey, a Report on Renewable Energy and a BREEM Pre Assessment Estimator. These documents are summarised below.
Planning Supporting Statement
3.21 The Planning Supporting S tatement provides a brief background to the application, describes the site and its surroundings, relevant planning history and the proposed development. In view of the designation of the site as Metropolitan Open Land and the exceptional circumstances tha t would need to prevail to depart from restrictive Metropolitan Open Land policy, the Statement also makes a case for the development, in terms of the constraints of the existing school land and the lack of alternative sites to accommodate a replacement.
3.22 The Statement then refers to relevant plan ning policies and makes a case for the proposed development. In terms of the visual impact assessment, the statement confirms that there would be negative landscaping impacts during the construction period but over all, the assessment is supportive of the removal of the poor quality built structures currently on site with a new building and associated parkland setting.
3.23 The Statement argues that the replacement building and the landscaping treatment of the site shou ld represent an improvement in the character and quality of the local are a and Metropolitan Open Land.
3.24 The Statement states that special attention has been directed to the location of the new school complex on the lower part of the site, in order to mini mise the visual impact of buildings and to replace the trees lost to the development.
3.25 In terms of transport analysis, the Statement outlines the existing transport situation with relative close proximity to bus services in Beckenham Hill Road and Southe nd Lane and train services at Beckenham Hill. - 140 - 3.26 The Statement refers to the conclusi on that the development is unlikely to lead to any increase in traffic generation, especially as the school roll would be maintained.
Construction Traffic Impacts
3.27 The Pl anning Statement includes an Appendix assessing the potential construction traffic impacts. This report states that construction traffic is likely to access the site off Beckenham Hill Road and the applicant has advised that 15 –20 construction vehicles wou ld visit the site on a daily basis. The report confirms that none of the three types of vehicles associated with the construction process would have any problems gaining access.
3.28 The report also concludes that the additional construction traffic movements in Beckenham Hill Road should have no significant impact on highway capacity. The only issue raised relates to ensuring that safety of pupils is appropriately considered, avoiding construction deliveries during the start of the school day.
Travel Plan
3.29 A Travel Plan Heads Of Terms is included as part of the application, which aims to reduce current traffic levels and encourage increase in public transport use.
Renewable Energy
3.30 A report on renewable energy in the school was prepared by Cameron Taylor Consultants.
3.31 The report outlines developments in guidance and legislation pointing out that Part L of the Building Regulations came into force in April 2006 and aims to reduce the carbon emissions from new buildings by around 15 -20% when compared with a bu ilding designed to 2002 values. It also points out that the London Plan requires, for all major developments, a proportion of the annual energy use to be met by using renewable energy sources with a minimum of 10% to be achieved.
3.32 The consultants have use d guidance within the “London Renewables Tool Kit” to assess the practical level of renewable energy provision for the development.
3.33 It proposes that the new school should have mixed mode gas and biomass boilers and it is proposed to pre -heat the primary w ater within the heating circuits through a system of solar water panels. This would be distributed around the buildings using low wattage pumps to allow slower distribution using less electricity.
3.34 It is confirmed that the buildings will be insulated to P art L 2006 standards thereby reducing heating energy load by around 20% when compared with 2002 values.
3.35 The design will incorporate measures to prevent high internal temperatures due to excessive solar gain and, where possible all ventilation will be by n atural means.
3.36 Where mechanical ventilation is required low watt extract fans will be used to allow waste heat to be extracted and fresh air reintroduced.
3.37 Highly insulated hot water calorifiers would be provided to ensure that heat losses are minimal . - 141 - 3.38 The school will be provided with energy efficient light fittings with passive infra red shut down.
3.39 In addition to outlining the above energy efficiency measures the Report also considers the other technologies set out in the London Renewables Tool Kit. Of those alternative measures the report states that wind turbines were not considered suitable for this location because of the surrounding residential environment and the possibility for noise disturbance.
3.40 In reaching that decision the consultants took note of a recent decision by the Secretary of State in relation to a wind farm in West Somerset adjacent to a school and housing.
3.41 In respect of bio -mass combined heat and power the consultants have decided that this would not be suitable for this particu lar development. This is because a year - round heating load is required for efficient use of a CHP system to ensure that heat generated is not wasted - thereby eliminating any energy benefits. The size of the site and the anticipated minimal summer heat l oad mean that CHP would not be efficiently applied in the school development.
3.42 Ground source heating and cooling has also been considered but the consultants conclude that solar water heating would be the best contributor to the thermal requirements of the development and, thus, ground source systems in addition to that has not been considered.
3.43 The report also gives full details of the bio -mass boilers recommended for the development.
3.44 Cameron Taylor has also prepared a technical specification for mechanic al and electrical services which outlines in detail the objectives and a description of the systems selected for various mechanical electrical and mechanical services within the building.
3.45 Similarly Cameron Taylor has prepared a report on the environment al modelling of measures to maximise internal comfort conditions within the school together with methods of controlling the excessive summer time temperatures that could occur during hot weather.
3.46 The report focuses primarily on natural ventilation and det ails are given of the proposed internal ventilation measures incorporated in the building.
3.47 The consultants conclude that, by utilising all of the available air inlets they believe that a satisfactory control of high summer temperatures can be achieved .
3.48 The associated BREEM pre Assessment Estimator has given the proposed development an “Excellent” Rating.
3.49 The application confirms that the school will be designed to harvest rainwater.
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
3.50 This assessment was prepar ed by the Landscape Partnership and assessed the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed school on the surrounding area during its construction and after completion. - 142 - 3.51 The key impacts identified were: - (1) The character and quality of the site and su rrounding area including, in particular, the impacts on Metropolitan Open Land and Green Chain Areas and; (2) The character and quality of views into the proposed development site particularly from nearby residential properties, adjacent streets and loca l viewpoints.
3.52 The assessment acknowledges that the proposed scheme would have negative landscape impacts during the construction period estimated to be three years. However, a number of mitigation measures are incorporated into the scheme design and pr ogramme of works to minimise disturbance.
3.53 However, the assessment also concluded that the removal of the relatively poor quality school which is not of high quality visually and its replacement with the new building and associated landscaping works is an improvement to the character and quality of the local area and the Metropolitan Open Land. Thus, upon completion and maturity, the landscape impact of the scheme is seen as having a positive effect varying in significance from minor/moderate to moderate depending on conditions.
3.54 In respect of visual impact again the negative impacts during construction are acknowledged but, in that respect, views would be partially screened in summer by existing mature vegetation around the site boundary and along adjace nt roads and gardens.
3.55 The consultants also considered that the new building using materials sensitive to the local area and set in a parkland landscape would generally have positive impact upon views towards the site.
3.56 The assessment concludes that the ke y adverse visual impacts would be for properties 101 -107 and flats 121 -131 on Sedgehill Road. The view from those properties would change from a long -distance view across the LAPD land towards Beckenham Place Park to a view of the new school building in t he centre of the view. However, here again, the consultants point out that these views would be partially screened by the mature trees along Sedgehill Road particularly in summer.
3.57 The mitigation measures recommended include: locating the school on the lo wer part of the sit e to reduce elevational height; developing the school landscape as an area of parkland to improve the integration of the school in the MOL; replace existing trees removed with significant new tree planting throughout the site; replace al l shrubs removed with a significant increase of new shrub planting; install low pole -mounted lighting columns with integral deflector shields to prevent light spill; adopt building materials in keeping with local character; preserve key mature trees where possible including two of the significant existing trees on the current eastern boundary within the proposed central performance space; provide a more sensitive elevation to Beckenham Place Park site of nature conservation importance and; plant a substanti al line of oak trees along the new eastern boundary to the site to define the edge of the site and create a new landscape feature.
Design and Access Statement
3.58 The original Design and Access Statement submitted with the application has now been radically revised and resubmitted.
3.59 The Statement includes photographs of the existing school buildings and outlines the topography , access and landscape etc. It also then sets out the overall vision - 143 - of the school in terms of educational facilities , design and acc essibility and illustrates how those have been translated into the proposed detailed design.
3.60 The Statement includes substantial illustrative material which, among other matters, outlines the changes made in response to comments by the Design and Conservat ion Panel, the G LA and Council Officers. Rationale for the central agora is explained and emphasises that this enables step free access to all of the pavilion blocks set around the central performing space.
Extended Phase I Habitat Survey Report
3.61 The Ha bitat Survey was undertaken by ecologists acting for White Young Green.
3.62 The assessment comprised: - a desktop review of existing information from readily available data bases; site specific biological information gained from statutory and non -statutory con sultation, and; a day site walkover an d ecological survey. The latter survey was undertaken on 23 November 2006.
3.63 As part of their consultation process, the consultants contacted Natural England; Lewisham Council and Greenspace Information for Greater Lon don (GIGL). The consultation involved identifying the various local nature reserves etc on or close to the site.
3.64 It was confirmed that there are no statutory designations for nature conservation within the site. However Natural England highlighted the presence of the Beckenham Place Park Local Nature Reserve which is designated as a site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation.
3.65 The consultation exercise also confirmed the presence of 6 non -statutory designated sites of importance for nature conservation within a 1 kilometre radius. These included, for instance, the Pool river Linear Park, Lower Sydenham Station Allotments and Sedgehill Allotments.
3.66 The consultants noted that Beckenham Place Park and Sedgehill Allotments were of particular in terest as they are immediately adjacent to the south. Also of significance was the Sedgehill Allotment site of local importance for nature conservation to the north west of the site. The nature conservation interest of that area comprised the western bou ndary hedge (which does not form the boundary to the school site) a ditch and a pond colonised by amphibians.
3.67 The evaluation of the nature conservation value of the site concluded that the areas of tall grassland with dense scrub provided the most valuabl e habitat, due to its potential to support reptile s, invertebrates and nesting birds. It also makes reference to the mature Oaks, which could well have bat roosting potential. The report recommends mitigation to achieve positive gains in terms of nature co nservation. It is recommended that this includes the following measures ;
• License arrangements from DEFRA should be sought and compensatory measures adopted if demolition and clearance leads to destruction of bat roosts • Native hedgerows would need to be re tained wherever possible, (valuable to commuting and foraging bats). Where such features are lost, enhancement of retained features or sensitive planting of replacement habitats may be required. Furthermore, bat boxes should also be incorporated into the d esign of the development - 144 -
• It is important that s hrub, tree and other nesting habitat is not removed during the bre eding season . Any landscaping proposals should consist of native, locally sourced plants and should include a mosaic of habitat types to reflec t those that would be lost and/or enhance the existing network of habitats within the vicinity. This is therefore likely to include the provision of hedgerows and tree lines with pockets of rough grassland.
4.0 Consultations and Replies
Government Office for London
4.1 No reply received at time of writing.
GLA Planning Decisions Unit (London Mayor)
4.2 Whilst meetings between GLA, Council officers and the applicants have taken place, at the time of writing, officers have not yet received a formal “Stage 1” l etter from the London Mayor. This will be reported verbally if available prior to the meeting.
South London Green Chain
4.3 No reply received at time of writing.
English Heritage (Archaeology)
4.4 No reply received at time of writing.
Metropolitan Police (Crime Prevention Unit)
4.5 No reply received at time of writing.
Sport England
4.6 No objections.
London Borough of Bromley
4.7 No objections.
London Borough of Greenwich
4.8 No o bjection s raised.
Neighbours and Local Amenity Societies
4.9 Letters of c onsultation were sent to 711 properties as p art of the planning application. W ard Councillors were also consulted. .
4.10 The application was advertised as a departure from the development plan (in view of th e form of development proposed o n Metropolitan Open Land and the scale of the building ). The application is also referable to the Mayor of London.
4. 11 There was n o local response to this application . - 145 -
Albacore Meeting Room Trust
4.1 2 No reply received at time of writing.
Lewisham Cyclists
4.1 3 No reply received at time of writing. Internal Consultees
Design and Conservation Panel
4.1 4 The Panel considered the originally submitted drawings at the meeting on 23 January 2007. The Panel has not see n the revised drawing s and their comments shou ld be considered in that context
4.15 The Panel considered aspects of the plan to be appealing, namely the nautilus shape concept, however the Panel considered that the strength of the design stopped on plan at this point and that the buildings and landsc ape need a lot more design work. The following comments were made;
“The design and proportions of the elevational treatment of both the main building and the teaching wings is very poor. An inspiring and more dynamic architectural language could be develo ped from the plan and should be introduced. (e.g. use of more expressive composition, colour, different materials or articulation of spaces within).
“The Panel is concerned that more than a redressing of the elevations is required; a more characterful ar ticulation of the design masses is required. The overall design should exude the ethos of the school and celebrate the performing arts theme. The appearance of the building from its wider context needs to be assessed.
“The expression of the teaching bloc k massing is poor. The classroom blocks were likened to a cheap hotel outside of Heathrow. There is an opportunity to go through the site and decide what the character of each mass should be, and to invest the design with those qualities.
“The built form does not lend itself to the materials chosen. The structural logic and expression was discussed; more sustainable and expressive options such as timber were suggested, while acknowledging that cost parameters apply.
“The design shown is not justifiable on the grounds that it was made of block. Block can be used to better effect. There was a concern that the design should acknowledge environmental priorities; the liberal use of cement -based materials suggested that it currently does not.
“Concern is rai sed over whether the larger volumes at the front of the school will work for their performance purpose. For instance a speech class and a music class each require very different conditions; the spaces should respond to their intended use in terms of their spatial qualities and materials. As with the buildings’ character, the technical performance will be achieved through a careful consideration of the nature of activities within. - 146 -
“Landscaping. There is insufficient conviction in the design of the ‘left ove r’ large green spaces beyond the main footprint of the proposed building. This parkland should be enhanced and regarded as a resource. For example, uses such as a cross -country running course or wilderness areas exploiting the merging oak scrubland could b e accommodated.
“The Panel is sceptical over the extent to which the ‘green fingers’ are really coming into the central agora space. Again, the original concept needs to be followed through in the design. The role of the green spaces needs more careful t hought.
In conclusion, the proposal needs to exploit this site, the conceptual origins of the plan and to introduce the energy of the school in to the design of the buildings. “ 4.1 4 Highways and Transportation
4.1 5 The School pupil and staff populations remain unchanged following redevelopment. The proposals are therefore entirely neutral in travel and transport capacity terms. The proposals ar e therefore unobjectionable in p rinciple subject to: -
(a) Section 106/s278 Agreements to: -
(i) Cover the costs o f traffic calming measures to be undertaken in Sedgehill Road to reduce traffic speed when approaching the school car park entrance. This is likely to take the form of a raised road table at the 90 degree bend in Sedgehill Road.
(ii) Cover the costs of revisi ons to the school related waiting and loading restrictions in Sedgehill Road to take account of the revised vehicular and pedestrian accesses and the possible need for coach parking.
(iii) Require the preparation and approval by the local planning authority of a school and staff Travel Plan prior to first occupation of new school buildings.
(iv) Require the full adoption of the approved school and staff Travel Plan prior to completion of construction of the new school.
(v) Require the submission of a logistical plan demonstrating how demolition and construction related vehicle movements will access the site from Beckenham Hill Road and how such movements will be routed in local streets, managed and monitored. The plan must be submitted to and approved in writing by th e local planning authority prior to commencement of construction of the new school.
(vi) Planning conditions requiring: -
(i) Submission of a footpath diversion order using powers under s247 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 prior to commencement of co nstruction works on the new school buildings and prior to the temporary closure of the existing footpath; - 147 -
(ii) Details of boundary treatments between the school premises and the public highway to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local plan ning authority prior to commencement of co nstruction of the new school;
(iii) Maintenance of minimum 2.4m x 60m sightlines to and from the new school vehicular entrances onto Sedgehill Road.
4.1 6 Environmental Health
No objections to the proposals, w hilst a number of conditions are suggested to ensure construction works are suitably undertaken.
5.0 Policy Context
5.1 The Government has not issued any specific planning policy guidance note relating to educational sites and uses. However, in the context o f the application, it would be appropriate to consider PPS1, PPG2 and PPG13.
Planning Policy Statement 1 - Delivering Sustainable Development
5.2 The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published PPS1 in January 2005. The objectives of the policy are wide r anging and the PPS states that the policies may also be material to decisions on individual planning applications.
5.3 Among the aims are to make suitable land available for development in line with economic, social and environmental objectives, to improve peoples quality of life and to contribute to sustainable economic development. The PPS also states that planning should ensure high quality development through good and inclusive design and the efficient use of resources.
5.4 Paragraph 27 states that planning authorities, in preparing development plans should, among other matters, provide improved access for all to jobs, education etc, by ensuring that new development is located where everyone can access facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport, rather than relying on the car.
5.5 Paragraph 27 also states that planning authorities should seek to “...... promote urban and rural regeneration to improve the well -being of communities, improve facilities, promote high quality and safe development and create new opportunities for people living in those communities…..”
5.6 Paragraph 29 states: "…..in some circumstances, a planning authority may decide, in reaching a decision, to give different weight to social, environmental, resource or economic considerations. Where this is the case, the reasons for doing so should be explicit and the consequences considered. Adverse environmental social and economic impacts should be avoided, mitigated or compensated for."
PPG2 - Green Belts, published January 1995, amended Ma rch 2001
5.7 The application site is not in the Green Belt but is in Metropolitan Open Land. The London Plan makes clear that Metropolitan Open Land should have the same level of protection as Green Belt. - 148 -
5.8 For this reason, it is appropriate to consider so me of the general advice on the approach to major developed sites within the Green Belt, as this would be analogous to Metropolitan Open Land.
5.9 Annex C of PPG2 outlines approaches where redevelopment or existing developed sites in the Green Belt may offer the opportunity for environmental improvement without adding to the impact of buildings on the open character of Green Belt. The advice is not directly applicable, as the school redevelopment proposals is not specified in the adopted Unitary Development P lan. Nevertheless, whilst guid ance suggests that the local planning authority might wish to prepare a site brief, it states that redevelopment should ;
• Have no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of Green Belt • Contribute to the ach ievement of the objectives for the use of land in the Green Belt • Not exceed the heights of existing buildings • Would not occupy a larger area of the site than existing buildings, unless this would achieve a reduction in the height which would benefit visua l amenities.
PPG13 - Transport
5.10 The current version of PPG13 was issued in March 2001 and deals with education and health issues in paragraphs 38 and 39.
5.11 These paragraphs state that higher and further education establishments, schools etc. a re major generators of traffic and should be located to maximise their accessibility by public transport, walking and cycling.
5.12 Paragraph 38 continues by stating: “Similarly, proposals to develop, expand or redevelop the existing sites should improve access by public transport, walking and cycling." This paragraph also makes reference to the question of travel plans and the PPG confirms the Government's desire to raise awareness of the impacts of travel decisions and to promote the widespread use of tr avel plans amongst business, schools, hospitals and other organisations.
5.13 While it acknowledged that there is no standard format or content for travel plans and that they may have a variety of names, the ir relevance to planning lies in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives. These objectives include reduction in car usage and increased use of public transport, walking and cycling; reduced traffic speeds and improved road safety and personal security for pedestrians.
5.14 The Government con siders that travel plans should be submitted alongside planning applications which are likely to have significant transport implications. New and expanded school facilities should be accompanied by a school travel plan which promotes safe cycle and walking routes, restricts parking and car access around schools and includes on -site changing and cycle storage facilities.
5.15 The advice is that travel plans should be worked up in consultation with the local authority and local transport providers and that t hey should have measurable outputs and set out arrangements for monitoring the progress as well as the arrangement for enforcement in the event that agreed objectives are not met. - 149 - 5.16 The policy also states that the weight to be given to a travel plan in a planning decision will be influenced by the extent to which it materially affects the acceptability of the development and the degree to which it can be lawfully secured. PPG13 advises that, under certain circumstances, some or all of the travel plan ma ybe made binding. This could be achieved either through conditions attached to a permission or through a related planning obligation.
The London Plan
5.17 The four main relevant policies in the London Plan are Policy 3D.9 (Metropolitan Open Land), 3A.2 1 (Education Facilities), 4B.1 (Design Principles) and 4A.7 (Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy).
5.18 Policy 3D.9 (Metropolitan Open Land) states that the Mayor will and Boroughs should maintain the protection of Metropolitan Open Land from inappropr iate development and that any alterations to the boundary of Metropolitan Open Land should be undertaken through the Unitary Development Plan process, in consultation with the Mayor and adjoining authorities.
5.19 The Policy also sets out four criteria fo r land designated as Metropolitan Open Land. These are: -
• Land that contributes to the physical structure of London by being clearly distinguishable from the built up area; • Land that includes open air facilities, especially for leisure, recreation, sport s, arts and cultural activities and tourism which serve the whole or significant parts of London; • Land that contains features or landscapes of historic recreational nature conservation or habitat interest, of value at a metropolitan or national level, and ; • Land that forms part of a Green Chain and meets one of the previous criteria.
5.20 The policy continues by stating that policies should include a presumption against inappropriate development of Metropolitan Open Land and give the same level of protect ion as the Green Belt.
5.21 Finally, the policy states that: -
“Essential facilities for appropriate uses will only be acceptable where they do not have an adverse impact on the openness of Metropolitan Open Land”.
5.22 Paragraph 3.249 states that “a ppropriate development” should minimise any adverse impact on the open character of Metropolitan Open Land, through sensitive design and siting and be limited to small scale structures to support outdoor open space uses.
5.23 Paragraph 3.249 concludes b y stating: -
“Development that includes the loss of Metropolitan Open Land in return for the creation of new open space elsewhere will not be considered appropriate.”
5.24 Policy 3A.21 (Education Facilities) sets out the general approach when preparing Unitary Development Plan policies. It states that Boroughs should provide a criteria -based approach to the provision of different types of educational facilities and the expansion of existing facilities taking into account: - 150 -
• the need for new facilities; • the potential for expansion of existing provision; • the possibility of inter -borough provision; • safe and convenient access by pedestrians, cyclists and by public transport users, and; • the other Policies in this Plan including safety, sustainable design an d construction, inclusive design, enhancement of the public realm and the protection of the Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and other open spaces in London.
5.25 The Policy concludes by stating that the Mayor will continue to work with the Government a nd Boroughs to assess and review strategic educational needs and the land use implications of these.
5.26 Policy 4B.1 (Design) seeks to ensure that development maximises the potential of sites, creates and enhances public realm, is attractive to look at a nd where appropriate, excites and delights.
5.27 Finally, Policy 4A.7 (Natural Resources and Renewable Energy) refers explicitly to the use of renewable energy techniques (with the objective of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and improving energy effici ency). The policy requires the use of renewable energy technology, including passive solar design, natural ventilation, solar water heating etc.
Adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004)
5.28 Part of the application site is designated as Site Proposal 33 which allocates the site for use as a leisure facility with provision for disabled people in accordance with Metropolitan Open Land designation. Policies relevant to the applications proposals are as follows :
STR.LCE 1 Provision of Education and Commu nity Facilities STR.LCE 2 Leisure and Education Facilities STR.LCE 3 Loss of Leisure and Education Facilities ENV.PRO 20 Renewable Energy OS1 Metropolitan Open Land OS3 Green Chains URB 3 Urban Design URB 4 Designing Out Crime URB 12 Landscape and Deve lopment URB 13 Trees OS10 Trees in Open Spaces URB 21 Archaeology TRN 5 Green Travel Plans TRN 14 Cycle Parking TRN 15 Provision for Cyclists and Walkers TRN 26 Car Parking Standards LCE 1 Location of New and Improved Leisure, Community and Education Fa cilities LCE 3 Educational Sites and Playing Fields - 151 -
6.0 Planning Considerations
6.1 The main planning considerations in this case include the following:
• the principle of redeveloping the school site, in the context of the Metropolitan Open Land designati on and Site Proposal 33 (which allocates the LAPD land for leisure purposes with provision for disabled persons in accordance with Metropolitan Open Land designation);
• the proposed enhanced educational facilities;
• the impact of the development (siting, height and massing) on the open character of Metropolitan Open Land;
• urban design generally;
• landscaping and trees;
• the impact of the development on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers (including the adjacent church land);
• traffic and highways impl ications (including on -site car parking and access arrangements, enhancements to pedestrian routes to and from the site - linking the school with bus stops and rail facilities, cycling facilities and school travel plan considerations);
• the use of renewabl e energy and sustainable design principles and biodiversity;
• shared use of school facilities ;
• implications for the previous S.52 Agreement.
6.2 The Council has confirmed (through use of a screening opinion) that the development would not be of sufficient s cale to warrant submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment.
Principle of Redevelopment in Metropolitan Open Land
6.3 The general principle of the redevelopment of this major site in Metropolitan Open Land has been established by the grant of planning permission in 2006. As stated above that permission included the siting of buildings and the means of access together with the overall floorspace.
6.4 However the current proposal is for full planning permission and, although the buildings are proposed in t he same general area of the site, the layout and design are substantially different.
6.5 For those reasons it is necessary to assess the current application in the context of the overall policies.
6.6 Policy OS1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan states t hat planning permission will be granted only for appropriate development or change of use - 152 - where the development preserves the open nature of the land. The policy states that the following uses might be appropriate within Metropolitan Open Land
• Public and private open space, playing fields and golf courses; • Agriculture, woodlands and orchards; • Rivers canals, reservoirs, lakes and other open water; • Allotments, and nursery gardens; • Cemeteries • Nature conservation.
6.7 The policy goes onto say that the Council w ill support proposals that enhance these uses and will only permit limited extension of buildings where this would not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. It also stresses the importance of improved publi c access to appropriate land uses in Metropolitan Open Land.
6.8 The London Plan makes specific reference to the importance of Green Chains in designating Metropolitan Open Land and it is significant that the site forms part of the Green Chain network.
6.9 Alt hough the existing Sedgehill School is within Metropolitan Open Land, educational uses (apart from playing fields) are not normally considered appropriate within Metropolitan Open Land.
6.10 This important policy consideration is compounded by Site Proposal 3 3, which allocates the LAPD site (which forms part of the application site) for leisure uses (with facilities for disabled persons) appropriate to the site’s Metropolitan Open Land status.
6.11 It is for these reasons that the current planning appl ication has been advertised as a departure. Furthermore, in view of the scale of development, the application is also referable to the London Mayor. It is clear that exceptional circumstances would need to be proven before the principle of the school redevelopment c an be considered acceptable.
6.12 In that context the application granted permi ssion in 2006 was preceded by a comprehensive search by the previous applicants to identify potentially preferable alternative locations for the redeveloped Sedgehill School without the various development constraints.
6.13 The search area encompassed all of the Borough lying south of the South Circular Road and the site size recommendations etc were taken into account , together with other matters such as constraints imposed by Unitary Development Plan policies, site ownership and the proximity of new playing fields to serve the school.
6.14 A short list of 8 alternative sites were identified which were all of sufficient size and had in the applicants’ opinion, more limited planning constra ints compared to the present site. However, factors such as proximity to other existing schools and the possible loss of valuable local public open space and negative impact on nature conservation issues, meant that the alternative sites would have raised issues which could well have been more difficult than those raised by the proposed redevelopment of the existing school site. - 153 - 6.15 Officers agreed with that general analysis and were satisfied that exceptional circumstances existed to justify the redevelopmen t in Metropolitan Open Land. That conclusion was also accepted by Committee and by the GLA and this resulted in permission being granted for the previous application.
Incorporation of the LAPD land
6.16 As with the school proposal in general, the incorpora tion of the LAPD land - and the consequent departure from the adopted development plan – was agreed by the planning permission granted in 2006 and circumstances have not changed since that time.
6.17 The neglected condition and appearance of the LAPD land detr acts from the appearance of the Metropolitan Open Land in this area and adversely affects the amenities of neighbours. Although planning permission has been granted (on five separate occasions) for the redevelopment of the LAPD site as a disabled persons riding school, none of these has been implemented .
6.18 For those reasons officers consider that the environmental and educational benefits of the school proposal outweigh the loss of the potential for a disabled riding school being established on the LAPD land .
6.19 It should also be note d that this part of the site remains in the ownership of Lewisham Association for People with Disabilities . The purchase price for the LAPD land would enable the organisation , depending on its own priorities, to provide leisure fa cilities for the disabled elsewhere in the Borough. There would be clearly not as many constraints in providing a disabled persons riding school elsewhere, compared to the availability of alternative sites for educational use.
Improvement of Educationa l Facilities
6.20 Th is proposal is part of the Government’s “Building Schools for the Future” (BSF ) Programme . BSF provides funding to rebuild and refurbish all secondary schools in England over a 10 -15 year period.
6.21 Lewisham was selected as a Wave One Pathfin der Authority where work is to commence in the first year of the programme – 2007 -2008.
6.22 Although the school redevelopment proposal emerged after the adoption of the UDP , the principle of educational improvements is supported by policies contained within both the London Plan and the adopted Unitary Development Plan. (See Policy Context Section above)
6.23 Improvements are particularly welcomed where they contribute to sustainability objectives and provide easy access for users. In this case, with the use of renewable energy technologies, the use of more sustainable building materials (encompassing biodiversity opportunities) and shared use of facilities, the proposals would clearly contribute to achieving more sustainable forms of development.
6.24 The issues ass ociated with the redevelopment on Metropolitan Open Land need to be balanced against these clear educational advantages. - 154 -
Impact of the Development on the Open Character of Metropolitan Open Land
6.25 Policy OS.1 makes specific reference to the need to ma intain the open character of Metropolitan Open Land. In this context, it is significant that the existing Sedgehill School already impacts on the openness of Metropolitan Open Land, especially as the main school building is currently sited on top of the h ill and can be seen from some distance away.
6.26 The proposed new buildings would be sited further down the hill and would be less prominent in the local views thereby reducing visual impact.
6.27 The supporting documents confirm that only limited views of t he new school building would be possible from adjacent streets and other publicly accessible areas. The proposed buildings would not be easily viewed from the neighbouring Beckenham Place Park, which forms the extension to Metropolitan Open Land and the Gr een Chain to the south east, towards the borough boundary with LB Bromley.
6.28 It is also significant that the proposed school buildings would occupy significantly less of the site than the existing buildings.(i.e. a reduction of 1,579 sq. metres)
6.29 Th is, and the siting of the new buildings away from the Braeside site boundary , would also enhance the open cha racter of the site, as viewed f rom the south west and should maximise open views towards the south west (across to Crystal Palace, Sydenham and Forest Hill ).
Design Issues Generally (including Sustainable Design and Construction)
6.30 The application as originally submitted drew criticism fro m the Council’s Design Panel on various details of the design particularly the approach to the design of the pavilions .
6.31 Subsequently the application has been the subject of a number of meetings involving the project design team, GLA planners and Council Officers as both the GLA and the Council shared some of the reservations expressed by the Design Panel.
6.32 Those discussio ns centred on the design of the front elevation of the building and its fenestration and materials together with the design of the pavilions (including the pitched roof design and the general fenestration).
6.33 Those discussions have now resulted in the submi ssion of revised drawings which incorporate changes and further illustrative material to address the issues raised by the Design Panel, the GLA and the Council.
6.34 It is generally accepted that those revisions have resulted in a substantial improvement to t he external appearance of the proposed building.
6.35 In particular the former pitched roofs shown on the original drawings have now been replaced by flat roofs. The applicants considered the suggestion that Green Roofs might be incorpo rated in the pavilion b locks, h owever , they point out that the pavilion roofs provide the basis for a rainwater harvesting scheme and green roofs would substantially reduce the effectiveness of rainwater harvesting due to reduced rainwater run off. - 155 -
6.36 The fenestration of the pavil ion blocks has also been substantially improved and is now considered satisfactory.
6.37 In all of those discussions there has been a general welcome to the basic design principles adopted for the school i.e. the agora space and the siting of the proposed bui ldings within the landscape.
Landscaping and Trees
6.38 The proposal would result in the loss of some mature and semi mature trees par ticularly along the route of the existing footpath and in the area of the central entrance building .
6.39 However a substantial number of new trees are proposed across the entire site together with new shrub planting and sculptural grass mounds.
Impact o f Amenities of Neighbours
6.40 It is considered that t he new school and the improvement to the school ground would have a benefic ial effect on the views and open aspect enjoyed by nearby residents. The re -routing of the footpath to the side of the school would greatly improve access from Sedgehill Road to Beckenham Hill Road, resulting in a more direct route for pedestrians.
Trans port and Highways Implications
6.41 The vehicle and pedestrian access es to the school from Sedgehill Road would be in very similar locations as the existing arrangement, with separate access for deliveries and site servicing, which again, would be in a similar location to that which presently exists. The proposal would also benefit the residents of Beckenham Hill Estate, in that the scheme would close the access to Sedgehill School through the estate.
6.42 As the school currently exists and the its rol l would not increase , the impact on traffic generation and the capacity of junctions would be limited.
6.43 The Unitary Development Plan does not have specific off -street car parking standards for schools and the proposed car park (providing space for 66 veh icles) would b asically allocate car parking spaces to mirror existing levels of provision.
6.44 The site is reasonably accessible by public transport, with two b us routes and a rail station in easy walking distance from the school site. It is the applicant’s intention to re -route the existing public footpath close to the eastern boundary of the site and planting would be enhanced and extended, to maintain privacy for the adjacent church land.
6.45 This re -routed footpath would maintain footpath links within the Green Chain and would maintain links, with bus stops located within Beckenham Hill Road.
6.46 The planning application includes heads of terms in resp ect of a proposed School Travel Plan. This would be required and controlled by planning conditions. - 156 -
Renewable Energy
6.47 The supporting documents on renewable energy have been summarised earlier in this report in paragraphs 6.23 and 6.35 . Th ese show that the renewable energy policies have been fully assessed and th at th e suggested measures would ensure compliance.
6.48 The policy requirement to generate 10% of power demand from on -site sources would be exceeded.
Shared Use of Educational Facilities
6.49 The Planning Statement says that the whole of the school can be made available for use by the community and that the detailed desi gn has taken account of this aspect of the use.
6.50 Such s hared use of educational facilities for a variety of purposes would represent a significant sustainability benefit of the proposals and should be encouraged in a general sense. This feeds into the des ire to improve public use of Metropolitan Open Land and access along the Green Chain. A condition has been suggested addressing this matter should Members be minded to grant planning permission.
Previous S.52 Agreement
6.51 As stated above, the 1989 S.52 Ag reement, entered into by the various parties restricts the use of the LAPD land to open space. This restriction was imposed by the Council in its capacity as local planning authority, and formed one of the measures that made acceptable the church developme nt referred to in paragraph 2.2. Over the intervening seventeen years or so, the planning circumstances have changed, not least the fact that the envisaged disabled people’s riding school never materialised. The Council is therefore entitled to review whet her the restriction created by the agreement remains appropriate.
6.52 When considering the previous application in March 2006 , the Committee specifically resolved not to enforce the terms of that agreement , subject to the caveat that the school redevelopmen t actually progressed . At that time, the LAPD land was still owned by Lewisham Association for People with Disabilities, and there was less certainty (when compared with now) that a detailed scheme for redeveloping Sedgehill School would come forward. That caveat was therefore imposed to prevent the possibility that the Committee’s resolution not to enforce the Section 52 agreement might allow alternative and less acceptable proposals for redevelopment of the LAPD land to emerge.
6.53 The Council now owns the LAPD land, so that the redevelopment of the land as a disabled riding school (or for any other purpose not sanctioned by the Council) is no longer a possibility. As a result, the restrictions contained in the Section 52 agreement are redun dant and no longe r required. It is considered appropriate, therefore, for Members to agree that the restriction created by the agreement should no longer continue to have effect or be enforced, and that as a consequence reference to it should be removed from both the local land charges register maintained by the Council, and the title to the LAPD land maintained at the Land Registry. - 157 - 6.54 For the avoidance of doubt i t is recommends that a similar resolution be made in respect of the current application. This resolution would t hen be included as a land charge.
7.0 Consultations
7.1 Comments received have been taken into account in the preparation of this report and the recommendations.
8.0 Conclusion
8.1 The school redevelopment proposals emerged relatively recently and acco rdingly, post dated the adoption of the Unitary Development Plan. As a consequence, the proposed redevelopment and the extension of the site eastwards is not the subject of any specific proposal in the Unitary Development Plan.
8.2 However, in terms of educat ional policy, the proposal clearly complies with the Government’s BSF programme and is fully in compliance with education policies contained in both the London Plan and the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
8.3 In terms of Metropolitan Open Land polic ies , of ficers are satisfied that exceptional circumstances prevail in this case, especially as the existing school buildings are already situated on Metropolitan Open Land and that the proposed redevelopment would reduce the building footprints , whilst enhancing the character , appearance and quality of the open areas of the site. Due to the constraints demonstrated on other possible sites examined, the Council considers that the redevelopment of Sedgehill School on its current site to be the most viable and benefi cial option. Indeed, given the extensive search for alternative school sites, it is clear that there is no possibility in the foreseeable future of the Education Authority acquiring a new site which would meet the various standards required by the various statutory bodies.
8.4 Accordingly, it is considered that the redevelopment and the extension of the school site into the land which is the subject of the current Unitary Development Plan proposal would be justified in this instance as a departure from the dev elopment plan.
8.5 The UDP’s site specific proposal for the LAPD land has become outdated and the benefits of the Sedgehill redevelopment would outweigh the loss of the previous planning proposal for a riding school for disabled persons.
8.6 In respect of the M etropolitan Open Land policies, the education use is not one of those which is defined as appropriate within Metropolitan Open Land. However, it already represent s a major developed intrusion into the Metropolitan Open Land and consequently, the proposed r edevelopment must be considered against any additional detrimental impact that it might have on Metropolitan Open Land.
8.7 In that context it is significant that the footprint of the proposed buildings is less than the existing buildings. Similarly, the heig hts of the proposed new buildings would be similar or lower than the buildings they would replace. Finally, in that context, the buildings would be more focused and centralised than the existing buildings and consequently, should open up a further area of Metropolitan Open Land and improve the visual amenities of the area. - 158 - 8.8 There is also a strong benefit, in that the area formally proposed for the disabled riding facility would be improved and brought into constructive use, thereby improving the degraded la nd which has been the subject of unauthorised use and fly tipping etc, significantly reducing the quality of the Metropolitan Open Land in this area.
8.9 The former LAPD land is the subject of a restricted use by virtue of the 1989 S.52 Agreement affecting that part of the application site. However, this need not be a major encumbrance to the development as Members can agree not to enforce the obligations contained within the previous S.52 Agreement.
8.10 The re -siting of the school buildings further away from t he adjoining residential properties on the western side of the site would be of significant benefit to local residents and would also secure a more open aspect to that part of the Metropolitan Open Land.
8.11 The diversion of the existing footpath and its re -siting would significantly improve pedestrian access through the Metropolitan Open Land towards Beckenham Place Park and to local bus services etc.
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 RECOMMENDATION (A)
Agree the principle of development and to refer the applicatio n and this report to The Mayor for London (Greater London Authority) under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 (Categories 3D and 3E of Part III of the Schedule thereto).
9.2 RECOMMENDATION (B)
Subject to no direction being received from the Mayor for London, refer the application and this report as a statement of issues to the Government Office for London under the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (Development Plans & Consultation) (Departures) Directions 19 99.
9.3 RECOMMENDATION ( C)
Upon no direction being received from the Mayor for London, a uthorise officers to negotiate a Section 106/s278 Agreement in respect of the following: -
(1) Cover the costs of traffic calming measures to be undertaken in Sedgeh ill Road to reduce traffic speed when approaching the school car park entrance. This is likely to take the form of a raised road table at the 90 degree bend in Sedgehill Road.
(2) Cover the costs of revisions to the school related waiting and loading res trictions in Sedgehill Road to take account of the revised vehicular and pedestrian accesses and the possible need for coach parking.
(3) Require the preparation and approval by the local Planning Authority of a school and staff Travel Plan prior to firs t occupation of new school buildings. - 159 - (4) Require the full adoption of the approved school and staff Travel Plan prior to completion of construction of the new school.
(5) Require the submission of a logistical plan demonstrating how demolition and cons truction related vehicle movements will access the site from Beckenham Hill Road and how such movements will be routed in local streets, managed and monitored. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to commencement of construction of the new school.
(6) The developer meeting the Council’s legal, professional and administrative costs associated with drafting, finalising and monitoring the Section 106 Agreement .
9.4 RECOMMENDATION ( D)
Subj ect to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 Agreement, authorise the Head of Planning to GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions: -
(1) Details of boundary treatment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development and shall be in place prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby approved and permanently maintained thereafter.
(2) Details of the proposed slab levels of the building and existing site levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before work commences and the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved levels and details.
(3) Full details of the alignment and levels of the relocated public footpath (showing measures to restrict access by motor bikes, landscaping treatment and the alignment of potential footpath links between the application site and the neighbouring school sports field) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and shall be in place on first occupation of any of the replacement school buildings.
(4) C10 Site Contamination
(5) C11 Construction hours
(6) N10 Dust Minimisation Scheme
(7) N11 Wheel Washing
(8) N12 External Lighting - Commercial
(9) L06 Trees to be Retained
(10 ) L05 Trees - 5 Year Replacement
(1 1) L08 - Trees Protection During Works
(1 2) DS4 Disabled -Car Parking - 1 60 -
(1 3) The secure parking provision for cycles as shown on the submitted drawings shall be in compliance with standards specified in Policy TRN 14 Cycle Parking in the adopted Unitary Development Plan and the cycle spaces shall be provided prior to occupation of any part of the buildings hereby approved and retained permanently thereafter.
(1 4) N07 Soundproofing of Machinery
(15 ) No o ccupation of the buildings hereby approved shall take place until such time as a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Once agreed, the development sh all operate in accordance with the agreed Travel Plan framework. The Travel Plan shall specify initiatives to be adopted by the operators of the site to encourage access to the site by a variety of non car means, sh all set targets and sh all specify a monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance with the Travel Plan objectives.
(16 ) No development shall commence on site (including site clearance) until such time as a Construction Management Plan in respect of construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, which shall be required to cover the following items: -
• Security Management (to minimise risks to unauthorised personnel); • Details of measures to be employed to mitigate against noise and vibration arising out of the construction process: • Construction Traffic Details (volume of vehicle movements likely to be generated during the construction phase including routes and times); • Limiting noise and vibration arising from the construction process.
Works on site shall only take place in accordance with the approved Construc tion Management Plan.
(17 ) No occupation of the buildings hereby approved shall take place until a scheme for the use of new facilities by the community and other organisations has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authorit y. The scheme shall include details of facilities to be made available, management arrangements and hours of use. The use of the facilities shall be in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
(1 8) The renewable energy and energy efficiency measures and the sustainable construction methods recommended in the technical report submitted with the application shall be fully incorporated into the development
(19 ) No works shall be commenced on site until a highways conditions survey and schedule is agreed between the principal contractor on site and the highway authority. In addition, the contractor shall provide a surety to be lodged with the highway authority to ensure that consequential damage t o the fabric of highways in the vicinity of the development site is repaired and restored to the appropriate standard.
(20) 2.4m x 60m sightlines shall be provided to and from the new school vehicular entrances onto Sedgehill Road. - 161 -
Reasons
(1) In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied as to the details of boundary treatment and to comply with Policies URB 3 Urban Design and URB 12 Landscape and Development in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).
(2) To ensure that the details protect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and the open character of Metropolitan Open Land, in compliance with Policies URB 3 Urban Design, OS1 Metropolitan Open Land and HSG 4 Residential Amenity in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).
(3) To ensure that the route and details of the relocated public footpath takes full account of safety and security issues, promotes biodiversity and nature conservation opportunities and maintains the amenities of adjacent sites, in accordance with Policies URB 4 Designing Out Crime, OS 3 Green Chains, OS 13 Nature Conservation and TRN 16 Developing Pedestrian and Cycle Networks in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).
(13) In order to ensure adequate provision for cycle parking and to comply with Policies TRN 14 Cycle Parking and TRN 15 Provision for Cyclists and Walkers in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).
(15 ) In order that both the local planning authority and highway authority may be satisfied as to the practicality , viability and sustainability of the School Travel Plan for the Secondary School.
(1 6) To limit the detrimental effect of demolition and construction works on adjoining residential occupiers by reason of noise and disturbance , and to comply with Policies ENV.PRO 9 Potentially Polluting Uses, ENV.PRO 10 Contaminated Land and HSG 4 Residential Amenity in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004 ).
(17 ) To ensure shared use of the educational facilities and to allow the local planning authority to as sess the impact of shared uses on the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers.
(18) To ensure that the development adequately responds to the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, to improve the energy efficiency of the site and to increase the proportion of energy used from renewable sources, in accordance with Policy 4.A7 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in the London Plan (2004) and Policy ENV.PRO 20 Renewable Energy Developments in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).
(19 ) To ensure that the proposal does not cause any signif ic ant lo ss of amenity and road safety in accordance with Polic ies URB 3 and TRN 20 “Improving Road Safety ” in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004)
(20) H06R Sight Lines
Informative
Cons truction Code of Practice - 162 -
RECOMMENDATION ( E)
To a gree :
(1) that the Section 52 agreement dated 27 October 1989 relating to the LAPD land should no longer continue to have effect or be enforced, because the restrictions contained in it are redundant an d no longer required;
(2) to authorise officers to apply;
(a) for reference to that agreement to be removed from the register of local land charges maintained by the Council; and
(b) to the Chief Land Registrar for the title to the LAPD land (registe red at the and Registry under title number TGL43481) to be amended so as to delete reference to that agreement.