Bentley Wood High School, Stanmore in the London Borough of Harrow Planning Application No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
planning report D&P/3429/02 7 October 2014 Bentley Wood High School, Stanmore in the London Borough of Harrow planning application no. P/1322/14 Strategic planning application stage II referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. The proposal Construction of a 3-storey classroom block and relocation of mobile classroom blocks. The applicant The applicant is Harrow Council Children’s Services, and the architect is Howard-Fairbairn- MHK. Strategic issues Outstanding issues in relation to transport are resolved satisfactorily. The Council’s decision In this instance Harrow Council has resolved to grant permission. Recommendation That Harrow Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal. Context 1 On 12 May 2014 the Mayor of London received documents from Harrow Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 3D of the Schedule of the Order 2008: “Development – (a) on land allocated as Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land in the development plan, in proposals for such a plan, or in proposals for the alteration or replacement of such a plan; and (b) which would involve the construction of a building with a floor space of more than 1000 square metres or a material change in the use of such building.” 2 On 17 June 2014 the Mayor considered planning report D&P/3429/01, and subsequently advised Harrow Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 33 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph of the report could address these deficiencies. 3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are page 1 as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 25 June 2014 Harrow Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission, for the revised application, and on 26 September 2014 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged or direct Council under Article 6 to refuse the application. The Mayor has until 9 October 2014 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction. 4 The decision on this case and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Update 5 At the consultation stage Harrow Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 33 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph of the report could address these deficiencies: Green Belt: Very special circumstances have been demonstrated that justify the school expansion on Green Belt. The development impact on the openness of the Green Belt is limited. The proposal is acceptable in land use context. Transport: Financial contribution towards bus service improvement, increasing the number of cycle parking spaces, pedestrian safety and submission of updated travel plan, including CLP & DSP should be addressed before the scheme is referred back to the Mayor. Transport for London’s comments 6 At stage 1, TfL raised a number of matters including pupils pick up/ drop off, cycle parking travel plan and most importantly, the potential over-crowding on bus route 340 due to additional demand from the expanded school. 7 TfL initially agreed with Harrow Council that the applicant would enter into an agreement to undertake post school expansion surveys to determine the need for any bus service improvement with a contribution being paid if necessary. This arrangement will now be secured through a Grampian condition by Harrow Council along with bus stop shelter upgrade on Clamp Hill rather than by legal agreement, which both parties are satisfied. 8 TfL also welcomes that Harrow Council is to impose conditions ensuring that (a) the provision of proposed the new pupils pick up/ drop off area and associated access in Clamp Hill; (b) provision of cycle parking adhering to the London Plan standards, (c) the production of the revised travel plan, (d) submission of construction method and logistics statement. 9 In summary, TfL considers that the proposals are in conformity with London Plan transport policies. Response to consultation 10 A public consultation was undertaken which included statutory bodies and local residents, together with 443 individual letters of notification being sent to surrounding occupiers, as well as press and site notices advertising the application as a departure from the Development Plan were also published. 11 Responses from Residents: It is noted that only two replies were received from local residents, one supporting and the other objecting the proposal. The objection letter stated, “Should the proposal in anyway exacerbate the existing traffic congestion along Masefield Avenue and unless other proposals are provided regarding school traffic such as the access at Clamp Hill, we cannot support this development.” 12 Statutory consultees: The responses received following these consultation exercises are indicated below: page 2 Sport England: Sport England has considered the application in light of its playing field policy and is satisfied that the proposed development would meet its policy requirements. Environment Agency: No objection provided the suggested advice is considered. This site is in Flood Zone 1 and is under a hectare (the Council was not required to send consultation). The main flood risk issue is the management of surface water run-off and ensuring that drainage from the development does not increase flood risk either on-site or elsewhere. EA recommended that the surface water management good practice advice in its Flood Risk Standing Advice is used to ensure sustainable surface water management is achieved as part of the development. 13 In summary, concerns raised have been addressed in this and the stage 1 report of the GLA, and the Council’s committee report. Legal considerations 14 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. Financial considerations 15 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government Planning Practice Guidance emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal. 16 Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal and this unreasonable behaviour has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense. A major factor in deciding whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of established planning policy. 17 Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the Council to do so) and determining any approval of details (unless the Council agrees to do so). Conclusion 18 Outstanding planning issues have been resolved. The proposed development is supported in terms of good strategic planning in Greater London. For further information, contact: GLA Planning Unit (Development & Projects Team): Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email: [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email: [email protected] Tefera Tibebe, Case Officer 020 7983 4312 email: [email protected] page 3 planning report D&P/3429/01 17 June 2014 Bentley Wood High School, Stanmore in the London Borough of Harrow planning application no. P/1322/14 Strategic planning application stage 1 referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. The proposal Construction of a 3-storey classroom block and relocation of mobile classroom blocks. The applicant The applicant is Harrow Council Children’s Services, and the architect is Howard-Fairbairn- MHK. Strategic issues School provision on Green Belt and transport are the most relevant strategic issues to this application. Recommendation That Harrow Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 33 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph of the report could address these deficiencies.