Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item No: Development 16 th January 2008 Unrestricted 7.7
Report of: Title: Planning Application for Decision Corporate Director of Development and Renewal Ref No: PA/07/02330
Case Officer: Simon Ryan Ward(s): Bethnal Green North
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
Location: Mowlem Workplace Nursery , Mowlem Street, London, E2 9HE Existing Use: Nursery Proposal: Demolition of existing single storey nursery and associated outbuildings and erection of a m odular building of between one and three storeys in height to provide a children's centre (Use Class D1) together with associated hard and soft landscaping (AMENDED DESCRIPTION) Drawing Nos/Documents: A3-sized drawings, numbered 02 to 18 within document entitled "Bethnal Green North Children's Centre - New Development, Mowlem Street, London E2 9HE - September 2007 - Job 07.027 Planning application document", together with a Historic Building Appraisal prepared by Arcos Consultancy Limited Applicant: London Borough of Tower Hamlets Ownership: London Borough of Tower Hamlets (Children’s Services Directorate) Historic Building: N/A Conservation Area: N/A
2. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Reason(s) for Grant:
2.1 • The proposed children's centre building would not adversely impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such it is considered to be in line with saved policy DEV1 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policy DEV2 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007) which seek to ensure appropriate and informed design.
• The proposal satisfies the relevant criteria of Policy 3A.21 of the London Plan (2004) which seeks to ensure that boroughs provide a criteria based approach to the provision of education facilities, in terms of the justification for the selection of Mowlem Nursery as a site for a Children’s Centre and the demonstration of need for the proposal.
• The proposed building will offer community facilities alongside the educational usag e. This is in line with Policy SCF1 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007) which states, inter alia, that the Council will ensure social and community facility users are not disadvantaged by any reduction in the quality of, and access to, facilities. The proposal is providing an increase in the availability of such facilities to the local community, in line with the Council’s Community Plan 2007-2008, as supported by policy 3A.23 of the London Plan (2004). This policy seeks to ensure communities benefit fr om development through the implementation of community strategies.
• The development does not give rise to any adverse highway impacts, in line with the objectives of saved policy T7 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policy DEV19 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007) which seek to minimise the impact of traffic generation as a result of development.
• It is not considered that the proposal would give rise to any undue impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding residents. As such, the p roposal is considered to satisfy the relevant criteria of saved policy DEV2 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan (1998) which seeks to protect residential amenity.
3. RECOMMENDATION
3.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and the Head of Development Decisions be delegated authority to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the following:
3.2 Conditions
1. Time Limit – 3 years
2. Building works hours of operation
3. Details of refuse and recycling facilities
4. Servicing Management Plan demonstrating for servicing vehicles
5. Details of plant and equipment
6. Details of sound insulation measures
7. Details of external materials and finishes, landscaping, play areas and equipment, boundary treatments and signage
3.3 Informatives
1. The applicant is advised to contact the Council’s Environmental Health department regarding the requirements of Conditions 5 and 6 above.
4. PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
4.1 The application proposes the demolition of the existing single storey workplace nursery building and the erection of a replacement modular building of between one and three storeys in height to provide a ‘Surestart’ children’s centre.
4.2 The proposed building would provide a 50 place integrated childcare and nursery facility with a 12 place crèche (total capacity of 62) , with a gross floor space of 660sq.m. Within their design and access statement, the applicant advises, that the proposed children’s centre would offer core services including early education integrated with childcare for 0-5 year olds, family support and outreach for families within a notional reach area, including child and family health services. The proposed building includes multiple childcare rooms together with facilities such as community rooms, therapy room, sensory room, outreach office, laundry and kitchen.
4.3 The application also proposes various hard and soft landscaping within the site. This includes the provision of an activity playground, sandpits, low level planting and timber decking between buildings.
Site and Surroundings
4.4 The site contains a single storey Victorian building with a gross floor space of 282sq.m, which currently operates as a Teacher’s Workplace Nursery offering child care provision for 15-22 children during term time. The present building constitutes two wings connected by a glazed double height lobby area, and is constructed of stock brick with red brick detailing.
4.5 The building is neither statutorily listed nor locally listed. Furthermore, the site is not located within a conservation area.
4.6 The site is landlocked with no direct designated access from any direction. Mowlem Primary School bounds the site to the east and south, with residential development immediately to the west and north (20-24 Mowlem Street and Beckwith House respectively). The site has pedestrian access from Wadeson Street to the north , and bounds the entrance and car park to Mowlem Primary School to the south.
4.7 The site has no frontages on Mowlem Street to the west or Wadeson Street to the north. As such, there are no direct visual aspects to the street.
Relevant Planning History
4.8 There are no relevant planning records regarding the application site.
4.9 Application reference PA/07/00181 at the adjacent 20 Mowlem Street seeks retrospective permission for the re-development of a former scaffolding yard by erection of a new five storey building for m ixed use development containing 5 Class B1 (Business) units and 14 x residential units (6 x one bedroom, 6 x two bedroom & 2 x three bedroom). At the time of drafting this report, the application was pending determination. As the application is retrospecti ve in nature and the development is substantially completed, it is not considered that it has a bearing upon the application being considered within this report.
5. POLICY FRAMEWORK
5.1 For details of the status of relevant policies see the front sheet for “Planning Applications for Decision ” agenda items. The following policies are relevant to the application:
Unitary Development Plan (1998) saved policies
Policies: ST45-ST47 Strategic Education and Training Policies DEV1 Design Requirements DEV2 Environmental Requirements DEV50 Noise T7 The road hierarchy T10 Priorities for strategic management T16 Traffic Priorities for New Development EDU1 Safeguarding Education Sites EDU7 Play Space
Interim Planning Guidance (2007)
Spatial CP3 Sustainable Environment Strategies: CP4 Good Design Policies: DEV1 Amenity DEV2 Character and Design DEV3 Accessibility and Inclusive Design DEV5 Sustainable Design DEV9 Sustainable Construction Materials SCF1 Social and Community Facilities SCF2 School Recreation Space
Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (London Plan) (2004)
Policies: 3A.21 Educational Facilities
6. CONSULTATION RESPONSE
6.1 The views of officers within the Direc torate of Development and Renewal are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below. The following were consulted regarding the application:
LBTH Highways
6.2 No objections, subject to a condition requiring the applicant to prov ide a Servicing Management Plan demonstrating the arrangements for vehicles servicing the premises.
LBTH Environmental Health
6.3 No objections, subject to submission of details regarding sound insulation measures and any plant and equipment.
LBTH Cleansing
6.4 No objections, subject to submission of details regarding refuse arrangements.
LBTH Design & Conservation
6.6 The Council’s Design and Conservation Team have raised no objections in principle for redevelopment of the site and the proposed bulk, height and massing of the building. Conditions have been suggested with regard to external materials, boundary treatments and landscaping.
7. LOCAL REPRESENTATION
7.1 A total of 118 neighbouring properties within the area sho wn on the map appended to this report were notified about the application and invited to comment. The application has also been publicised by way of site notices on the site. The number of representations received from neighbours and local groups in respon se to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:
No of individual responses: 47 Objecting: 47 Supporting: 0 No of petitions received: 2 petitions have been received: • 1 in objection containing a total of 288 signatures • 1 in support of the application containing 80 signatures
7.2 The following societies/local groups made representations: • English Heritage • Save Britain’s Heritage • Victorian Society
7.3 The following issues were raised in representations objecting to the proposal:
Conservation • The existing 1908 nursery building should be saved from demolition, repaired and returned to use. • The building is a fine example of a purpose built Victorian educational facility which is still operable. • An extension to the existing nursery would be a more appropriate solution , which incorporates the principle of sustainable development, unlike the proposal. • The nursery should be preserved as it is one of the last remaining historical buildings in the area. • The existing building is in sound condition.
Design • The proposed modular design is unsustainable by virtue of the fact that it would have a short life span of 25-50 years. • The proposed building would offer a poor teaching environment. • Circulation within the building is poor. • The proposed addition of 3 5 further child places does not justify the unsatisfactory design. • The proposed building, based on containers, is unattractive, unappealing and lacks vision.
Amenity • Overlooking of adjacent residential properties. • Loss of daylight and sunlight. • Overbearing and increased sense of enclosure to adjacent residential properties. • Increased levels of noise, particularly from the proposed playground areas and the increased number of children. • The proposed playground area would receiv e poor levels of daylight and sunlight. • The proposed building would provide a poor teaching environment, which would not stimulate the pupils.
Highways • The proposed children’s centre should be provided in a more accessible location for parents and children in North Bethnal Green.
Other Issues • One objector has provided a document entitled “To Save or Demolish Mowlem Workplace Nursery”. This follows consultation between LBTH and parents/staff at the existing nursery earlier this year. The document obj ects to the demolition of the nursery for many of the reasons detailed above, and also states that nursery has consistently attained good OFSTED reports. The document also provides details of an alternative proposal, which envisages the extension of the ex isting building, together with letters of support for the alternative scheme from parents of pupils at the nursery. • The author of the abovementioned document also provides calculations with regard to the costings of the proposed development versus that of extending the existing building. The author calculates the cost of demolishing the existing building and developing the site to be £1,435,663, whilst the cost of refurbishment and extension to be £1,542,000, with a longer life span.
7.4 With regard to the petition supporting the proposal, no grounds for support are provided, with the petition stating that the signatories support the erection of a modular/purpose built building for the reasons which have been explained to them in previous communiqué. The applicant has explained that the previous communication referred to in this petition took place in the form of display boards detailing the proposal erected within Mowlem Primary School, which local residents were able to view.
Analysis of other issues
7.5 Upon receipt of the document entitled “To Save or Demolish Mowlem Workplace Nursery” which incorporates cost calculations and an alternative proposal retaining the existing building, this was forwarded to the Council’s Building and Technical Services department.
7.6 With regard to the costing of the proposal, the applicant has responded with the following:
“Building and Technical Services have worked with the allocated budget from the DfES and the very tight co nstraints of the site, of which the largest concern is that the outdoor areas required by the brief, based on DfES funding allocations, exceed that of the area of site we were given, therefore presenting us with a challenge. To achieve all the areas, Build ing and Technical Services have designed a proposal with play decks/open external play areas on upper floors. The alternative scheme proposed [by the author of the aforementioned document] has been produced without providing evidence of knowledge of the br ief, the allocated budget, government standards for education and early years design and changes to building legislation specifically relating to energy conservation, and in particular, the financial implications of these.”
7.7 The Building and Technical Serv ices Officer goes on to state, that “The existing building is located in the middle of the site; therefore any external areas are at a minimum. The existing structure cannot be built over and a three storey building is required on this site to meet both th e required internal and external areas for the children’s centre. If [LBTH] fail to achieve the areas, then the funding does not come through as the funding criteria is set on the number of pupil places, which all relates back to the areas achieved.”
7.8 With regard to the possible retention of the existing building, the Building and Technical Services Officer states that:
“T his would incur considerable costs to bring it up to new building regulation compliance, as the building is not exempt by a heritage li sting, all internal walls, roof, windows and concrete slab would require significant addition of insulation and membranes in order to achieve compliance with the new Part L document of the building regulations for energy conservation. This significant addi tional money is not in the current budget. The full boiler system has also been fully stripped out as it contains asbestos throughout. The building is not fit for purpose. Children’s Services are looking forward to providing a building for the community as a whole, with new modern facilities that would cater for 50 infant places instead of the current 15.”
8. MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The main planning issues raised by the application that the C ommittee must consider are: • Demolition/preservation of the existing building • Land Use • Education • Design • Sustainability (life span) • Amenity • Highways
Demolition & Conservation
8.1 With regard to the objections against the demolition and subsequent loss of the existing nursery building, it shou ld be noted that the building is neither statutorily or locally listed, nor located with a conservation area. As such, there are no legislative planning controls available to the Local Planning Authority to prevent the immediate demolition of this building.
8.2 Furthermore, concerned members of the public sought the statutory listing of the nursery building within the grounds of Mowlem Primary School. English Heritage, in a letter to the Council dated 12 th November 2007, has subsequently advised that the building is not of sufficient special architectural or historic interest to merit listing.
8.3 In light of the above, whilst the Council acknowledge that the building contributes to the character of the immediate area, a refusal based on the groun ds of the loss of the building would be likely to fail on appeal.
Land Use
8.4 The application seeks the retention of educational facilities upon the site . As such, there are no objections in principle to the land use.
8.5 The applicant also details that the proposed building will offer community facilities alongside the educational usage. This is encouraged by Policy SCF 1 of the Interim Planning Guidance which states, that the Council will ensure social and community facility users are not di sadvantaged by any reduction in the quality of, and access to, facilities. To the contrary, the proposal is providing an increase in the availability of such facilities to the local community.
8.6 As detailed above within section 7 of this report, a nu mber of objectors have commented that the retention and extension of the existing building would be preferable. However, as stated within paragraph 7.6, the existing building is located almost centrally within the site, and an extension would likely result in the loss of much of the existing external play area, contrary to Polic ies EDU7 of the UDP (1998) and SCF2 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007), which opposes the loss of school recreation space. As such, the proposed scheme, which provides suitable levels of play space at ground level and also first floor level by way of screened outdoor pla y areas, is considered to be a more appropriate alternative.
Education
8.7 Policy 3A.21 of the London Plan (2004) states that UDP policies should reflec t the demands for pre-school, school and community facilities, taking into account GLA demographic projections. The policy also states that boroughs should provide a criteria based approach to the provision of different types of educational facilities and the expansion of existing facilities.
8.8 Following consultation, the Children’s Services Department have stated the following:
“Local Authorities have been given responsibility for the delivery of children centres which are a key part of the Govern ment’s strategy to enable all families with children to have access to affordable, flexible and high quality childcare. Authorities are obliged to meet targets set by Central Government through the Sure Start Unit. The Tower Hamlets Strategic Plan for t he development of children centres, approved by Cabinet in October 2003, set out proposals for 15 centres to be provided in Wave 1 of the programme. A further 3 sites were proposed for Wave 2 which must be designated in 2008. This gives a total of 18 site s developed across Wave 1 and 2 in order to achieve the geographical coverage required for every family to have a C entre in “pram-pushing distance”.
In order to identify the main sites, an analysis was undertaken to find where there were gaps in provision. The North East of LAP was selected for this reason. An audit of possible sites was carried out and Mowlem identified as a suitable site where there was already good quality day care provision which could be developed to provide year round day care suit able for all working parents, a core requirement for a Children’s Centre.
The current application for development of the Bethnal Green North Children’s Centre is one of the three sites included in wave 2 of our programme.
Children’s Centres are expected to deliver integrated services to support children and parents in order to maximise children’s opportunities, enable them to fulfil their potential, and to close the gaps between the outcome for the most disadvantaged children and others (Sure Start Unit P hase Two Planning Guidance). Children’s centres offer an increased range of services including outreach, family support, child and family health services, and training as well as the core early years provision”
8.9 In light of the above, it is considered that proposal satisfies the relevant criteria of Policy 3A.21 of the London Plan (2004) in terms of the justification for the selection of Mowlem Nursery as a site for a Children’s Centre and the demonstration of need for the proposal.
Design
8.10 The proposed building is of a modular construction , with prefabricated container style modules being assembled at heights of between one and three storeys. The building is proposed to be finished in a variety of materials, such as over-cladding, na tural timbers and painted steel, together with green roofing to the majority of the building. The roof play areas also feature transparent balustrades. The fenestration pattern is varied, with cubic bay-style windows, high level windows and circular window s all proposed.
8.11 The Council’s Design and Conservation Team have raised no objections in principle for redevelopment of the site and the proposed bulk, height and massing of the building. However they have raised concerns regarding the palette of materials proposed, the boundary treatments and the landscaping details. As such, in accordance with the advice of the Design and Conservation Officer, conditions have been attached to this recommendation which require the submission and agreement in writing of the following: • Sample boards, specifications and fixing details for all external finishes, including colour and texture of finishes • Landscaping details, including play areas, entrances, play equipment specifications, lighting and samples of all finishes • Boundary wall treatments and details of entrance gates, lighting and signage. It is considered that the attachment of the above conditions would ensure the development has a high quality presentation which is more informed by the surrounding environment in terms of security, accessibility and physical appearance.
8.12 With regard to objections on the grounds of the proposed building offers a poor teaching environment, whilst this is ultimately a matter for the DfES to determine , consultation has b een undertaken with the care providers to ensure that the internal layout and teaching environment meets with their requirements and specifications.
8.13 With regard to the objections based on poor circulation within the building, neither the Council ’s Environmental Health Department, nor the Building Control Department have raised any objections based on such grounds.
8.14 In response to the objection claiming that the poor design is not justified by the increase in pupil numbers as detailed above. It is not considered that the proposal would detrimentally affect the character and appearance of the immediate area , and furthermore, it is not considered that the increase in the child capacity of the site has in any way been offset by a lower standard of design.
8.15 In light of the above, subject to the conditions set out within paragraph 3.2, it is considered that the proposed design satisfies the relevant criteria of saved policy DEV1 of the UDP (1998) and policies CP4, DEV2 and DEV3 of the In terim Planning Guidance (2007).
Sustainability
8.16 A number of objections have been received with regard to the sustainability of demolishing the existing nursery and the erection of a modular building, which has a shorter lifespan.
8.17 As detailed above within paragraph 7.8, there would be considerable costs in bringing the existing building up to new building regulation compliance, particularly the new Part L document regarding energy conservation. The applicant details that the modula r technology enables construction times and cost to be reduced by up to half that of traditional building techniques while remaining significantly more environmentally friendly.
8.18 With regards to the sustainability of the proposal, the design state ment details that it incorporates a number of environmental advantages, including: • Low noise emissions • Natural ventilation • Photoelectric light sensitive cells • High thermal efficiency • Little need for artificial lighting • Separate heat and light controls for each unit/module • Rain water harvesting • Green roofs
8.19 The above, together with the little amount of time required to construct, repair, replace or update modular elements of the building, is considered to be in line with policy DEV5 of the Interim Pl anning Guidance (2007). This policy seeks best practice sustainable design measures, including maximising the use of natural systems including the incorporation of solar design measures, minimising energy use and enhancing site biodiversity, all of which the proposal is designed to achieve.
Amenity
8.20 The proposed children’s centre building is flanked by the blank side elevations of 20 Mowlem Street to the west, Mowlem Primary School to the south and an access road with Barnes House residential b lock beyond to the east. As such, the only residential occupiers likely to suffer a loss of amenity are those directly to the north of the site, within Beckwith House and 38-40 Wadeson Street, whose rear gardens back onto the application site. The surrounding buildings are all between 3 and 6 storeys in height.
8.21 With regard to possible overbearing and undue sense of enclosure, the proposed building is three storeys in height, tapering down to single store y in height towards the north and west boundaries . The first floor of the development is located a minimum of 4.8m from the site boundary with the residential development to the north, and 17.9m from the nearest residential façade. It is considered that this is a more than adequate distance within a n urban setting. As such, it is not considered that the proposal would give rise to any overbearing or undue sense of enclosure upon nearby residential occupiers.
8.22 In light of the above distances and the sun path diagrams provided within the appli cation, it is not considered that the proposed building would give rise to any undue loss of daylight or sunlight.
8.23 With regard to a loss of privacy caused by undue overlooking from the proposed children’s centre, there is one window proposed at f irst floor level which serves a playgroup room. This window is located 5m from the site boundary to the north. There are no other windows at first floor level within 10m of this boundary. In light of the normal hours of operation of a school and the distan ces between the proposed building and site boundary, it is not considered that the proposal would give rise to any material loss of privacy.
8.24 With regard to increased levels of noise due to a greater number of children attending the centre, it is not unusual for schools to be located within residential areas and a certain level of associated noise should be expected. Furthermore, given the normal opening hours of a school, there would only be noise during normal working hours, and not in the evenin gs or at weekends. As such, it is not considered that an objection on the grounds of increased noise could be substantiated.
8.25 The Council’s Environmental Health department have raised no objections with regard to poor daylight within the proposed playground areas. As such it is not considered that such an objection could be substantiated.
8.26 In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the relevant criteria of saved policies DEV2 and DEV50 of the UDP 1998 which relate t o environmental requirements and noise respectively, and policy DEV1 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007) which relates to amenity.
Highways
8.27 The Council’s Highways Department have raised no objections to the proposal, subject to the submission of a servicing management plan. As such, it is not considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the Borough’s highway network.
8.28 In light of the above, the proposal is considered to be in line with saved policies T7, T10 and T16 of the UDP 1998.
9 Conclusions
9.1 All other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account. Planning permission should be granted for the reasons set out in the SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and the details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION at the beginning of this report.
Site Map
6 V 0 i R t
L Y o
3
K 5
N 4 0
6
t
o E 5 8 R dd R d d Wor O 35 ks 25a S to Works PH W T 29
R
e
E
7 3
d2 4 s Works
E t
d o d d u 4 T 8
7 o
h s d rk t o
25 e o
T r d W
23 E 65 1 E a 2 21 TR d to ddd
19 S 57
R W d o 3 Warehouse t E 2
1 YN d 16.0m d 3 V 0 d 16.3m d d d14 d ddd d 5 13
d 5 EET
M R 6
S T 0
O 9 S 5 8 T N 4 W dddd O R d ddd ES d d
E L Works 47 AD
E
1 E d 2 W
t d Garage T M d dddd 43
d d37
1
2
1
4
Works 1
6
4 0
8 3 3 7 3 d 4 ddddddddddddddddddddddddd ddddddddd 1 to 34 29 16.2m Beckwith se 7 s Hou 6 2 House arne 6 1 dto 1 B EET TR 8
S Beckwith House 6 5 4 School ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd d Clinic 2 4 dddd
2 2
P
o d n s
o M 6
n 2 O
b t W o 2 y 0 1 L d 0 d H E chool 1 M S Mowlem o
u
S dddddd Primary s
T e
R School
E
E d ouse T
7
1
o
d t
9 15.7m
Sta toddddddd 14
El Sub 1 7
1:1000use o Ho
d t as
und 3 d D Legend Planning Application Site Boundary Consultation Area d Land Parcel Address
This Site Map displays the Planning Application Site Boundary and the neighbouring Occupiers / Owners who were consulted as part of the Planning Application process. The Site Map was reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Tower Hamlets LA086568