Committee PLANNING COMMITTEE (A) Report Title PRENDERGAST HILLY FIELDS, ADELAIDE AVENUE SE4 1LE Ward Ladywell Contributors Jan Mondrzejewski Class PART 1 Date: 10 OCTOBER 2012

Reg. Nos. DC/11/78890

Application dated 23 November 2011

Applicant Schools for the Future of Education Partnership Ltd

Proposal The variation of Condition (1) of the planning permission (DC/10/74021) dated 8 July 2010 for the construction of a two storey temporary building at Prendergast, Hilly Fields, Adelaide Avenue SE4 to provide additional classrooms and staff accommodation in order to allow the temporary building to remain on site until 31 December 2013 instead of 31 July 2012.

Applicant’s Plan Nos. Covering letter dated 23/11/11, CD & site location plan.

Background Papers (1) Case File LE/110/E/TP (2) The Plan (3) Core Strategy (4) Conservation Area Character appraisal and SPD (5) Adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004)

Designation Adopted Core Strategy – Existing Use

1.0 Property/Site Description

1.1 The application site is located in Hilly Fields Park, adjacent to Prendergast, Hilly Fields School.

1.2 The park is shown on the UDP Proposals Map as Public Open Space and Site of Nature Conservation Importance. It is also located within the Brockley Conservation Area. Prendergast School is partly located in premises in the park surrounded by open space and partly in modern accommodation in nearby Adelaide Avenue, just outside the boundary of the Conservation Area. The school building in the Park was designated a listed building in 1992 (Grade II). Originally built in 1884/5 as the West Kent and extended in 1914-18 and 1921 as Brockley County . The interior contains murals of the 1930s which are regarded as 'some of the most important achievements of 20th Century mural painting' (English Heritage List Description). Prendergast School moved to the site from their original premises in in the 1990s.

1.3 Hilly Fields Park was farmland up until the 1890s when it was purchased by public subscription for the formation of a public open space. The Metropolitan Borough of Deptford (formed in 1899) took over responsibility for the Park and this in turn transferred to the London Borough of Lewisham in 1965 when the Metropolitan Boroughs of Lewisham and Deptford were amalgamated. The open space occupies an elevated area commanding good views of London and contains a large number of mature trees of significant amenity value.

1.4 The nearest residential properties to the application site are some 100 metres away in Eastern Road.

2.0 Planning History

2.1 In December 2004 planning permission and listed building consent was granted for the demolition of the lavatory block to the front of Prendergast School, Hilly Fields, and the construction of a two storey music school building.

2.2 In February 2007 planning permission and listed building consent was granted for the erection of replacement fencing and gates around approximately three quarters of the school site. This comprised replacing existing fences, which were a combination of wire mesh, chain link , wooden boards and concrete posts, with new bow top railings. The height approved was 1.8 metre high around the side of the site and 1.5 metres at the front.

2.3 Listed Building Consent was granted in December 2007 for the installation of replacement European prime oak flooring in the assembly hall of Prendergast School.

2.4 DC/10/74021 - In July 2010, planning permission was granted for the construction of a two storey temporary building in the park adjoining the Hilly Fields building, to provide additional classrooms and staff accommodation during the construction phase of the school. This permission was subject to two conditions. The first of these required the cessation of the use and the removal of the buildings by 31st July 2012 and the restoration of the land to its former condition in accordance with a scheme of work to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.. The second condition required that all planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved scheme of work for reinstatement of the site shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the removal of the building and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority has given written consent to any variation.

2.5 In September 2010, planning permission was granted for major rebuilding of the school site in Adelaide Avenue and more limited refurbishment work of the grade II* listed Hilly Fields building. The works to the Adelaide Avenue site comprised for the demolition of the existing school buildings but with retention of and alterations to existing sports hall and construction of a two to four storey building with associated facilities.

2.6 The planning permission was subject to a Section 106 agreement requiring the payment of a sum of £10,000 for improvements to pedestrian links within Hilly Fields Park,

2.7 This application was also associated with an application for Listed Building Consent for refurbishment works to the Hilly Fields building and the demolition of an existing outbuilding at the Park site.

3.0 Current Planning Application

3.1 The current application is for the variation of Condition (1) of the planning permission (DC/10/74021) dated 8 July 2010 for the construction of a two storey temporary building at Prendergast, Hilly Fields, Adelaide Avenue SE4 to provide additional classrooms and staff accommodation, in order to allow the temporary building to remain on site until 31 December 2013 instead of 31 July 2012.

3.2 In a supporting letter, the school suggests that the original application under- estimated the time needed to get the newly rebuilt school up and running. They state that the extension to the time period is necessary to allow the school to teach all its young people and to deliver the National Curriculum.

3.3 The applicant, which is a Local Education Partnership have indicated that they would be willing to increase the Section 106 Payment already made to cover disruption to the park by an amount of up to £10,000.00.

4.0 Consultation

4.1 This section outlines the consultation carried out by the Council following the submission of the application and summarises the responses received. The Council’s consultation exceeded the minimum statutory requirements and those required by the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement.

4.2 Site notices were displayed and letters were sent to residents in the surrounding area and the relevant ward Councillors were consulted.

Written Responses received from Local Residents and Organisations

The Brockley Society

4.3 The Society object to the application for the following reasons:- 1) The Society is concerned that the temporary buildings may become a permanent feature of the park by repeated renewals of temporary planning permission. 2) The Society consider that most of the £10,000.00 Section 106 payment for improvements to the park are likely to go on access road improvements which benefit the school rather than Park users. 3) The Society therefore request that the extension of the temporary period be conditional on a further payment to mitigate the harm caused by the development. This could pay for other much needed improvements to the park which benefit the wider community as well as the school. It is suggested that a priority should be repairs to the stone circle which was damaged last year.

The Hilly Fields User Group

4.4 The User Group object to the application for the following reasons:-

(1) The loss of part of the park for a further 18 months represents a real loss of amenity to local residents.

(2) The temporary buildings could also be subject to repeated requests for extension of the time limits.

(3) The proposal should therefore only be granted planning permission if (a) a mechanism is in place to dismantle the buildings by Christmas 2013 and the Section 106 contribution previously agreed is increased by an additional £10,000.00 to compensate local residents for the loss of part of the park and produce a real gain in amenity for park users.

(4) The User Group is keen to secure the restoration of the stone circle which is an amenity which has educational value and which is much frequented by students at the school.

(5) The User Group has obtained estimates for the supply of Scottish grey granite, which when carved and fixed in place would cost in the region of £8,000.00.

(6) Subject to the offer of a Section 106 payment of £10,000.00 the User Group would not require a local meeting prior to officers reporting the matter to the Planning Committee for decision.

Local Residents

4.5 Two replies received from the occupiers of No 117 Tressillian Rd and No 19 Eastern Rd, objecting to the application for the following reasons:-

(1) Public park land should always be rigorously protected against any encroachment by buildings.

(2) The applicant has failed to repair ongoing damage to the park.

(3) Permission should only be granted subject to an enforceable guarantee that the site will be completely vacated by the revised date.

(4) Permission should only be granted subject to proportional compensation to be paid for the sole use and benefit of Hillyfields Park as directed by (i) preferably the User Group or (ii) the Parks Dept, provided that this forms an addition to its overall budget rather than a substitution within.

(5) The additional Section 106 payment should not be less than £10,000.00. which equates to the period in time which the current buildings have occupied the site and represents a small cost to the school for 3,840 sq ft of rent free floorspace.

(6) The applicant has profited considerably from the ability to use the park for additional accommodation at very little cost equating (in terms of the existing section 106 payment) to 11P per square foot per month.

(7) The applicant should also be required to repair all damage to the park including access road and footpaths. Section 106 money should not be used to repair this.

(8) The Section 106 payment if used to improve the park will of course greatly benefit the school as the school is a very significant user of the park.

(Letters are available to Members).

Local Meeting

4.6 In view of the decision of the applicant to offer a Section 106 payment of £10,000.00 for improvement works to the park, as requested by objectors, a local meeting was not held.

Highways and Transportation

4.7 No reply.

5.0 Policy Context

National Planning Policy Framework 5.1 The NPFF states that, (paragraph 211) policies in the development plan should not be considered out of date just because they were adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF. At paragraphs 214 and 215 guidance is given on the weight to be given to policies in the development plan. In summary, this states, that for a period of 12 months from publication of the NPPF decision takers can give full weight to policies adopted since 2004 even if there is limited conflict with the NPPF. Following this period, weight should be given to existing policies according to their consistency with the NPPF.

5.2 Officers have reviewed the Core Strategy and saved UDP policies for consistency with the NPPF and consider there is no issue of significant conflict. As such, full weight can be given to these policies in the decision making process in accordance with paragraphs 211, 214 and 215 of the NPPF.

London Plan (July 2011) 5.3 The London Plan was published in July 2011. Together with the Core Strategy (June 2011) and saved policies in the adopted Lewisham UDP (July 2004), the London Plan comprises the development plan for Lewisham. The policies therein that are relevant to this application are:

Policy 3.1 Ensuring equal life chances for all Policy 3.16 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure Policy 3.18 Education Facilities Policy 3.19 Sports facilities

Policy 4.6 Support for and enhancement of arts, culture, sport and entertainment provision Policy 7.2 An inclusive environment Policy 7.4 Local character Policy 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology Policy 7.18 Protecting local open space and addressing local deficiency Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature

Core Strategy (2011)

5.4 The Core Strategy was adopted by the Council at its meeting on 29 June 2011. The Core Strategy, together with the London Plan and the saved policies of the Unitary Development Plan, is the borough's statutory development plan.

5.5 Relevant Policies in the Core Strategy are Policy 12 Open space and environmental assets, Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham, Policy 16 Conservation areas, heritage assets, and the historic environment and Policy 19 Provision and maintenance of community and recreational facilities.

Adopted Unitary Development Plan (Adopted July 2004)

5.6 The saved policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan Policies relevant to this application are:- URB 3 Urban Design, URB 12 Landscape and Development, URB 13 Trees, URB 16 New development, Changes of Use and alterations to Buildings in Conservation Areas, HSG 4 Residential Amenity.

Supplementary Planning Documents

5.7 Brockley Conservation Area Character Appraisal and SPD

6.0 Planning Considerations

6.1 The main planning considerations are (a) whether the extension of the time period for the retention of the temporary buildings, subject to the same conditions as previously agreed, is acceptable, subject to a contribution intended to mitigate the harm arising from the extended period of occupation of the temporary buildings.

6.2 Section 122 of the CIL Regulations states that a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is:-

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

(b) directly related to the development; and

(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

6.3 The original application for the provision of the temporary buildings, which was approved by the Planning Committee (A) 8 July 2012, was made in the light of a major redevelopment programme for the school. The report to Committee (A) which recommended the grant of the planning permission for the temporary buildings states in paragraph 6.3 that:-

The Committee is also advised that as part of the planning application for the construction woks at the school, a section 106 contribution towards the improvement of footpaths and cycle routes in the area is being offered. This is in order to mitigate the increased usage of these facilities by pupils, teachers and visitors to the enlarged/refurbished school buildings. It is likely that this particular payment will be used for the most part to upgrade facilities in the park.

6.4 Planning Permission for the redevelopment of the school was granted by Planning Committee (B) on 2 September 2010, subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 agreement with respect to the payment of a sum of £10,000 for improvements to pedestrian links within Hilly Fields Park. There is therefore a clear linkage been the temporary buildings needing to be located in the park and the redevelopment of the school as without the latter the former would not have been necessary.

6.5 It is unlikely that the Council would normally grant permission for temporary buildings to be placed in a public open space without very good reason as this would give rise to disruption to park users. A section 106 Agreement would normally provide a way of mitigating this harm which could not be achieved by means of a planning condition. In the case of the original application for the temporary buildings this was not done as part of that application because a Section 106 payment was about to be provided as part of the anticipated grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of Prendergast School.

6.6 Policy 12 Open Space and recreation of the adopted Core Strategy states under 2b, that the objectives of the policy will be achieved by protecting open space from built development. The policy goes on to state that planning obligations will be sought to ensure the implementation of the policy where appropriate. Officers therefore consider that this policy (which was not available in 2010) provides a clear justification for a planning obligation to mitigate the harm caused by loss of part of the open space for an extended period due to the need to retain the temporary classrooms for a further 18 months. This therefore enables the first test in Section 122 to be satisfied.

6.7 In terms of the second test, the first payment was intended for improvements to pedestrian links within Hilly Fields Park. The local amenity groups which have responded to the application consider that this is too limiting as the school is undoubtedly the largest user of the park and this usage is not limited to the pedestrian routes which convey students and teachers to the site on a daily basis during term time. The Park itself forms an amenity for the school providing it with opportunities for formal and informal recreation. It provides a resource for the study of natural history, physical education and sports. The User Group have also pointed out that the Hilly Fields stones, currently in need of repair, are also an educational resource. The stones, which commemorate the Millennium, being a giant sundial which can be used to tell the time of day as well as marking the spring and autumn equinoxes and the winter and summer solstices. The school also benefits from the attractive landscaped surroundings provided by the park and which could be argued to contribute to its popularity and success. Officers therefore consider that the Section 106 payment should be available for works of maintenance and improvement to the park and its facilities and should not be restricted to pedestrian routes. It is anticipated that the priorities for expenditure

will be determined in the normal way by the Parks Department in consultation with the Hilly Fields User Group.

6.8 In terms of whether a payment is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development, it is difficult to place a value on the harm caused by the loss of the part of the park for recreational purposes for a further 18 months. The User Group and Brockley Society certainly see the main harm to the park arising from the rebuilding of the school as being the use of the park for the location of temporary classrooms and this would appear to be in accordance with Core Strategy Policy 12. Although the initial permission was for two years, the temporary buildings were not erected immediately on grant of planning permission and the site therefore remained in use as part of the park for a period of several months. The amenity groups have therefore argued that the Section 106 payment should be the same as that initially provided ie £10,000.00. In terms of the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD, the payment for parks and gardens for a residential development of 10 units or more, where this payment was considered necessary to mitigate the harm of the development in terms of its impact on existing POS, would be £550.66 per dwelling. For an office development, the payment for parks and gardens would be £134.85 per 10sqm of floor space. The gross internal floor area of the existing temporary class rooms is 358sqm which would equate to a payment of £4827.63. However, it could be argued that the area of the park lost to development would be a more appropriate measure than the actual floor area of the temporary buildings. As the site occupied by the buildings is 620sqm, this would increase the payment to £8,360.70. This is of course based on B1 office development rather than D1 school development, for which no example of calculating a financial contribution towards parks and gardens is provided in the SPD. As the impact of the school and its users on this particular park is likely to be higher than an office development in the local area, it can reasonably be argued that the previous figure would in this case be insufficient to achieve full mitigation.

6.9 Although the application is for the variation of a condition, this is a Section 73 application which will result in the issue of a new planning permission. Permission may therefore be granted subject to a Section 106 Agreement provided that this satisfies the tests set out in Section 122 of the CIL Regulations, . In view of the above considerations it is considered that a payment of £10,000.00 would provide appropriate mitigation for the harm resulting from the retention of the temporary buildings for a further 18 months. The Local Education Partnership (LEP) have confirmed they are prepared to make this contribution.

7.0 Consultations

7.1 The majority of the issues raised in objections to the proposal have been considered in the above report. In view of the fact that agreement between the applicant and the objectors appears to have been achieved on the issue of mitigation, it was agreed that the matter be reported to the planning Committee without the local meeting which would normally be triggered by an Amenity Society objection.

8.0 Conclusion

8.1 In view of the above considerations, the application is recommended for approval, subject to completion of a satisfactory Section 106 Agreement to secure payment of a sum of £10,000.00 for improvement works to the park and on the basis of the planning conditions previously applied.

9.0 Summary of Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission

9.1 On balance, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the Council’s Land Use and environmental criteria, and is in accordance with Policy 12 Open Space and Environmental Assets, Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham and Policy 16 Conservation areas, heritage assets, and the historic environment of the Council's adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Policies URB 12 Landscape and Development and URB 16 New development, Changes of Use and Alterations to Buildings in Conservation Areas in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).

9.2 It is considered that the proposal is appropriate in terms of its form and design and would not result in material harm to the appearance or character of the surrounding area, or the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal is thereby in accordance with Policy 12 Open Space and Environmental Assets, Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham and Policy 16 Conservation areas, heritage assets and the historic environment of the Council's adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Policies URB 12 Landscape and Development and URB 16 New development, Changes of Use and Alterations to Buildings in Conservation Areas in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).

10.0 RECOMMENDATION A:

10.1 Authorise officers to negotiate a Section 106 Agreement to secure payment of a sum of £10,000.00 for improvement/maintenance works to Hilly Fields Park.

11.0 RECOMMENDATION B:

11.1 Subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 Agreement, Authorise the Head of Planning to GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:-

(1) The building hereby permitted shall be removed, the use discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before 31 January 2014 in accordance with a scheme of work to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(2) All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved scheme of work for reinstatement of the site shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the removal of the building and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority has given written consent to any variation.

Reasons

(1) The proposed use and building is only acceptable in this location as a temporary expedient pending the completion of building works at the Hilly Fields and Adelaide Avenue sites of Prendergast School.

(2) In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal and to comply with Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Policies URB 3 Urban Design, URB 12 Landscape and Development and URB 13 Trees in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).