planning report PDU/1702/02a 13 May 2009 Bridge Road Recreation Ground, Wembley in the London Borough of Brent planning application no. 08/2842 Strategic planning application stage II referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 The proposal Erection of a new 1600-pupil academy comprising a 6-form of entry secondary school, a 2-form of entry primary school, nursery, associated recreational and sports provisions and car parking. The applicant The applicant is Mr John Christie on behalf of the Brent Council Department for Children and Families, and the architect is Studio E Architects Ltd. Strategic issues The need for education and community uses on this former private playing field has been justified in this location and these uses are due to be formalised through re-designation as part of the emerging local development framework. Further detail has been provided on the site selection process and the proposals have adequately demonstrated how they will mitigate the loss of open space on the site through improved sports facilities, community access and enhanced nature provision. The outstanding detailed issues relating to design, accessibility, transport, climate change, biodiversity and flooding set out in the Stage 1 report have been resolved and there are no sound planning grounds for refusal. Recommendation That Brent 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 2 December 2008 the Mayor of London received documents from Brent 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 Categories 3C and 3E of the Schedule to the Order 2008: ”Development which is likely to prejudice the use as a playing field of more than 2 hectares of land which—(a) is used as a playing field at the time the relevant application for planning permission is made; or (b) has at any time in the five years before the page 1 making of the application been used as a playing field” and “Development — (a) which does not accord with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the application site is situated; and (b) comprises or includes the provision of more than 2,500 square metres of floorspace for a use falling within any of the following classes in the Use Classes Order— (xi) class D1 (non-residential institutions).” 2 On 7 January 2009 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/1702/01, and subsequently advised Brent Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 70 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 72 of that 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 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 28 April 2009 Brent Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission and on 5 May 2009 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 18 May 2009 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 the Mayor was particularly concerned about the loss of open space and did not consider that a robust case had been made to allow its release. It was stressed that the applicant would need to provide a robust open space assessment, covering the justification for the loss of open space and impact on the open character in addition to setting out the education need including details of the selection process for this site. Brent Council was therefore advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan and identified that the following possible remedies could address these deficiencies: • Loss of playing fields/open space: Justification for the loss of open space/impact on the open character should be provided. The issues raised by Sport England in relation to the ongoing use of the playing fields should also be addressed. • Education and community facilities: A robust argument setting out educational need is required. The selection process for this site should also be clarified in detail. The terms of the wider community use should also be established and secured through a relevant planning condition or section 106 agreement (as requested by Sport England). • Biodiversity: The relevant planning conditions should be attached to the planning permission to ensure compliance. • Urban design: Further work on layout arrangements to the primary school entrance, creating an inclusive environment, quantity and location of cycle parking (see also TfL comments), and accurate images of the massing and perspectives of the proposals, is required in order for the proposals to be consistent with London Plan policy 4B.1 and 4B.5. • Access and equal opportunities: A full and detailed accessibility statement should be submitted to detail how the proposed academy will be designed to meet the needs of all future users. • Transport/parking: There are a number of issues which require further consideration in relation to the trip generation, bus layover stand, pedestrian environment and travel plans before the application is submitted back to the Mayor. page 2 • Climate change adaptation and mitigation: The energy strategy should be revisited to include provision for CHP and a checklist detailing how the application meets the Mayor’s preferred and essential standards as set out in the sustainable design and construction SPG should be submitted. Education need and site selection 7 At the consultation stage very little information was provided by the applicant to explain why the proposed site had been selected over other potential sites in the borough or on the educational need for a new academy in this location. 8 In response, Brent Council’s Children and Families Department has provided information on demand for school places in the borough, based on GLA population projection data. This information sets out that due to planned regeneration in the Wembley area, higher than expected birth rates and immigration to the borough, demand for school places has been increasing since 2006. Brent is currently suffering a shortage of school places with 44 children in the borough waiting for a primary school place, and 74 waiting for a secondary school place to become available. 9 To address this increasing demand and build in a 5% surplus, Brent Council has calculated (and these figures have been approved by an independent specialist for educational forecasts) that it will be necessary to provide an additional fifteen forms of entry for secondary schools and seven forms of entry for primary schools by 2016. Brent Council has explored various options to meet this demand and concluded that the most appropriate option will be to both expand existing schools and build a new academy. 10 There has been much local opposition to the location of a new school which will serve pupils from the south of the borough (mainly from Harlesden and Stonebridge). Further detail has now been provided on the geographic spread of pupil demand to justify the need for a school in this location. Although some of the arguments presented in the various papers about the demand for school places in the north of the borough from parents in the south seem to be slightly disingenuous due to the lack of schools in the south of the borough, the population and regeneration points that are made are valid. In particular, the proposed Ark Academy is located adjacent to the Tokyington ward, projected to experience the highest levels of growth in housing levels and pupil numbers in the 0 to 15 age group over the coming years. Brent Council does not expect the current economic climate to impact on the number of school places that will be required. Site selection 11 In addition, further information has been provided in relation to the site selection process. This information shows that a total of fifteen sites across the borough were initially considered using criteria such as site size, public transport accessibility, potential impact on neighbouring sites and minimal loss of open space. Deliverability of a new school by 2010 was also a key consideration, given the urgent need for schools places in the borough. This initial search included offices, industrial sites, public and private playing fields. 12 From this initial search four sites were chosen for further consideration. These were the Chalkhill Temporary Health Centre (Barnhill Road), Chalkhill Youth and Community Centre (Poplar Grove), Gwynnet Rickus Building,and Wembley Park (Bridge Road Recreation Ground). More detailed information has been provided on this part of the site selection process, which used the following criteria: • Size of the site to be appropriate for the size of the school. • Location in relation to need. page 3 • Readiness with which sites were available. • Financial, legal and property implications in opting for each site.