Agenda item

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director

The Committee considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer in relation to the construction of a school, nursery, school hall, work space and 66 social housing units.  The Chief Planning Officer presented the report and design issues were presented by the Assistant Director (Design).   The City Solicitor drew Members’ attention to the approach to be adopted in considering a cross-boundary planning application.

The Chairman advised that a number of Planning Committee Members had visited the site.

Two residents spoke in objection, drawing Members’ attention to 1500 signatures opposing the development for being too large, of poor design and minimal standards.  They felt that consultation had been inadequate, with minimal adjustments as a result.  As Golden Lane already had a community centre, some residents felt it did not need another.  They urged Members to consider the welfare of residents affected by deliveries and servicing, and the noise from the new playground, and challenged whether the noise assessments had been accurate. They had further concerns about fire risk implications associated with the development of such a high tower block.  Both objectors felt that there were other options possible for providing these facilities, with a more sympathetic design and without adversely affecting Golden Lane residents. 

Three supporters spoke in support of the application which would relieve the considerable financial burden of private nursery fees, enable a well-regarded school to occupy the site, provide much needed social housing and regenerate the area.  They were concerned that any delay to the start of the scheme might risk the school having to move to another temporary site, unsettling the pupils, and to the detriment of their education. 

Gerald Mehrtens - Director of Academy Development, City of London Corporation (applicant) advised Members that pupil demand predictions, as required by the Department for Education, were rising.   The timescale for opening the school was still set for September 2019 and design was in accordance with DoE standards, which included disabled access. COLPAI is a very high achieving school and will improve social mobility in the local community.

Anne Holmes, Chairman of COLPAI, reminded Members that low paid workers service the needs of the City and City residents and hence the need for local, social housing.  Ms Holmes suggested that, in dense urban settings, some benefits might need to yield to others and planning authorities need to strike a balance in reaching decisions. 

Members asked a number of questions in respect of the mitigations offered and noted that matters reserved by Conditions would need to be addressed satisfactorily. The Chief Planning Officer advised that arrangements for the residential refuse store were not untypical in this type of development. Members noted that there would be some noticeable loss of daylight; affecting kitchens, bedrooms and bathrooms but not living rooms in adjoining residential units. The Environmental Health Officer confirmed that sound assessments were not unreasonable.

The District Surveyors had held discussions with the London Fire Brigade and were aware of the RIBA suggestion of further regulations, post Grenfell.  Members also noted that some measures could be more effective than 2 escape staircases to improve safety in tower blocks.

The debate ensued with many Members speaking in support of the application and a few against.  Some Members questioned the need for urgency and whether further work would achieve an alternative higher quality scheme, with less impact on residents.   Members noted that not all development plan policies were complied with but the recommendation before them accorded with the City Corporation’s Local Plan and the London Plan when considered as a whole. Whilst accepting the concerns of residents, Members felt that the conditions and proposed obligations sought to address them.  Having very carefully scrutinised the application, and in reaching their decision, Members recognised the need to balance the public benefits in delivering a local school and social housing against the dis-benefits including the acknowledged harm to residential amenity and to the significance of heritage assets

Arising from the discussion, the application was then put to the vote with 20 voting for, 3 voting against and 1 abstention. 

RESOLVED – that,

A.         Planning permission be GRANTED for the above proposal, subject to:

i)          The imposition of the Conditions set out in the Schedule appended to this report.

ii)         Any direction by the Mayor of London to refuse the application or call it in for his own determination.

iii)        A planning obligation being entered to secure the matters set out in the Heads of Terms in paragraph 245.

B.         Authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to agree the terms of the planning obligation, to make any necessary minor changes to the conditions she deems appropriate, whether by addition, deletion or amendment, to draw up a statement of reasons for granting planning permission, and to issue the decision notice.