Agenda item

PLANNING APPLICATION (16/03145/OUT) - SOUTH SUBURBAN CO OP SOCIETY, BALMORAL AVENUE, BECKENHAM BR3 3RD

Minutes:

Description of application – Outline application for the erection of 2 buildings of two to three storeys comprising 13,508 square metres (Gross External Area) of Class D1 floorspace to provide an 8 form entry plus 6th form school (up to 1,680 pupils) and sports hall, 17,200 square metres for playing fields, 2,190 square metres Multi Use Games Area with community use and associated development including car parking spaces, cycle parking spaces, floodlighting, new pedestrian and vehicular accesses, servicing and storage.  (AMENDED PLANS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION).

 

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Mr Stuart Argent on behalf of the Balmoral Residents’ Group.

 

Mr Argent reported that for many years, the site had been used for leisure activities and was a refuge for thriving wildlife.  The applicant had made no effort to contact residents directly on a one-to-one basis especially those whose properties bordered or faced the site.  This showed considerable lack of respect for residents’ views and concerns.  The site and surrounding infrastructure was not able to cope with a development of this size. Residents’ concerns included:-

 

-  unacceptable disruption and noise generated by the development;

-  noise, congestion and litter generated as a result of 600 pupils walking past residents’ properties;

-  additional noise and disruption relating to the evening and weekend community use;

-  the main traffic congestion route was 2mtrs from residents’ properties resulting in overlooking and loss of privacy;

-  properties in neighbouring roads would also be overlooked by the development and be exposed to noise and light pollution particularly with the extended use of the multi-use games areas which should be time restricted, especially at evenings and weekends;

-  Balmoral Avenue was a small quiet, narrow residential road on which residents parked their vehicles; this reduced the width of the road to a single carriageway.  It was further compounded by the use of large vehicles such as delivery lorries and refuge collections which blocked the road.

-  increased noise, vibration and pollution from buses, coaches and delivery lorries servicing the school.  This would be particularly evident to property No. 45 where the only access road was situated just metres from its boundary.

-  the number of pupils and staff arriving by car would lead to Balmoral Avenue being subject to an additional 300 vehicles twice per day.

-  the drop-off point on site would cause further congestion in local roads, especially in Upper Elmers Road and Eden Park Avenue.

-  the development would add severe congestion to Balmoral Avenue and would bring the road and both main arteries to Eden Park Avenue and Upper Elmers End Road to gridlock which would have a knock-on effect to Croydon Road, Elmer’s End Green and Goddard Road. 

-  as a result of a public consultation exercise, the Committee voted to remove the allocation of secondary education at the site and agreed that it be removed from the draft Local Plan as a site for educational use.

-  as the site was designated Urban Open Space, the Council’s own Policy G8 should prevent this type of development from being built.

-  the development would be built on an area classed as a Flood Risk Zone 2 and 3.  Although plans to prevent the development from flooding had been incorporated, residents had not received reassurance that their properties would be protected against flooding.

-  the proposed conditions at the end of the officer’s report did not go far enough to protect residents from potential changes to the operational site.  More specific and detailed conditions would be expected should the application be granted.

 

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Paul Murphy, Head Teacher, Ravensbourne School.

 

Mr Murphy reported that Eden Park High School was a Free School approved by the Secretary of State for Education.  To date 8 public meetings had been held together with many other consultation events.  On Friday 20 January permission was granted for the temporary site at the Ravensbourne School.  The key part of the reason to establish Eden Park High was education need.  34 extra FE were required by 2020 equating to three additional schools and 17 extra FE were needed by 2018 equating to two extra schools in 18 months.  Mr Murphy referred to a paragraph in the planning report which stated that Eden Park High had extensive support from the Bromley community.  A Section 10 consultation was undertaken with all schools in a 2½ mile radius together with local businesses, local residents and local community groups.  86% of respondents were in favour of establishing Eden Park High.  No schools, local businesses or community group objected to another school being located in the area.  The views of local residents who did not want the school to open were taken very seriously.  The application represented transformation of a derelict, disused resource to a productive resource for children and adults.  There would be over £25 million inward investment to Bromley at no cost to Bromley with new jobs being created.  There would be state of the art resources for the local community as well as students.  Eden Park would offer a unique new education provision which would massively increase the choices and diversity available to parents.

 

In response to Member questions, Mr Murphy stated that students would begin classes at 8.30 am and finish at 5.30 pm; 6th form pupils would finish at an earlier time.  In the original submission, the development was designated as a 6 FE however the DfE requested it be increased to an 8 FE as they preferred to authorise larger schools because as children move through the school, the educational flexibility to provide a full range of courses and the income generated by the higher numbers would improve the education offered to students.  Everything possible would be done within the admissions code to ensure the main beneficiaries would be local Bromley children and not those living outside of the Borough.  Initial talks were underway with local primary schools who may decide to have feeder school status which would give priority to students in those schools on admission to secondary schools.  Mr Murphy confirmed the calculation of spaces for 5 cars on site and a 20-30 second stop time, between 150-225 drop-offs could be made in a 15 minute interval was indeed a realistic one.  No problem was perceived in terms of collection times as most secondary school children preferred to make their own way home. 

 

In the initial bid, the figures for educational need in the Borough were examined.  Since then, the situation had changed and in discussion with the DfE, 8 FE appeared to make more sense as it would improve what could be offered to students in terms of curriculum especially as they move on to Key Stage 4 for 14-16 year olds onto post-16.  8 FE was the optimum size at secondary school level and 3 FE the maximum for primary schools.  This year the radius for admission to Eden Park had decreased with slightly less applications being received than the previous year when the school had deferred opening and had a radius of 1.2 miles.  Most students arrived at Ravensbourne between 8 and 8.15 am and a similar pattern was expected at Eden Park High. 

 

It was anticipated that the temporary site at Ravensbourne would open in September with 180 pupils (6FE) who would then be on site at Balmoral two years later.  The necessary works would be conducted throughout May to July.  It was hoped that the Eden Park site would open approximately 2 years later. 

 

Earlier versions of the plan had changed to accommodate the needs of local residents in terms of ingress and egress to the site, boundary lines and landscaping etc.  It was anticipated that links would be built with the rugby club by allowing them to use the school car park at weekends when the school was not in use.  Mr Murphy confirmed there was no intention to return to Committee at a later date with applications for the installation of floodlights etc. 

 

Ravensbourne was a gold accredited Travel Plan school.  The Principal Designate for Eden Park operated the Travel Plan at Ravensbourne and in the interim would do the same for Eden Park.  The applicant would ensure that all targets were met and would go to any length to ensure that sustainable travel was facilitated and would seek out-of-hours users’ commitments to those principles and values.

 

It was anticipated that approximately 75-80% of Eden Park High students would come from the Beckenham Constituency.  Parents in central Bromley had showed a very strong interest.

 

The Development Control Manager reported additional representations both in objection and in support of the application had been received, raising the following concerns:-

 

-  the vehicle access being too close to the boundary of No. 45 Balmoral Avenue;

-  whether there was a need for additional playing fields and the resulting evening noise that would be harmful to residents’ amenities;

-  late posting of documents on the websites and new documents received before the Committee meeting.  (The additional documents did not contain information to lessen the impact of the development);

-  a mobile phone mast constructed about 200m from the school and the health issues this might raise;

-  the turning into Balmoral Avenue which could add to the congestion at the junction of Balmoral Avenue and Upper Elmers End Road.  The junctions nearby which were already over capacity should have improvements made to them;

-  no confidence that the Travel Plan would reduce car-borne journeys;

-  travel surveys submitted should include the Langley schools;

-  the community use would lead to traffic issues at evenings and weekends when residents had the right to enjoy quiet time in their homes;

-  the increase in pollution from car emissions;

-  the catchment area was very wide so more children than usual would travel by car.

 

If Members were minded to grant permission, the Greater London Authority had requested a condition requiring the full submission of an access strategy to ensure the development achieved the highest standards of inclusive access to all potential users.

 

The Chief Planner reported a supplementary information update had been published on the website and circulated to Members.  This dealt with an update on the Draft Local Plan.  The recommendation set out in the report however, remained the same.

 

Oral representations from the Portfolio Holder for Education, Councillor Peter Fortune, in support of the application were received at the meeting.  Councillor Fortune considered that previously when schools were under local authority control, the Council as a Local Education Authority, would balance all views and suggest a suitable way forward.  The Council would suggest sites and push the planning process through however, a fundamental shift in the educational landscape had altered that option.  All too often colleagues asked why the Bromley Education Department placed schools where they did or why, when another solution was so apparently obvious, it had decided not to do something else.  It was important for the Committee to realise that the Local Authority was not the applicant in school construction applications.  The applicant was the individual Trust with the support of the EFA.  This was important because if colleagues were minded to offer up suggestions for alternative sites, it must be realised that the Council did not control where autonomous Trusts may wish to locate.  This was a Government policy and one that the London Borough of Bromley had vigorously supported over the last few years.  Members of the Committee should appreciate the context of the application.

 

Councillor Fortune referred to the Council’s statutory responsibility as defined by Section 14 of the Education Act 1996.  It was the Council’s statutory function to ensure there were suitable places available.  Whilst it was the Council’s intention that these places be filled by Bromley children, it must be recognised that at secondary age, there were significant flows of children across the Borough boundaries who also had a right to a place under schools’ own admission policies.  Furthermore, the Council had no legal ability (due to the Greenwich and Rotherham decisions), to prevent out-of-borough children applying for places at Bromley schools or to reserve places at Bromley schools for children who live in the Borough or in certain communities.  Due to these judgements, account must be taken of the existence of cross-borough movements as part of the place planning function in order to effectively deliver the Council’s statutory duty to provide sufficient places.  Members should have a deeper and greater understanding of what the need for school places was rather than base it on emotive anecdotal evidence from either side.  The Authority was provided with GLA figures however, in order to acquire its own information, a consultant was hired to go further and deeper into the data provided.  This resulted in Ward specific data which every Member was provided with.  Each Member of the Committee was given the opportunity to meet with Councillor Fortune, with the Executive Assistant Councillor Philpott and the placement planning officer, Rob Bollen to discuss this data which was clearer than anything previously provided.  The Department had been more open and provided more information than it had ever been asked to do previously.  The resulting Ward data gave a clear picture of primary school need and had been used to counter planning applications from primary academies.  The Authority remained committed to providing that open information. 

 

Primary schools operated on a more localised ward level where secondary schools did not.  They worked as one whole planning area across the Borough.  As part of the Council’s statutory role, the Council must provide secondary school places for all pupils across the whole of the London Borough of Bromley and not necessarily in a specific ward or location.  Secondary school places required in Year 7 were measured and the Council  was legally obliged to ensure that they were met.  As was clear in the data provided, the need for secondary school Year 7 places over the next few years at the current rate of expansion from the figures was projected as:-

 

8 FE down in 2017;

14 FE down in 2018;

10 FE down in 2019;

18 FE down in 2020; and

19 FE down in 2021.

 

It was the Council’s legal responsibility to ensure that the Borough’s children received the education that was fundamental to their future.  Over the years children had been squashed into bulge classes and temporary accommodation.  This sub-standard educational provision damaged the children’s education and was extremely costly to the Authority.  Whilst the cost of bulge classes varied, at an average cost of £200k per bulge class, this was clearly not a sensible solution.  The ‘Doomsday’ scenario of doing nothing would result in colleagues explaining to residents why their children were being directed to schools outside of the Borough and this would be dependent on vacancies in schools in Croydon and Lewisham and indeed their capacity to educate Bromley children.  There  would  be spiralling costs of mobile units on fields as with a recent example due to rejection of a recent secondary application of a £½m bill for the implementation and a unique and catastrophic failure in the Authority’s fundamental and legal responsibility to the children of Bromley.

 

The Chairman and Ward Member for Kelsey and Eden Park acknowledged that the London Borough of Bromley was in need of school places to meet its statutory needs.  However, as Cllr Fortune pointed out, he had spoken to individual Councillors who had approached him and highlighted the need for school places in their individual wards.  It was concluded that Kelsey and Eden Park Ward was adequately covered for local students so there was no need for a further school in that area.  The site in Balmoral Avenue had not been designated land for educational use in the draft Local Plan.  Whilst there was a responsibility to the parents of children to provide them with school places, there was also a responsibility to local residents, their standards of living and enjoyment of life.  Balmoral Avenue was a narrow road which opened out onto Upper Elmers End Road.  Other roads impacted by traffic on Balmoral Road would include Shirley Crescent and Goddard Road and ultimately down to the main roundabout at Elmers End.  Recent statistics showed that in the last three years 26 motoring accidents occurred on or around the junction with Balmoral Avenue and Upper Elmers End Road.  How much worse this would be if there was extra traffic from the parents of 1600 pupils. The Harris Beckenham Academy with just 400 new pupils was not yet full however parking along Manor Way was out of control during main rush hours (between 7.30 and 9.00 am and in the afternoon) and it was difficult to get up and down the road.  Manor Way was a long straight wide road whereas Balmoral Avenue was a narrow road and unable to take free-flowing traffic due to parked cars.  At school times the Upper Elmers End Road, Shirley Crescent, Goddard Road and Balmoral Avenue itself were all gridlocked.  Another 8FE school with 1600 extra pupils would make Elmers End an ‘unable to get to’ area. 

 

The Chairman wanted consideration to be given in the first instance to existing residents.  The Education Department needed to work harder to find necessary sites to open schools in areas where they were actually required.

 

The Chairman urged Members to vote against the application, and moved that the application be refused on traffic grounds.

 

Councillor Fawthrop referred to a potential pedestrian impact.  Even if all pupils walked to school, those crossing roads, walking down streets, taking trains and buses, would have an impact on traffic and on the locality. It was a shame that organisations who wanted to build schools did not look at the Council’s Plans and work with the Authority and community as a whole to put those places where the Council wanted them and where they would have a positive impact.  Councillor Fawthrop seconded the motion for refusal.  If however, the application was granted permission, a condition relating to the removal of permitted development rights should be added together with a slab level condition in terms of the school building itself.

 

Councillor Arthur acknowledged the need for extra school places across the Borough.  Most schools capable of expansion had already done so.  It was now necessary for new schools to be built within the next 2-3 years.  This site was large and available and had ministerial approval.  Councillor Arthur was particularly pleased with the involvement of Ravensbourne School which held a good track record.  Wherever a school was built within the Borough, there would be traffic implications and it was a question of how these were addressed.  It was clear in this case that the applicants had done as much as possible to mitigate the problems that traffic would cause in the area.  This was a creative proposal and the applicant recognised the concerns of local people.  One of the prime ways of putting residents first was to ensure their children had a decent start in life and had a decent education.  In this regard, Councillor Arthur supported the recommendation for approval.

 

Councillor Reddin commended the report writer for producing a fair and well-written report which set out the issues very clearly.  The only site this side of the Borough to be allocated was at Kentwood which Councillor Reddin considered to be too small.  A modern secondary school had to be at least 6 or 8 FE to be financially and educationally viable and secure.  A school at this location would assist the wider west of the Borough and take pressure away from the remaining schools.  A catchment area of 1m radius was not particularly large for a secondary school and there would be a danger in various parts of the Borough, particularly in the west and the north west, where parents could not get children into any of their first or second choice schools and may find themselves travelling to Orpington.  As a journey every morning and afternoon for a child’s education that was not suitable. 

 

In policy terms, there was an impact on open space.  There would never be a zero impact with this sort of development however, Councillor Reddin was impressed with the efforts the applicant had gone to in siting the building over to the eastern and south eastern corner of the site, far away from residential properties and leaving as much of the site open as possible.

 

A school had never been built or expanded without highways issues however, secondary schools did have less of an impact than primary schools simply because secondary pupils were more likely to make their own way to and from school.  The junction at Upper Elmers End and Croydon Road was in need of engineering works regardless of whether or not the school was built.  The applicants had gone some way to alleviate problems by proposing the one-way egress onto Balmoral Avenue.  TfL had confirmed the bus network could accommodate the extra capacity.  In conclusion, Councillor Reddin moved that the application be granted.

 

Councillor Bennett seconded the motion for approval.  He stated the Council had a legal duty to ensure children were educated within the Borough.  There were 15 comprehensive schools across 22 wards however the catchment areas of schools was shrinking.  29% of schoolchildren in West Wickham had to leave the Borough due to them living between the catchment areas for Hayes and Langley Park Schools.  Whilst West Wickham were keen to have a secondary school, there was no site available.  There was a clear need for additional school places.  Councillor Bennett drew Members’ attention to a letter circulated to Members dated 4 January from the Education Funding Agency which stated that the omission of the Balmoral Avenue site to meet secondary need within the emerging Plan was not justified.  Further EFA comment on this was provided in the letter under the heading ‘Site allocations’.  The EFA therefore requested that the Balmoral site be reintroduced as a site for the allocation of education use within the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan.  The Department of Education was very clear that leaving it out of the Local Plan was an error.  The Council had recently failed two OFSTEDs so with two applications before Committee and with a clear need to provide secondary places by 2018, if this application was refused, the Council would be in danger of having a Direction from the Secretary of State that the Council was failing in its duty.  The EFA worked with the Council and had identified sites.  The next application to come forward would be 1 Westmoreland Road, a 10 storey building catering for 11-18 year pupils.  By 2022 another 34 FE would be needed for Year 7 places.  So even with 1 Westmoreland Road and some additional classes in secondary schools there would still be a deficit.  A meeting was due to take place with the Roman Archbishop of Southwark to discuss a Catholic secondary school for the Borough which would help to relieve the pressure. 

 

Councillor Bennett stated that all school planning applications were opposed on traffic grounds.  In reality this was only a problem for  30 minutes in the morning and afternoon.  This site would provide a good secondary school run by an organisation that had a proven track record with its existing schools and would provide much needed extra places for Bromley’s children.  Councillor Bennett supported the motion for approval.

 

Councillor Brooks agreed there were always traffic and highways issues with school applications and if this was deemed to be the Committee’s reason for refusal, schools would not be built and the Council would not be able to meet its statutory duty.  It was likely that the majority of children within the 1m admission radius would walk to school.  The school would benefit from good transport links in the area. 

 

Councillor Allen reported that allocated school sites were at the mercy of developers who may not come forward with proposals.  As this particular site was supported by the EFA and a developer was ready to commence, Councillor Allen supported approval.

 

The first motion for refusal fell at 4-14.

 

Following a vote on the second motion to approve the application (14-3), Members RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT (relating to £20,000 for a future traffic management scheme if required, other highways works as may be required and a Travel Plan) AND REFERRAL TO THE MAYOR OF LONDON as recommended, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner. 

 

It was clarified that conditions relating to the removal of permitted development rights and slab levels were already included in the report of the Chief Planner.  A condition in relation to a full access strategy was also added, as originally suggested by the GLA.

Supporting documents: