Agenda item

Deferred.

The proposal before Members was for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new primary school for 630 pupils aged 4-11. The existing building was the original Nurses and Doctors accommodation for the former Oldchurch Hospital and was identified as a Locally Listed Building and was therefore a heritage asset.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant’s representative.

The objector advised that he was speaking on behalf of the Romford Civic Society. The objector queried as to why the proposal did not consider adapting or renovating the existing building. The objector also commented that other heritage assets had been converted and that felt the existing building should be retained to provide a tangible link to the social history of the site.

In response the applicant’s representative commented that the proposed school was to be built in a good location that would prove popular with local residents. The representative also commented that Government regulations meant that new schools had to be built with specific guidelines regarding classroom sizes and this meant that converting the existing building would not be possible, as had been confirmed by the architects, as it was not large enough to meet these requirements. The representative concluded by advising that the proposal had been presented to the Mayor of London who had been in favour of the proposed scheme.

During the debate Members discussed why there was a conservation order on the property if it was going to eventually be demolished.

Members also discussed the lack of parking provision for staff members and the lack of a drop off facility for parents dropping off and collecting children from the school. The report showed that the applicants were happy with the parking provision but the Council’s Highways officers had registered their concerns.

The report highlighted that the applicants were looking for a vehicle free zone around the school for parents and that alternative means of transport and pedestrian only access would be encouraged, however Members agreed that no plan to control parent’s parking would be workable or enforceable.

The report also showed that the cycle storage facility proposed was below that recommended for such schemes and that Union Road was only 5 metres wide and there was no provision of a drop off and pick up facility and therefore the proposal failed to meet the requirements of LDF Policy DC33.

Members recognised the wider need for school places in the borough and felt that this needed to be balanced against the lack of provision that was contained within the report.

Members also raised concerns as to the level of open space and exercise facility provision in the report and asked that this provision be clarified with the applicants.

Member’s views were split on the design of the proposed building but the consensus was that it was the right building but perhaps in the wrong location and if the proposal was to go ahead then the issues of parking provision and drop off and pick up facilities needed to be addressed without impacting on the playground and open space provision that was outlined in the report.

The report recommended that planning permission be granted however following a motion to defer the consideration of the report it was RESOLVED that consideration of the report be deferred to allow the applicant to:

·         Increase amount of on-site parking especially for teaching staff.

·         Introduce a drop off facility for parents within Union Road.

·         Clarify how/where pupils would exercise/play sport and method of transit there to if needed.

·         As appropriate, clarify DFE and any other design constraints informing the options and chosen solution.