Agenda item

The erection of a 4-storey block to accommodate a new science and sixth form centre, and the re-surfacing of the play space fronting Vincent House to facilitate car parking with associated works

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.

The erection of a 4-storey block to accommodate a new science and sixth form centre, and the re-surfacing of the play space fronting Vincent House to facilitate car parking with associated works.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for refusal.

A petitioner spoke in support of the application and informed the Committee that the school had been established for 126 years. In summary, the petitioner cited that 89 % of 850 pupils lived in Hillingdon and were residents. Full consultation with neighbours and parents was undertaken prior to submitting the application, in addition to engagement with the Council’s planning department. The pre application process started in October 2017, and the school had responded to numerous comments and feedback received. The final design of the building was not what the school had originally hoped for and all non-essential elements had been cut back. The new building would have a high quality design which would be sympathetic to existing buildings, and in keeping with its surroundings. The design would complement the campus feeling and landscape improvements had been proposed. It was submitted that the school strived to create sustainable transport initiatives, and the school would not be trying to increase pupil numbers with the new science buildings. The main purpose of the development was to provide the best education for pupils, enabling a wider syllabus. It was further submitted that the school had deep roots in the community and the school had partnerships with other local schools. The development was needed to thrive and to also survive as without the development the school would be unable to provide the best curriculum. For the reasons stated, the petitioner commended the planning application.

Councillor Scott Seaman - Digby, Ward Councillor for Northwood, addressed the Committee and told Members that there was always some form of engagement with the school ranging from fairs to other community events. Cllr Seaman- Digby submitted that there were thin grounds for refusal as the reasons were ambiguous based on the belief that it would cause harm. Cllr Seaman – Digby further submitted that the development would not over dominate the scene and the typography meant that it would be set back. Northwood was a diverse community and the school took pressure away from local schools. He urged the Committee to approve the application given the provision of transport, landscaping and highlighted that the concerns raised could be overcome by conditions. Cllr Seaman-Digby had received statements form 300 people in support of the application along with the Residents Association. Overall, Councillor Seaman – Digby asked the Committee to approve the application.

The Chairman read an email on behalf of Cllr Richard Lewis, Ward Councillor which stated:

The development is very sympathetic to the area in Maxwell Road, and is badly needed to improve the further development in the facilities, Educational and Science studies needed at the College since the merging with Heathfield School.

The College has been improving its buildings and facilities over the last years and has always been very aware of the conservation of its environment.

They have made a number of changes to try and address the Officers concerns and I don’t feel that it is now totally out of context with the surrounding area. It is certainly nicer than the flats on the other side of Maxwell Road.

I am aware of this being a Conservation area, but Conservation does not mean no changes but attempting to make the best efforts to ensure that the area is not spoilt, there have been many changes in Northwood over the years, but it still has a reasonably village feel.

Having read the comprehensive report from HM Heritage I feel very comfortable with this development and would ask the Committee to approve the plans.

Members questioned how much taller the building would be in comparison to locally listed buildings. It was confirmed that it would be taller by at least a storey and a half higher.

Members acknowledged the community work undertaken by the school and noted the significance the development would have on the long term future of the school. Members also recognised that it was difficult to complement 50’s buildings with modern day building designs.

Members appreciated officer concerns that the development jarred with the conservation area. However, it was noted that officers had made a conclusion that there was a less than substantial harm on the conservation area.

Members discussed the location and nature of the buildings in the surrounding areas and some Members considered that the design of the development made no attempt to accommodate surrounding buildings. Concerns were raised about over dominance and chasing the whole nature of the local area.

The Head of Planning informed the Committee that the scheme could be improved and further work could be done with the applicant’s architect. There were concerns with the scale and massing and this was not helped by the design of the building.

Members considered that a site visit would provide further clarity about the application and help provide a better understanding of the site. It may also provide an opportunity to address specific concerns. 

The Committee moved a motion to defer the application to allow a Member site visit. The motion was seconded, and upon being put to a vote, there were six votes in favour and one abstention.

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred for a Members’ site visit.