Agenda item

Change of use of 2 dwellings (Use Class C3) to a building for the provision of education (Use Class F1a).

Before the commencement of this item, Councillor Choubedar joined the meeting.

It was brought to the attention of the Committee that the new London Plan 2021 had been adopted on Tuesday 2 March; as such, the policies set out in the agenda papers related to the 2016 London Plan, which was in force at the time of agenda publication. Members were informed that the London Plan policies listed in the meeting’s reports may have been superseded by policies outlined in the newly adopted London Plan 2021. Officers requested Members’ permission to substitute in the new London Plan policies, should an appeal be received in relation to any of the items on the meeting’s agenda; this was granted. It was agreed that officers would indicate to the Committee during each item, which London Plan policies were pertinent to the application and if there were any changes of note from the 2016 and 2021 London Plan policies in question.

Officers introduced the application noting that a long standing fundamental policy of the Council was the retention of residential properties and that there were very few occasions where the loss of residential properties would be permitted; this was highlighted as a primary reason for refusal being recommended. Occasions whereby a loss of residential property would be permitted, usually pertains to a property considered to be unfit for purpose; in this instance, officers deemed that not to be the case particularly when there is a shortage of residential properties in the Borough and across London.

Further reasons for the recommended refusal of the application applied to an increase in general noise and disturbance to nearby residential properties, and a failure to provide sufficient on-plot parking which had prompted objections from Highways officers.

A petition in objection to the application had been received and written representations from the lead petitioner were read out for the consideration of the Committee. It was also noted that Councillor Ray Graham, Ward Councillor for Uxbridge North had given his express support for the petitioners of this item. Key points raised included:

• Petitioners stated that the proposed development would lead to an increase in the movement of traffic along Dowding Road;
• That safety and security could be compromised as a result of the properties’ use as an independent school for up to 20 children aged 11–17 years with behaviour disorders. There were concerns of individuals attempting to access the neighbouring garden over a small wooden fence;
• There were concerns surrounding the intrusion of privacy. There were windows of 26-28 Dowding Road that overlooked the lead petitioner’s property and vice-versa;
• The increased movement of through traffic and the intended use of the site as an independent school would cause more noise to emanate from the site leading to disturbance to neighbouring residents.

The applicant had also submitted written representations addressing the primary concerns of officers and petitioners, these were read out for the consideration of the Committee. Key points raised included:

• The applicant stressed that the property would not become available for local residents as it was a Ministry of Defence (MOD) property that was not available for general sale or rent;
• The property had been unoccupied for the past 20 years and was falling into disrepair. There were issues with damp and drainage requiring significant works which would be done by the applicant improving the street scene and preventing further degeneration;
• Regarding an increase in noise and disturbance, the applicant highlighted that students of the school would be unable to attend mainstream schools due to being anxious and withdrawn. Many students were elective mute and it was noted that the students would be notably quieter than most;
• All independent schools of this type were in residential properties as it was deemed necessary for the therapeutic approach adopted by the schools. Of the five existing centres in residential properties existing for 25 years, there had been no complaints made by neighbouring residents with regard to noise and disturbance;
• It was noted that the applicant would accept a condition proposing a reduction in student numbers with a resultant reduction in staffing;
• The school would not be offering staff parking as they would be committed to environmentally friendly travel, most staff would use public transport or active transport;
• The on-street de-restricted parking was largely vacant during the daytime as the neighbouring residential properties were occupied exclusively by military families leaving for work during the daytime;
• The site would be accessible using a modular disabled access ramp to the rear of the property. This was not included in the site plans due to the ramp being modular in nature.

Members were informed that London Plan (2016) policy 3.14 on ‘Existing Housing’ was pertinent to this application. It was noted that there had been no significant changes to this policy in the newly adopted London Plan (2021).

Before the debate on this application, Councillor Ahmad-Wallana confirmed that he did not see the officer’s presentation. Councillor Ahamad-Wallana was advised not to vote on the item as he had not seen all of the relevant information needed to make a valid determination.

Members noted the four strong reasons for refusal given in the officer’s report and concurred with the potential issues of noise and disturbance. It was further noted that, from a planning perspective, the property was deemed residential housing and it would be unacceptable in this instance to approve the loss of residential housing in the Borough.

Committee Members were sympathetic towards the applicants as the intended service they would be providing from the property was seen as commendable and challenging work, demand for which could grow as an outcome of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, Members emphasised that the property in question was simply not in the right location for use in the provision of education; further noting that, even though the intended students may be quieter than most, this wouldn’t stop the site being used in future for different schooling purposes for potentially more disruptive student cohorts.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed. Councillor Ahmad-Wallana did not participate in the vote.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.