My Planning Objection for Pavilion Way
Here is my planning objection in full. We need to prevent building on the sport field along Pavilion Way:
Objection to planning application ref 15/02616/FUL
Land at Pavilion Way , Burnt Oak, Edgware HA8 9YA
Request to speak at Planning Committee
I wish to object to this planning application and to speak to my objections at the Planning Committee.
Background
I object to this application as a local resident in Pavilion Way and as London Assembly member.
The land to which the application applies is part of a larger site, which also comprises a full size football pitch.
The total site was transferred to the Council as part of an overall agreement to develop the homes on what is now the Pavilion Way estate. The football pitch pavilion and all weather sports area, including this part of the site, was subject to a covenant which stated that the pitch and pavilion should be used for sports for local people.
The Council issued a notice on 19/3/15, referring to the site as ‘former sports facility’ and its intention to appropriate the land ‘for planning purposes’. The site is not ‘former’ but still in substantial use. Local young people cleared the land themselves to train for and play football, after the Council deliberately let the land fall into neglect.
The local community also worked with sports bodies to develop an outline plan to bring the facility into full repair. The plan showed they needed a sufficiently long lease to secure the investment which was potentially available , but the Council refused to grant this lease, thereby denying the community access to this funding.
A year ago, the Council then attempted to plan a scheme to build a free school and a block of flats on the whole site, but that fell through due to the EFA withdrawing support for the free school.
Although this application refers to only part of the site, it is clearly a ‘Trojan Horse’ for the whole site. The applicant for a portacabin school on the all weather surface is inevitably a precursor for an application for development on the grassed football pitch too, presumably for a permanent school structure and possibly also for flats as the Council originally intended and as set out in the report to the Assets Regeneration and Growth Committee on 1st June, which report did not fairly represent local objections to the scheme and the removal of the covenant.
The sports facilities which will be lost are badly needed. This is the only full size pitch and all weather surface in this area of significant deprivation.
School places
Whilst the application refers to the need for school places, para 2.6 of the planning statement states that the growth areas are in Grahame Park/ Colindale and West Hendon, not Burnt Oak.
The proposed school is beyond a child’s walking distance from both these growth areas. The proposed school is therefore in the wrong location for the expected population growth. It would make more sense for this school to be provided on land in the regeneration scheme for Grahame Park, the developments in Colindale or in West Hendon.
Poor access and traffic congestion
Barnet’s Core Strategy ( para DM013(b)) states that there should be no significant impact on the free flow of traffic and on road safety ( see below) as a consequence of a planning application.
Access to the site is going to be through the existing entrance on Pavilion Way.
At peak hours, which coincide with school hours, Deansbrook Road is heavily congested, with tailbacks from the A5 junction as far back as the Deansbrook/Orange Hill roundabout, and tailbacks from the roundabout as far as the Pavilion Way junction too.
This congestion makes it difficult to emerge from Pavilion Way onto Deansbrook Road at peak hours; and also relies on other vehicles giving way to allow access to Pavilion Way for eastbound vehicles. This will also contribute to congestion as extra backed up right turn school traffic into Pavilion Way will extend the existing tailbacks.
As the application states the growth in school places demand is in Colindale and West Hendon, it is therefore inevitable that there will be a significant increase in vehicular traffic bringing children to school on both Deansbrook Road and the other roads in the local road network, with consequent increased congestion, including on Pavilion Way itself. ‘Drop off’ traffic will lead to Pavilion Way being blocked, as the road is a narrow one with no space for stopping traffic without holding up traffic flows. This additional traffic will also add to congestion for vehicles existing Pavilion Way at peak times, which is already difficult, as described above.
This will only get worse as the school expands to its full intake across the year groups.
The application is therefore in breach of this element of Barnet’s Core Strategy
Road safety hazards
The additional traffic will increase road safety issues on the local road network.
Moreover, Pavilion Way does not have a footpath on the west side of the road, the side bordering the site, but only on the eastern side. Children will need to cross the road to access the school on what is a partially blind corner for traffic travelling north on Pavilion Way and are thus at increased risk.
The application is therefore in breach of this element of Barnet’s Core Strategy.
Insufficient parking
6 parking spaces, including 2 reserved for disabled spaces, are insufficient for the school. The Council should learn the lessons of Millbrook Park where the parking spaces there, more than proposed here, has clearly been shown to be insufficient.
There is already pressure on road space parking and Pavilion Way will not be able to cope with additional school parking without detrimental impact on existing residents.
Loss of sports facilities and open space
The London Plan policy 3.19B states that proposals that result in a net loss of sport and recreational facilities should be resisted. The London Plan policy 7.18B also states that the net loss of open space should also be resisted. Barnet’s Core Strategy DM15b protects open space from development, too.
Despite the Council’s best endeavours to create a self fulfilling prophesy through its woeful neglect of the site, the local community has not played ball with the Council, by playing ball on the site. Local children regularly and frequently use the site for football , having repeatedly cleared the site themselves to enable them to do so. The Council’s own signs on the site give licence to people to use the site for such recreation, too. The covenant on the land cannot be overlooked either. The land is designated for sports use by the covenant for the benefit of local people and should remain so.
The land is also used informally as open space by walkers and those exercising their dogs.
Unlike the earlier scheme referred to in the introduction, this proposal does not make the playground facilities available to the wider community, retaining exclusive use for the school.
There is therefore no corresponding replacement of sports use or open space and the scheme is thus in breach of the above polices of the London plan and the Council’s own Core Strategy as the is a net loss of both categories of land use.
I understand that Sport England are also objecting due to the loss of playing field and built sports provision as contrary to paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework and I also object on the same grounds as those set out in their objection.
Loss of community use
Barnet Core Strategy policy DM 13 militates against loss of community use , unless it can be shown that there is no demand; or equivalent use is provided elsewhere.
For the reasons given above, there is demand and there is no corresponding replacement, so the scheme is in breach of these policies too.
Ecology and archaeology impact
The submitted ecology survey is woefully inadequate. it is based on a single visit and desktop exercise. the ecology of the all weather surface area cannot be separated form that of the wider area including the grassed area to the north and the tree cover boundary of that land on each of its boundaries. Even so, the report does not give carte blanche to the development , referring to breeding and nesting birds, and the potential presence of many other protected species.
The report also makes clear that clearance work should not take place between the bird breeding months of March and September, and if the scheme si approved it should be subject to a planning condition accordingly.
The tree survey also does not take account of the impact on the wider site, which it should do.
The archaeological survey is also only desk based. it is clear from the report that there is potential archaeology on the site given what has been found not far away, and this should also be properly investigated on site by test pit excavation.
Andrew Dismore AM
