Interactive webcast player

Development Committee
Thursday, 8th October 2026 at 6:30pm

 

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you. 

Webcast cameras are not operated by camerapersons; they are automated and linked to speaker microphone units. The aim is to provide viewers with a reasonable visual and audio record of proceedings of meetings held in public.

Note: If your webcast link appears not to be working, please return to the Webcast Home Page and try again, or use the help email address to contact us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Thank you.
Good evening everybody and welcome to the Development Committee.
Today, Thursday the 8th of October, 2026.
I am Councillor Abdul Wahid and I'm the chair of the Development Committee.
Before we start, I would like to remind members that we have committed through our members' pledge to treat one another with dignity and respect,
and to give others the opportunity to speak, to listen to different viewpoints, and ensure that challenge is constructive and inclusive.
I look forward to seeing all attendees demonstrate this commitment through our conduct this evening.
I would also like to give a brief reminder about the protocol for this meeting, including virtual meeting procedures.
This meeting is being broadcast live on the Council's webcast.
Participants must address the meeting through myself as the chair.
If you are participating online, please address me.
You must switch on your microphone and also please turn on your camera at that point.
You should keep your microphone and camera switch off at all other times.
Please do not use the meeting chat facility.
any information added to the facility will be disregarded.
If you experience any technical difficulties, please contact my colleagues at the Democratic Services.
Thank you.
Now on to this evening's proceedings.
Any apologies this evening, Frances?
Yes, thank you, chair.
I receive apologies from Councillors Abu Chowdhury and Shanali Mia who will be subbed by Councillor
Omar Mehdi.
Thank you.
Also, before we move forward, just in terms of we're not expecting any fire alarms to
go off.
So if the fire alarm does go off, please follow officers to the nearest exits.
Thank you. Thank you for that.
I would now ask committee members who are presenting this evening to introduce themselves.
Please can you state if you have any declarations that you may have on the agenda.
So I'll start from my right.
Councillor Marm Este, Myland Ward and Deputy Lead for Housing and Repairs.
Councillor Martin Parker, Bow West, nothing to declare.
Councillor Amina Ali, Weaver's Ward and I have nothing to declare. Thank you.
Thank you.
Can I also get to counsellors to introduce yourselves as office
Good evening, everyone councillor Sadik Roman Island Garden world. Thank you
Thank you
On to the next item which is a minutes from the previous meeting can we confirm the correct?
record of the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 1 September
2026.
Thank you.
Number 3, Recommendation, procedures for hearing, objections and meeting guidelines.
I will now ask Paul Bakiram, Head of Development Management, Planning and Building Control,
to present the guidance.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. Good evening, good evening members, members of the public and officers
who are joining us for this meeting. So this item on the agenda sets out the standing advice
for determining planning applications, including the legal advice that decisions must be made
in accordance with the relevant development plan policies and material planning considerations.
When we come to considering the main reports, the running order will go as follows. So I'll
introduce the item for everybody with a description of the application and summary of the recommended
recommendation, and then officers will present the report, and then we'll hear from anyone
registered to speak in objection who can address the committee for up to three minutes each,
and then anyone registered to speak in support, including the applicants, can address the
committee for up to three minutes each, and then any councillors registered to speak can
also address the committee for equivalent time.
The committee can ask points of clarification of any of the speakers, and then the committee
The committee will go on to consider the officer recommendation, including any further questions,
debates or advice from officers.
The committee will reach a decision based on majority vote and I will confirm that back
to everybody in the meeting.
If the committee propose any changes to certain aspects of the officer recommendation, for
example, to add or delete or amend planning conditions or obligations, then the task of
formalising those changes is delegated back to the Director of Planning and Building Control.
In the event that the Committee do not accept the officer's recommendation, they must state
their reasons and propose and agree an alternative course of action.
The Committee may be adjourned briefly for further planning or legal advice.
The task of formalising the Committee's alternative decision is also delegated to the Director
of Planning and Building Control.
If the Committee proposed to make a decision that would appear to go against the provisions
of the development plan or may have any other legal implications, then the item may be deferred
for a further report from officers dealing with the proposed course of action.
Chair, there is an update report this evening just briefly that deals with some matters
that have arisen since the agenda was published.
I'll come to that when we get to the main item.
Thank you.
Thank you very much Paul for that.
Next item is number four, deferred items.
We have no deferred items to consider this evening.
We have one planning application to consider this evening.
5 .1, PA26 -01051, site, south -west junction of Glenworth Avenue and Saunders Nest Road,
E14 -3BE.
Agenda item 5 .1 is a planning application for a minor material amendment to planning
permission PA -15 -00360, dated 18 December 2015, to amend the wording of condition 10
and condition 19.
Further details are on the report and presentation by officers.
I now invite Paul to introduce the application.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Chair.
So as the Chair has said, this is a planning application affecting the site southwest of
the junction of Glenworth Avenue and Saunders Nest Road, which is now home to Canary Wharf
College.
And the application seeks minor amendments to planning conditions, so Condition 10, which
as the travel plan and condition 19,
which is the hours of operation of the school.
The details of the conditions are set out in the report
and will be covered in the officer's presentation
so everybody is clear on those.
And the recommendation is to grant planning commission
under section 73.
Chair, if I may, just a few pointers
in terms of the background context
and also covering the update report.
So this application follows on from a previous application made under section 96A of the
Town and Country Planning Act for a non -material amendment.
That application was refused by the development committee earlier this year on the basis that

5 a) PA/26/01051 - Site south west junction of Glenworth Avenue and Saunders Ness Road, E14 3EB

the changes would be material.
That's the only thing that you have to consider in those applications.
This application is under section 73.
So our considerations are very similar to if we were considering any application for
planning permission except that we need to focus our attention on the conditions that
are proposed to be amended. If this is granted it does result in a new permission with the
amended conditions plus all remaining unchanged conditions and any additional conditions that
the planning authority feels are necessary. If this is refused then there is a right of
Just turning to the update report briefly.
So the update report confirms the receipt of a petition and four additional objections.
The report also responds to some additional matters that were raised in those objections
but weren't in the original set of objections that were received.
I think apart from that, sorry, the only other thing to mention is in addition to planning
officers here. We do have the Council's group manager for network management from Public
Realm Division and also a representative from a consultancy called City Sense who carried
out the detailed transport assessment on behalf of the Council and giving us advice on those
highways and transport matters. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much for the presentation Paul.
Now we will move on to the presentation.
I would now ask Planning Officer Raisa Islam to present the application please.
Thank you Councillor.
So we will start off with the site.
So the site is in the southeast of Isle of Dogs.
And as Mr. Buckleman has told us previously
about the history and context,
so originally the planning application
was submitted in 2015 for the creation
of Canary Wolf College Glenworth,
which I will refer to as Glenworth from now on.
And it was granted in December 2015.
In that application, Highways officers
recommended a condition to stagger the start and end times with an adjoining school, St Luke's Primary School.
So in the original application we had condition 19 and this stated that the teaching hours shall start no later than 8 .30am
and finish no earlier than 3 .55pm and this was to avoid congestion on the public highway and to ensure the amenity of nearby residents are not compromised.
So just for context, this is our subject application.
So this is Canary Road College and here's St Luke's.
So here's just a more closer up on the street view.
And here's another picture.
So in between, so on the left, sorry, we have Canary Road College and then on the right
we have St Luke's and then in between we have Glenworth Avenue, which has been recently
pedestrianised. And as outlined earlier, earlier this year a non -material amendment to condition
19 for the change in school hours was submitted and it was refused at committee in April.
The reasoning for this was that there was insufficient evidence that there would be
and material change. So the material change in question was the harm to residential amenities
of neighbouring occupiers, increased congestion, highway safety concerns and the communicative
effects alongside nearby schools operating times.
So in the new application that we're considering today, the applicant has now applied for section
73 to vary the conditions of the original planning commission. The proposal in terms
of score hours is the same as proposed last time and they are also seeking to implement
an updated travel plan. A transport statement was also submitted to demonstrate that the
proposal would not lead to a significant increase in material harm.
So the first proposal is about condition 19. So this is the change in score hours. So what
So the first cross -style in red is what was originally permitted, so 8 .30am.
The school is now proposing 8 .15am.
And then once again they are now, they previously, well currently they operate finishing at 3 .55am
and they are proposing that they finish no later than 3pm.
And for clarity, teaching hours are the minimum core hours and it does not include after school
clubs and activities.
In this proposal they are also wanting to change condition 10.
So in the original condition 10 it was prior to the first occupation of the development,
a travel plan shall be submitted to and agreed by the Council.
So this travel plan was submitted and approved in 2017.
But the applicant now seeks to submit a new travel plan.
And the reasoning for condition 10 was to encourage sustainable transport and to ensure
So in relation to St Luke's, which was the main school of concern in condition 19, this
just demonstrates the change in timings and the difference in timings.
So as existing, Glenworth opens at 8 .30 a .m. and St Luke's opens at 9 a .m.
So they have a 30 -minute difference.
and 355 is when they end and St Luke finishes at 3 .30 so they have a 25 minutes difference.
So now with the proposal, Grand Wolf will start at 8 .15 and St Luke's would open at 9am.
So now the difference in timings is 45 minutes.
For ending times they will finish at 3pm, St Luke's still at 3 .30 and now there will be a 30 minute difference.
So the difference in timings has increased.
So originally for the morning period, it has increased now by 15 minutes.
And then for the closing period, it's a five minute increase.
In terms of representations, we received 152 representations.
133 are in objection to the proposal and 19 were in favour.
a petition was also submitted with 160 signatures.
On the screen we have a list of the main objections.
The major concerns here are how there might not be enough of a stagger with George Green, so another nearby school,
and that there will be negative transport amenity impacts, that there will be a harm to residential amenity,
concerns with the data methodology and additional other concerns.
So now for context, this is George Green's score.
So they're a big secondary score and then we have our site here,
Danworth, and then at the top that's Lendlux.
This table just demonstrates the difference in timings for both St Luke's and George Green.
So as we said previously for St Luke's right now it's 30 minutes and 25 minutes and now
it's changing to 45 minutes to 30 minutes.
With George Green for the morning period it's currently a 15 minute gap but with the new
and have no objection on highway grounds.
And also for additional robustness,
they consulted city sensitive review further.
They also confirmed that the methodology used
was appropriate and that no adverse impacts
would be present.
And overall they have no objections to the proposal.
They believe that the submission provides
traffic survey evidence that addresses the concerns
of increased congestion and highway.
and also looks at the community effects of other nearby schools.
They also assess the arrival and departure peaks and that the change in teaching hours would not increase the combined vehicle accumulation.
And that the surveys including the submissions also demonstrate that the interaction with the George Union School is limited
with the majority of Glenworth activity happening on Sawders Nest Road close to the school entrance.
We have also consulted the Council's antisocial behaviour and community safety.
Based on the reports received by the Council over the last 12 months, there is little evidence of significant or persistent antisocial behaviour
with pupils from Canary Wharf College and St Luke's or George Green.
They haven't received any reports that would substantiate concerns regarding repeated violent clashes between pupils from different schools,
knife related incidents or youth related disorder directly linked to school dismissal times in this locality.
From an antisocial behaviour perspective, the volume of complaints received is low and
does not indicate a pattern of school -related antisocial behaviour that would raise significant
concerns regarding the proposed variation to teaching hours.
Therefore, they have no objection to the proposal.
TFL was also consulted, which they did their own consultation with London busses.
generated much feedback.
They don't believe that the proposed changes
to the operating hours will have a significant impact
on crime and disorder and would note that crimes
recorded in the area do not appear to have been driven
or caused by the current operating hours of the school.
So as an assessment from our officers,
so in regards to the transport statement,
the transport statement addresses all the transport concerns
from the last application that was refused at committee.
An updated version was submitted with some minor additional information.
The stagger is maintained with St Luke's which was the original requirement of condition 19.
The concern with the other nearby schools have also been investigated and observation and data indicating that no significant overlap would happen and that not much congestion will be present.
They have used data collection methods that are recognised and recommended by TfL.
So the methodology used is consistent with TfL's travel for life guidance which uses hands -up surveys to collect information on people's travel modes.
This is recognised and used widely across a lot of schools in London.
And overall all our internal and external consultees have had no objections to the proposal.
In regard to the travel plan, they have submitted an updated travel plan with factors that have
changed since 2017.
So for example, the increase in pupil numbers, the Glenworth avenue that was pedestrianised
that I showed earlier, the difference in the P -Tile scoring.
Once again, another updated version was provided with very minor details with extra information.
We do believe that robust measures have been suggested to control the inflow and outflow
of students and parents.
So with staff being positioned at Kenworth Avenue and Saunjones Road entrances during
arrival and departure periods to welcome pupils and parents to support the safe management
of pupil movements, as well as active ways that they will be promoting cycling and walking.
We will also be implementing a condition on top that requires them to implement the updated
travel plan and monitoring for three years and they will have to submit that to the council
for each year. So our overall recommendation is that we approve
this application, this variation of condition 10 and 19, subject to three additional conditions.
So the first condition pertains the submission and approval of an arrival and departure management plan.
So this would be have to be submitted before they change the operating hours.
The submission and approval of TFL travel for life annually for three years.
And the compliance with the maximum number, school pupil number of 303 pupils.
And if this is to change we would expect that an application will be assessed.
so that the highway and transport implications can be assessed.
Thank you.
Thank you, Raisa, for your presentation.
We will now move on to the public speakers.
The first speaker will be Dr Robert Pye.
Ralph will speak first, yeah? Okay. You have three minutes. Once there's 30 seconds left, I'll just indicate.
So I don't want to break your floor, so I'll just indicate 30 seconds and if you can wrap it up. Yeah?
The floor is yours.
Firstly, thank you for allowing me to speak at this meeting this evening.
I live just off Saunders Nest Road and see the considerable impact this school has with regard to vehicle traffic.
Which is why my focus is on Condition 10.
Condition 10 was in the original planning document and I shall just read out what the condition said at the time.
Prior to first occupation of the development, a travel plan shall be submitted to an agreed
in writing by the local planning authority.
The travel plan shall include details relating to public transport, car and cycle parking
demand and walking to the development for employees, school children and parents.
The development shall be operated in accordance with the approved travel plan.
And the reason is to encourage sustainable transport and to ensure the amenity of nearby
residents is not compromised in accordance with Policy SP09 of the Tower Hamlets Core
Strategy 2010 and Policies DM21 and DM22 of the Managing Development Document in 2013.
So the travel plan was presented under a different planning application number 17 -0 -1 -6 -8 -8.
So this is signed up by the school and I shall point out what it suggests with regard to
what happens.
99 % of the children attending the college have an E14 postcode with the bulk of these
living on the Isle of Dogs.
Around 90 % of the total current pupil numbers
are within 800 metres, hence within walking distance.
In the most recent survey of pupils,
only nine travelled by car.
This is likely to improve as the admissions criteria
for Canary Wharf College, Glenworth,
is based on the as yet unoccupied address
on the east of the Isle of Dogs.
While for the most part pupils have been attending schooling cabins on the western side.
That's where they were previously.
So I cannot understand why a new travel plan is being generated
when this travel plan should be accepted.
So I'll turn to the new travel plan.
30 seconds.
Currently, the proposal is to have 21 % of pupils coming by car.
That's 64 vehicles. Staff, 7 cars.
So we have over 70 vehicles coming to this school
when the original travel plan identified there would be 9 and that would be reduced.
It's absolutely crazy.
There's no reason to have a new travel plan, especially the road is congested in the morning
by vehicles from St. Luke's and also Canary Wharf College Glenworth.
Thank you very much.
Your time is up.
Dr. Robert Pye for presentation.
Councillors, I speak on behalf of thousands of parents and residents of the Isle of Dogs.
On 26 March, I sat here in this committee, not this current committee, unanimously rejected
the proposal by CWC and UST.
They did so and they also rejected the Planning Department's endorsement of it.
Nothing has changed.
The situation hasn't changed.
The Isle of Dogs is an area which has 11 schools and around 4 ,800 pupils.
If Glenworth is allowed to run an 8 .15 to 3 p .m. day, the combined release of children and adults,
because these are primaries and you have adults picking them up, becomes overwhelming,
with over 3 ,400 people flooding the southern part of the Isle of Dogs all at once, because George Green is included.
That's not a model for safety, but reckless chaos created by UST to address their internal financial and HR issues.
It's not a genuine planning condition.
Burden, in 2008, which was a study by the TFL and the Metropolitan Police,
found that youth crime and antisocial behaviour
peaks between the afterschool hours of 3 and 5.
Hot spots are around schools and transport hubs,
and they also found that staggering hours is a way to alleviate all this.
It's no surprise the planning officer says there's no antisocial behaviour,
because the schools are currently staggered, significantly so.
Staggered hours are a safeguarding intervention,
and removing them, if this council decides, is a safeguarding failure.
UST provides no safeguarding assessment, no risk analysis,
no mitigation plan. Instead, they rely on
wishful assertions. First, cumulative impacts
have not been assessed. In March, this committee
said we need to model not only St. Luke's but also George Green. That still hasn't
been done. Their argument is that, oh, it's 200 metres away, they claim, so therefore
releasing 1 ,300 kids all at once at the same time is not really an issue.
That's not evidence. Second, pedestrian and cycle safety. We've heard about cars from Mr. Hardwick,
but there's also the issue of how kids get to school. Those have not been studied.
there is no pavement capacity analysis, no crossing conflict assessment, no modelling
of simultaneous release from Glenworth, East Ferry, George Green, and the neighbouring primaries
which cover the island. Third, there's one issue that remains, the student numbers. 280
was what Glenworth was allowed to start with. They've been abusing that and running with
303 to 304. A Section 73 under law cannot change that. That was decided in the Court
of Appeals in your Finney and Test Valley and you cannot grant permission. And finally,
what happened after last time? Last time when we had this meeting, the counsellors said,
talk to the parents, get a planned traffic study in, consult. None of that's happened.
UST has come back and said, we're going to run this through no matter what and we're
get it done. And we don't care what the parents and all the people say.
Thank you.
APPLAUSE
I will now invite Councillor Wayne Talukta to address the committee.
You have three minutes.
Good evening.
Before I start, I would like to absolutely make it clear.
I want to be absolutely clear, the objection is not against the school, Glenwood School,
or Canary Wolf College. It's not against the teacher or the people.
The school is absolutely doing well. We're extremely proud of the school and the staff
and the work they do and the impact they're making through the education of this borough.
My concern today are about planning impact.
Again, not the school itself.
This committee refused a very similar application in March.
We found clear planning harm, loss of residential immunity,
increased congestion, highway safety risk,
and too much pressure on very small area
with several schools operating closer together.
Those findings were correct then and the evidence shows they remain correct now.
Chair, I also live directly opposite the school.
I see the school run impact every day.
Traffic building up, unsafe turning, blocked driveways,
crowded pavements and near misses involving small children.
These problems already happen within the staggered hours.
If Glenworth and George Green releases people at the same time, the pressure on
Sondenas Road will increase sharply. Residents have provided detailed
evidence showing major gaps in the applicant's assessment. Important
information is missing. No proper pedestrian or cycle counts, no modelling
of how Glenworth interacts with George Green and East Ferry, no ATC data
Even though residents saw it being collected,
no full afternoon traffic profile,
the survey ended before 5pm, before the club collection.
So without this information, the assessment cannot be relied on.
Chair, the Ta 'amdul -e -Slukul plan is very clear.
Policy STR1 requires safe and sustainable movement
around schools and homes.
policy DTR2 requires proper assessment of traffic,
pedestal and cycles.
Policy DTR3 requires streets and remain safe
and not overloaded.
30 seconds.
Policy DH8 protects residents amenity,
their peace, safety and quality of life.
None of those policies are compliance.
So, chair, my objection is based solely on planning grounds.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, councillor.
Now, can I invite councillor Sadikou Rahman to address the committee.
You also have three minutes. Thank you.
Thank you, chair.
I am Councillor Sadikur Rahman.
I speak on behalf of parents and local residents who object to this application.
On 26 March, this committee unanimously refused the trust request to change the same school hours.
The application is asking for essentially the same change.
The committee has already found that the proposed hours would harm residents' amenity.
and increase congestion and highway safety concern,
particularly alongside the other nearby schools.
The trust has said the change would help staff
and reduce childcare costs for families.
We understand those concern.
However, as the legal advisor confirmed,
these are not planning matters
and cannot outwit the planning harm already identified.
In March, the committee asked the Trust to work with the community and provide a proper
traffic assessment.
Residents tell me they still have not been properly listened to and the concern about
traffic has not been resolved.
Glenworth currently finished at 4pm after George Green School.
Changing the finish time to around 3pm would bring the school runs together.
Around 1200 older people would be leaving George Green at roughly the same time as younger Glenworth children.
This would mean more cars, congestion, noise, films, and Sunday road and around local homes
and the school gates.
The application also proposes an earlier 8 .15 am start bringing additional traffic and disturbance
to residents earlier in the morning.
There are also concerns about the evidence provided on traffic.
The Trust's own survey showed significantly more cars than previously forecast.
While the latest assessment does not properly account for the combined impact of George Green and the other schools.
30 seconds.
Local decisions have made their views very clear.
In March, 72 objections were received and 41 people signed a petition.
More than 100 objections have now been submitted to this application.
I recognise that the trust -wider management financial issue are not planning matters.
My objection today is based purely on planning grounds.
I therefore ask the committee to refuse this application for the some reasons identified in March
harm to residents immunity, increased congestion, increased IUSF -Q concern.
Thank you.
Thank you. Can I now ask Alice Yeo and Martuza Najad to address the committee in support
of the application. You have 12 minutes.
Good evening chair and members, I'm Alice Yow of Turley speaking on behalf of the applicant
in support of this application. The purpose of this application is straightforward, it
seeks to amend condition 19 of the existing commission to amend the school core teaching
hours and condition 10 to secure more robust and up to date travel plan and associated
commitments. When planning commission was granted in 2015, condition 19 was imposed
ensure that Glenworth schools operating hours were staggered with those of St Luke's Primary School,
which is opposite, thereby avoiding undue congestion on the local highway network and protecting residential amenity.
The key question before members tonight is therefore whether the proposed change in school hours would undermine that original purpose.
We do note that the purpose explicitly references St Luke's only. At the time of the original application,
George Greens was considered at a sufficient distance not to acquire staggered times.
However, given the concerns raised, particularly at the last committee and having listened
to residents and parents, the current application does not rely on this and we have therefore
extended the analysis under the current application to consider wider schools, particularly George
Greens. As members will be aware, the previous section 96A application was refused because
it was considered that further evidence was needed on potential impacts relating to highways,
safety, bus capacity, interactions and interactions with other schools, particularly George Greens.
I would just emphasise that it is factually incorrect to say that it found that they had
harmful impacts. The reason for refusal was there was considered insufficient evidence.
This application directly addresses those concerns and provides that additional evidence required.
Additional transport surveys have been undertaken by an independent specialist consultant using
recognised industry methodologies across multiple days.
Further assessment has also been carried out in relation to bus services, road safety and
collision data. Those findings have subsequently been reviewed by TfL, including consultation
with London busses twice, Met Police, Tower Hamlets Highways offices and the Council's
third party transport consultant CitySense. All have reached the same conclusion. The
immunity impacts. Our transport consultant is here tonight if you have
any more detailed questions. However I would like to take this opportunity just
to summarise the key findings as to why the proposal is acceptable. The proposed
morning start and afternoon finish times in both instances increase the
stagger with the St Luke's start to finish times when you compare it to the
current timings. As discussed at last committee the main gap that closes is
the finish time between St Luke's and George Green's and as shown in the officer
report in the officer presentation. Although further away, Cubittown primary school timings
have also been considered in the submission. Turning to the morning, the proposed start
time would further increase the separation between school related trips at Glenworth
and all the neighbouring schools, including St Luke's, George Greens and Cubittown. That
morning's stagger increases. It increases the stagger to 45 minutes in the morning with
St Luke's and 30 minutes with George Greens. So in both instances, allowing an additional
for parents to participate.
Turning to the afternoon, the proposed finish time
creates a betterment with St. Luke's
of an additional five minutes.
So from a 25 -minute stagger to a 30 -minute stagger.
Detailed surveys and subsequent analysis
demonstrate that the peak periods of vehicle activity
associated with Glenworth and St. Luke
would not coincide as a result of the proposed change
to Glenworth's finish time.
So we have not relied purely on the stagger to justify that.
it has also been backed up by the further surveys and assessment.
Therefore, for the relationship between St Luke's and Glenworth,
which is the original purpose for the condition,
the staggers are increased at both morning and afternoon.
The only area in which the times do move closer together,
and therefore the stagger is shortened,
is in relation to the finish times of Glenworth and Cubitt Town and St George Greens.
So in relation to Cubittown, a stagger of 20 to 25 minutes is maintained with Cubittown,
which given its distance is considered acceptable and is also in line with the current morning
stagger timing.
So we consider 20 to 25 minutes given the distance is acceptable in this instance.
However, when it comes to George Greens, it is a closer stagger and following the last
committee and the concerns raised by objectors and members in relation to George Greens,
Further detailed surveys have been carried out in that regard and focused on specifically.
The evidence shows that there is virtually no interaction between pickup traffic associated
with the two schools.
Across the two survey days, only one vehicle associated with Glenworth was observed picking
up from Glenafric Avenue, which is one of the locations where a very small number of
George Green pickups also take place.
TfL has also confirmed that it does not anticipate any issues with bus capacity as a result of
proposals and we note that they have been consulted once by the applicant prior to submission
and also again by Tower Hamlets during the determination of the application.
Collision data does not indicate any pattern linked to school pick -up or drop -off periods
and neither the Met Police nor the Council's Antisocial Behaviour Team have raised concerns.
So importantly the evidence demonstrates that the original purpose of Condition 19 would
not only be maintained but in some respects enhanced through a further increase of the
particularly in relation to St Luke's and where in the case of George Green's the reduced
stagger time would not have an impact on highway safety.
Notwithstanding this, the school acknowledges the concerns raised by local residents and
parents and are committed to doing their bit within their ability to promote sustainable
travel and reduce trips and therefore associated traffic.
So in relation to the 2017 travel plan, mindful of the fact that things have moved on since
then as pointed out by objectors, a new travel plan has been submitted as part of this application.
This provides updated information on current travel behaviour and sets out key actions
and measures that the school will take to reinforce this commitment to sustainable travel
through ongoing monitoring and encouraging continual improvement in travel behaviour.
This also secures a commitment to TfL's school specific programme which is their travel for
and is adopted by a number of schools across London.
We consider therefore members have before them detailed technical evidence supported by statutory consultees,
officers and third party consultants which demonstrates that the proposal would not result in unacceptable impacts on the highway network,
public transport safety or neighbouring amenity and for those reasons we respectfully ask members to support the application.
I appreciate that we do have a bit more time, we probably won't use all of it, but I did
just want to just note a few minor points I think just to address the objections raised.
But yes, we think it is appropriate to have a new travel plan because we think that will
help to secure the behavioural changes and the one from 2017 is outdated. And we just
wanted to clarify that actually the slagger will increase as we've pointed out before.
I don't know if Motez would like to add anything.
Yeah, I also wanted to just clarify that the mode shares presented in the travel plans,
they've not been used as any part of the assessment on the capacity or the occupancy of the transport network.
So all those mode shares and then the discussions and how many people get on the bus, how many people drive,
Those are purely used for the travel planning purposes,
which is just an initiative to encourage sustainable travel.
It's not being used for us as part of our assessment
or anyone else's assessment to say that this number
of people would result in this impact.
All of our impact assessment have been based
on the surveys that have been undertaken,
very detailed surveys by an independent company,
which all point to the same fact that there is no interaction with the adjacent schools and there is no safety or congestion impacts.
That has also been agreed by Tower Hamlets' transport officers as well as an independent consultant who Tower Hamlets appointed to review this work.
That's all I have to say.
Can we allow them to finish, please?
Thank you very much for your presentation.
Before we go on to members' question, at this point, can I ask
Councillor Mayen and Councillor Sadikul if you don't mind and join the gallery please.
Thank you.
Moving on to members' questions.
Do members have any questions for officers?
Thank you, Chair.
Under the Public Sector Equality Duty Act 2010, we must have due regard to impact on
protected characteristics including disability, age and pregnancy, maternity.
Was there any, last question to the officers, is there any assessment has been done?
If so, what are the highlights of the assessment, what are the key findings of the assessment?
Thank you.
With specific respect to that Public Sector Equality Act, no individual assessment has
been undertaken. I guess with specific respect to the impacts of the assessments or the results
of the assessments undertaken as part of the transport statement, Council's highways
team could speak to those, but I don't think there's a specific public sector equality
duty impact assessment, if you like, that's been undertaken, no. But I wouldn't say
that we have or I don't think that as far as I'm aware that representations that have
been made by members of the public have particularly raised this as a concern.
I could be corrected on that, well, to be corrected on that, but I didn't see it as
something that was brought up that necessarily needed to be addressed.
Thank you.
Councillor, can I ask Councillor Amina?
Thank you, Chair. I wanted to ask, can officers explain why they were satisfied that a Section
73 permission is lawfully authorised up to 303 pieces when the original planning was
for 280? Thank you.
Yeah, so you're quite right. The description of development of the original 2015 application
included a number of students which was 270, 280 sorry. There was actually an enforcement
complaint made in 2023 relating to the number of students the school had at that time which
the complainant advised was more than 280. An investigation was carried out and we also
sought legal advice and it was determined that although the number of pupils is mentioned
in the description of development, this isn't talking about the use of the land for the
provision of the school, so there was no condition restricting the number of pupils to 280.
And the legal advice that we got and the determination that we made was that so long as the use remains
within the same use class, which it does, it is a school, then there's been no material
change of use and there was no breach of planning control.
Just to add and just to regularise that situation, we are recommending a new condition which
would explicitly cap it at 303. So if you like, acknowledging that maybe the previous
decision should have had that as a condition, we are now putting it in the recommendation
to have a new condition that does explicitly restrict school numbers, also pupil numbers
of 303, so should there be any deviation from that, i .e. an increase, that would be contrary
to the planning permission and enforcement action could be considered at that stage,
and also should the school wish to have more than 303 students, they would need to make
a further planning application and the impacts of that change would be assessed at that time.
Thank you.
Any follow -up questions?
OK, thank you.
Councillor Beatt.
Thank you, Chair.
I think one of the key questions that I really want to understand is we've got two schools
which will be closing 10 minutes apart, especially in consideration of George Green and also
the schooling question.
And I just wanted to understand if you could give us a little bit more with regards to
the impact assessment that you've done with that because I think from anywhere else
I'm standing here and just thinking about that two schools
closing ten minutes apart is something that you know rings alarm bells
But if you could just give me a bit more elaboration in terms of the impact assessment that you've done
I'll have a go as a layman on
Transport highways officer, but my understanding and I would invite my colleagues to correct me or add additional
confirmation, is that essentially what they did is they surveyed where people were picked
up from all of the involved schools, so St Luke's, CWC Glenworth and then also George
Green, and they marked that down across the days of their transport survey in the specific
locations where for example cars were stopping and picking up pupils, and they recorded that
over the relevant period of the transport assessment,
and then I suppose they mapped and conjoined them
to say that if these were happening at the same time,
this would be the result.
And as that was set out in the planning agents submissions
to committee, they identified one specific point
where there was a crossover for just one car
related to George Green School
and one car related to CWC Glenworth,
and that was on Glen Affric.
and so that was just the one conflict and whilst I'm using the terminology there, conflict,
essentially what we're saying by that is that there is two cars picking up students in the same place at the same time.
I don't know if that, in my mind that doesn't constitute a conflict, that's essentially why we've come to the conclusion
that we don't think there's any actual harm.
But if anyone wants to add any...
Sorry, can I stop you?
Can you not, can you let the officer finish what he needs to say?
No, I was just going to invite the transport people to add anything further to add or clarification
to the way that I've just set that out.
Thank you.
Thanks, Simon.
I think Simon has explained it very well, to be honest.
The potential conflict is those two vehicles at those times.
We haven't identified any alternative conflicts as such.
Thank you.
Can I just...
Can you just introduce yourself, please?
Foye is the group manager for network management in public realm.
Thank you.
Can I just remind everyone in the meeting, please, everyone has the right to express,
we're all here to listen to the applicants as well as objectors.
I know everyone, all of you are here, you're passionate about this application.
So please let whoever is speaking, let them speak, we're here,
We will take, as members, we will take all of this on board when we make our decisions.
Please, can you refrain from disturbing anyone or interjecting whilst they're speaking.
Councillor Meherty, a follow -up question?
Yeah, I do have a follow -up. Thank you, Chair.
What I'm more sort of trying to get at the question is more around children on foot.
I mean, you would envisage secondary school children who will be on foot.
going home and I'm just thinking that with two schools that are open, that are closing 10 minutes apart,
we're looking at an experiment and I think from the parents' perspective, I think that they will be concerned on that,
so would I as a parent. So I just wanted to understand what kind of research that we've done in terms of that,
as opposed to, let's forget about traffic.
I just want to really get more understanding on that.
If you could give us an elaboration, if there isn't any research,
then that's fine as well.
And I can't elaborate in relation to research,
I don't know if transport colleagues can,
but just on your point around pedestrian
and potential student -pedestrian conflict,
I mean as proposed there would actually be a larger gap between the start times of St
Luke's and CCC Glenworth than there is, there would be a larger gap between the finishing
and the start times than there is as existing. So I think in terms of pedestrian conflict,
arguably as proposed, there should be less conflict with the children coming out of school
actually at a larger stagger than is currently the case.
I'm not sure if you answered my question, but what I'm saying, the staggering of the
closure time is far less.
So you've got a 10 -minute window.
And this is where I think that in terms of what can happen, because you've got a shorter
window. You've got children coming out from two different schools. Most probably,
I don't know the statistics, but most likely they're on foot because they are
secondary school children. They'll be on their way, making their way home on their
own. And this is, I think, the fact that knowing that there's a school over there
just across the road that's got a few other kids going home, I think
I think it leaves a little bit of a hotbed in terms of what could happen.
And I think that's why I'm trying to hone in in terms of what research have we done
to understand that this particular volatile 10 minutes and what kind of impact that could
have.
And that's what I was really trying to get at.
But if you can sort of elaborate, if there's no research done, then that's fine by me as
well.
Thank you.
I guess it's important at this stage to reflect on the comments of the Council's ASB team
and the Metropolitan Police in terms of they've not outlined that there's any specific thing
that they're concerned about. Obviously that's in relation to the existing school pick -up
and arrangements. Just discussing with Highways colleagues that there wasn't a specific PED
or pedestrian assessment undertaken, but I'd invite them to talk about their professional
experience of these kind of potential conflicts and whether they think it's an issue.
I don't know if Foye or Nick wanted to elaborate on that.
Thank you, Chair, and I'll introduce myself.
My name is Nick Ruxen -Boyle.
I work for CitySend, the independent transport consultant that's been mentioned before
who has supported the council in assessing the application that we see here today.
I am a Chartered Transport Planner and I have written and reviewed over a thousand transport
statements and travel plans and I thoroughly went through this and the documentation was
prepared to support this application and it's been written and drafted in a very thorough
way using modern techniques and presented professionally.
The updated travel plan meets all current best practise and standards.
I provided comments for the council.
Chair for the council has comments regarding pedestrian interaction on the footway rather than conflict.
Conflict in highway terms means something quite different in the sense of potential injury.
But certainly pedestrian movements from the schools and I think many people have made it clear
that the staggers was mostly put in place
for the neighbouring primary school
rather than the secondary school that is further away.
Secondary school movement profiles are quite different
than primary schools in terms of the pick up profiles.
Most of the students exit from the far side of the school
and go towards the public transport,
the bus, the tube networks that there are.
I've been down on site a number of times
and only seen one or two students walk past
the primary schools from secondary school. So that validates my reading of the transport
statement that was in to support that. But in asking your question, there's been no pedestrian
modelling undertaken for this application. Thank you.
Thank you.
Yeah, that's fine.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Was the agents of change principle looked at in consideration of this application since
But as I understand it, the CWC is actually the new school in the area.
And I have a number of follow -ups.
So when you say, obviously it's the new school and when it was assessed at that time of the planning application being granted,
So back in 2015, 2016, was it assessed then or are you saying is it assessed now in terms
of the proposed changes? I probably don't need you to answer that question because I
don't think it was in either respect. I think when it was first granted I don't know if
the agent of change principle was formally within the planning policy at that time and
it hasn't formed part of our assessment this time round.
The other thing is when you were doing the thing with the external bodies like TFL, did
you actually include when you were asking them for their consultation, for their responses,
is the fact of the George Green Secondary School, because obviously the application
only seems to actually mention the school that's actually adjacent. It doesn't take
into account the other schools in the area. So if you just sort of may ask them, oh, is
they may have said it's fine in respect to the school,
the adjacent school that may have given you a different answer
had they been aware of all the schools in the area.
I don't know if I could give you an explicit answer on that point, but in my
experience I would suggest that TFL, when they're looking and providing our
consultee response, they aren't being narrow in what they are looking at.
They wouldn't be bounded by the description of development, for example.
they would be looking at impacts on the highway network, impacts on the bus network more widely.
The Council's anti -social behaviour team, again, they aren't going to be looking at
this in a narrow basis, they're going to be looking at their reports, like ward -based
reports and how they break down anti -social behaviour in those kind of ways, they won't
be looking at that specific thing. And I would imagine Metropolitan Police would behave in
the same way. So I wouldn't expect the description of development, if you like, to impact the
the way that they have provided their comments, all the comments that they have provided.
Just one point further on that, obviously TfL and every consulty has access to all the
documentation submitted with the application, and with this application that includes, well,
the travel plan and also the transport statement, which assesses the proposal in relation to
transport impacts it includes within that George Green School and also Cubitt town school,
which is some distance further away again. So TFL had access to all the information submitted
with the application to come to that conclusion.
Is there another? It's a follow up.
Yes, I'll have one more after this.
I see there's a reference to a travel plan,
but we're aware that the TFL have actually gone out for consultation to changing the bus routes in the area.
This was actually an emergency motion at Council last night.
And so would the travel plan be reviewed should the bus routes or anything else like that
change in the area?
As I said out in the report and in the presentation, the purpose of the travel plan condition is
that it is monitored and reviewed on an annual basis and further submissions will be required
to both TfL and the Council moving forward.
I have a question for the objectors. Would you see a school street as being a solution
to the issues that you have identified? Potentially, but the throne went out with a slightly curved
Yeah, the school streets would work, but it was looked at previously, but it had such
a detrimental effect on local people that actually lived there that the council didn't
go ahead with it.
It was trying to turn the whole area into one -way street, such that it just would affect
everybody that was living in the vicinity of the school.
One other issue which you raised, which is the bus situation.
We're currently served all these schools by two bus stops, which are run by the 135 and the D7.
D7 is going to be probably removed, which will drop our capacity by 50 to 60 percent,
because that's the most frequent bus service.
So therefore, you will have all these kids coming out at the same time,
which was not modelled by the planning office or by Pell,
all at the same time flooding onto the streets with less capacity and no police presence.
As you know, the police station down the Isle of Dogs was closed many years ago.
There is no police presence on the island. We have nothing to control this whole thing.
I see often when I'm used to pick up my son, teachers from George, Green and other schools,
trying to do their utmost to keep the kids under control.
It's not that all their kids are bad, but we're all young ones.
We all know when we get out, sometimes you get up to mischief.
And letting all these kids out at the same time is a recipe for disaster.
Right now, what they've modelled is looking at the vehicle flow on the current closure of Lenworth at 4 and George Green at 310.
No wonder they didn't see much car movement.
They're not modelling the actual gap which the counsellor put up, which is 10 minutes.
and that will be dramatic. That will be catastrophic for the island.
Flooding those streets with thousands and thousands of kids
and now with reduced transportation links.
So how can people actually cope?
If you've ever been down to the Isle of Dogs, you know what it's like.
It's a one way road the whole way around and it's absolute chaos.
And this is not just a planning permission issue that you're going to deal with now with this school.
The Printworks site, which will be the Canary Wharf Cross Harbour, will be built at Printworks.
It will be a 900 capacity secondary. That will conflict right on the bend, and it has the exact same planning conditions for hours as Glenworth has.
And this needs to be considered, because that is enshrined in that planning permission.
And although you're not considering it now, this has ramifications.
and what's going to happen in the quality of life in the island gardens.
And again, we stress that you reject this.
Thank you.
Before I go to Councillor Lakevile, I just want to draw your attention to page 36, 4 .3.
The council already found anonymously that this change causes unacceptable commutative effect.
Citing harm to local immunities and highway safety.
No evidence has been submitted to change this conclusion.
If this is still the case, also following up on this.
If we as a committee were to approve this application, what surety do we have that if
there's any recommendation conditions are set, this is not merely just down for paper,
it's actually going to be implemented and it's going to be followed through.
So if you could just address that point, please.
So the part of the committee report that you referenced was summarising objections from
members of the public.
And again to reiterate the point I think made by the planning consultant earlier, the last
application that came in March was an application for a non -material amendment and the determination
that the committee made was that it was in fact a material amendment.
And then the supporting text, if you like, for that decision, I'll read it now just for
full clarity.
It says, it starts and it says, the first two words say insufficient evidence, right?
So that's the key thing that at the last time insufficient evidence was provided to demonstrate
that the proposed amendment to condition 19 would not harm residential immunities of neighbouring
and resorting increase in congestion and highway safety concerns.
So it's not that the Committee said that there was harm and that there was highway concerns.
They said that the application that was submitted last time contained insufficient evidence
to demonstrate that there would not be harm.
So the applicant has therefore submitted an application, a Section 73 application, which
can be characterised as a material amendment, so acknowledging that it's no longer a non -material,
They're saying it's a material amendment to the original application and that is by means
of varying the conditions.
And so in support of that application they've provided additional, well a new transport
assessment and the travel plan obviously as well is part of that.
So they've done the additional work which in their view and obviously in our view as
well, hence the recommendation, has addressed those concerns.
We don't think that there is evidence that would demonstrate that there will be harm
to residential immunity or increase congestion.
If you carry on I will have to, sorry, as I would not have, sorry, I would not have,
everyone's been respectful here, we're all here to hear everyone else's point of view,
So please, this is going to be your final warning.
Councillor Iqbal, before I go to you, have you finished?
I wanted to address the point actually,
because just to be absolutely clear and to avoid confusion,
our recommendation last time was that the proposal
was non -material because the original intention
of the condition would still be met,
i .e. the wording of the condition
which said to retain a stagger between the two schools,
was still being met by the proposed changes.
Therefore, we said the proposal was non -material.
Obviously, that was not agreed with by the councillors
and we respect that decision and we move forward
to the scenario in which we are now in.
So, I don't think it's accurate to say
that we made an assessment last time and say it was all OK.
We made an assessment based on whether we thought
the proposal was material or non -material
On the basis of the change to the condition so just for clarity
Councillor and then comes a lake
Thank you chair my question the officers
Definitely the new time to time table which is proposed tonight
It will be a bring lot of cars on the street and safe parking
pollution, noise and also conflict between cycle, bus and all the
pedestrians. Do you have any environmental impact on these timetables or on this
planning? Sorry, can you clarify? There are a lot of pollutions, a lot of cars will be parked
and do you work on the environmental impact on this plant?
Proposed time tables.
I mean as part of the proposals, I mean I guess we would suggest that the environmental impacts in terms of increased pollution
are not something that we consider to be harmful. There's been no specific modelling of that I suppose in terms of emissions output
So I think that's a good point.
I think that's a good point.
I think that's a good point.
I think that's a good point.
I think that's a good point.
in teaching hours and therefore maybe at different times of vehicles moving we're not talking
about an increase in the number of vehicles. So there can be no anticipated environmental
impacts in terms of say for example air quality and in fact we now are proposing a travel
plan or travel plan has been proposed which is robust and which includes
measures to make the school more sustainable. It has measures in there for the travel
plan to be monitored and for those results to be given to TfL and to ourselves
so we hope that the environmental impacts of the proposal will be
beneficial.
My concern is that there will be a lot of young people
and parents, elderly people, and because of the pollutions
will be created, because it's just been one go.
So many congregating in one place, so many young people.
So I'm worried about their health as well.
Long time is not one of issues or one day,
one month is to be continuously, years, day after day coming.
And so many people congregating in the same street,
same road and I'm worried about their health risks because of the pollutions.
This is why I asked you that question about the intermittent impact on this.
May I have one question for the FINGE applicant?
I think since old timetable is working fine for everyone, what advantage will it bring you with the new timetables?
So I can I guess answer as the planning consultant bringing this application forward is that's
not a consideration for us in terms of planning matters in the sense that the reason for the
condition, I would just say ordinarily schools don't usually have conditions that control
their hours but one was quite rightly I think put on this one in the scenario because they
have a primary school immediately adjacent on the other side. So that is
the reason for the condition and it's to control that overlap, that impact on the
highway. The operation of the school is immaterial to that from our point of view,
from a planning perspective.
Thank you, Chair.
My question to the objector.
Under proposed new proposal, start time and dismissing time between Kennedy Ward School
and St Luke.
this time has been increased by from 30 minutes to 45 minutes, the gap between these two time
and this on the time, this time has been increased by from 5 minutes from 25 minutes to 30 minutes.
Does this gap mitigate some of your concern? Thank you.
Thank you very much, Councillor.
No, it doesn't, because what isn't modelled
and what they're not telling you is that the other two
schools that were changed, East Ferry is literally
right up the road from George Green, much closer
than Cubitt town, was completely removed.
They're operating on those same hours now,
adding congestion.
There's also Cross Harbour Secondary,
which is a large school, another secondary flooding in
at the same time as George Green already.
So now you're going to be adding another group of students
at Glenworth all at the same time, you're adding over a thousand Canaria Wharf students
into the mix, which is unnecessary. We don't need all these kids piling in together. As
your colleague counsellor said, why change it? It's worked all this time. Kids are safe.
Kids are not being put at risk. We're not facing pollution issues because the roads
are congested but not that congested. And again, we need to keep what it is.
If I can also add that there will be some environmental impacts...
...because the travel plan identifies there will be over 70 vehicle movements...
...compared to the original plan of 9 and improving.
Thank you very much. If there's not any other questions?
Okay, does any member want to add any comments before we move on?
Thank you, Chair.
In terms of compliance with the public sector
equity, no equity impact assessment has been provided.
No assessment of impact on disabled users, S &D
people, elderly residents and those with
postchairs, buggies and no assessment on
annual increase in operating days.
The proposal therefore in my view
fails to demonstrate it would not have
a disproportionate adverse impact on
persons with protected characteristics.
So with that note, I will now
I won't be able to support this application.
I respect for the officers for the hard work
on this application.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Councillor.
Before we move on, I just want to add a few things.
I want to thank everyone for your contribution today, the applicants, the objectors, members
here.
We as a committee, we have a responsibility to ensure that planning applications are fair
to the public.
are considered fairly transparent and it's based on its merits.
We've heard all the arguments that you've put forward,
there are concerns that are raised by the residents,
we will take those into consideration.
It's important that we strike a balance
I think everyone has a right to put their point across and it's very important that we allow that process.
And this is this process that we're allowing, we're hearing everyone and we're making that objective decision.
So on that, I want to ask Paul Buckingham and Sarah Caffertworth to just share your
views and advice before we move on to the vote.
Thank you, Chair.
And as usual, grateful for members and everybody that's participated in terms of the scrutiny
of the application.
I suppose if we go back to kind of the history when the Section 96A application came in,
which was really just a test of whether the changes would be material or not, the committee
found that they would be material.
So as we've heard, this application seeks to address those concerned with a more robust
analysis of the impacts.
It maintains a stagger in the opening hours.
it has the cumulative assessment of the additional schools
which the committee commented were not properly addressed
last time and we have sought to have that independently
verified by, so not just our own highways officers
but an independent consultant as well working for us.
So we feel that we've really done belt and braces
in terms of the reason for the condition
and making sure that reason is still maintained.
We also heard last time, and it's been mentioned again
in all of the objections that we've seen,
about the concerns around the go beyond highway impacts
to do with community safety, and we've sought
relevant advice from the Met Police
and our own community safety team on those impacts,
and neither of them are recommending refusal.
So I think when we bring all of that together you can see why we've landed on a recommendation
to grant planning permission.
I would also point out that in addition to the two conditions that are proposed to be
amended, if you look at 8 .1 and 8 .2 in your report you will see that any relevant conditions
from the previous permission would also be carried over, but we've recommended three
additional conditions, one of which deals with the number of pupils at the school, because
as we heard previously, there's an issue there
about regularising that.
I should say that the assessments have been done
based on that higher number, so they are looking
at that worst case scenario, and if you were minded
to grant funding permission, then that additional condition
controlling numbers of pupils at the school
would be imposed as part of that permission.
My colleague and I have identified a procedural issue
that the reference to the lower number of pupils
is still in the description of development,
and I think one of the objectives
is actually reference the Finney case.
So it's, yes, if you were, so, committee,
if you were minded to grant planning commission,
I would suggest that there is a resolution recorded
that the decision notice is not issued
until such time as a 96A application has been submitted
simply to deal with that description of development.
The council can't unilaterally change that, I'm afraid,
So that would have to be forthcoming from the applicant.
But that's a procedural matter to regularise those issues.
Beyond that, I don't really have much more to add.
Chair, so thank you.
Yes, just a note, thank you for noting that part with regards to the 96A application.
Ultimately, the decision is from members, whether the evidence before them has demonstrated
the proposed changes would sufficiently address the concerns raised in the applications, officers'
assessment is that it does. If members are minded to refuse the application, officers
should provide, clearly identify the specific policy conflicts, an evidential place and
an evidential base.
And, sorry, if members are minded to replace the application, they should identify specific
policy conflict and evidential base.
Thank you.
Thank you, Paul.
Thank you very much.
We will now move on to the vote.
I now propose the officer's recommendation to grant minor amendments of the planning
permission PA slash 1500360 to amend the wording of condition 10 and condition 19 as set out
in the report and the updated report.
Can I see all those in favour?
Those against?
Can I ask Paul and Sara, can you please advise the Committee of the District?
Thank you, Chair.
So the Committee has voted unanimously not to accept the Officer Recommendations to grant
the Section 73 Amendment.
So chair, it now falls to members to put forward your alternative decision, which I guess by
definition would be a refusal.
You have to confirm that formally.
So normally the way it would work is you would discuss reasons for refusal, agree those reasons
for refusal, vote on them, and then we'll take it from there, thank you chair.
What I would say is depending on, obviously you've seen the evidence before you and why
we came to the conclusion that we did, in accordance with the constitution it may be
helpful depending on your discussion around reasons for refusal that you agree for a deferral
because then that will allow us to then test those reasons against policies and we can
bring a short report back to the next meeting to ratify them against policies.
Thank you Paul for that.
Members, yes.
I can see that out of 52 representations, 33 has objected to these new timetables.
And that reflects on the gallery, that presentation from the public and the parents here.
And they feel that this new timetable is not safe for their children or their loved ones.
So that reason I reject these applications.
Thank you, Chair. I think there are clearly factors that we've not considered human factors.
And hence the reason why I've rejected it, because of the fact that I would not like to see this as an experiment...
...of two schools closing ten minutes apart from each other.
Myself as a parent, it's an eye -opener.
So I have to look at it from a human factor.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
I object to this on the rather technical aspect of the agent of change principle,
which I do not feel was taken into account.
Also, that I have not seen evidence that consideration was given to the other schools in the neighbourhood,
and I feel that the applicant should have actually, since they were seeking a change,
they should have actually discussed this with the other schools in the neighbourhood, and
if they had done so, then we would have been in a better position to approve this.
Thank you, Chair.
I also chose to refuse the application today and I also echo with my colleagues here, these
are the same reasons I refused it.
Thank you.
Paul, can you please advise us on committee in light of the reasoning that has been given?
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
So just taking them in turn, just in terms of Councillor
Khan's reason, important to acknowledge the level of
objection and representation.
However, I do have to advise that in itself can't be a
reason for refusal.
So I think I know that you've noted that, but that in itself
wouldn't be a reason for refusing a planning approach.
is because I can't see any new, as I ask them,
is there any advantage they're gonna get
from the new timetable?
There wasn't a clear answer from them
that that will give them any advantage
on the new timetable.
This is why I'm not supporting this plan.
Thank you.
Just in terms of the other matters that have been raised,
and Councillor Meddie talked about the,
I think if I've understood correctly,
Councillor, your concern is very much around the closing time and very much around that
very close proximity in time, 10 minute difference with George Green School.
You talked about the human factor.
Could you just articulate that a little bit more?
What is the harm that you're anticipating?
That will then help us in terms of the drafting of reasons.
Sure, no problem.
I mean, I see it as the fact that you've got, we were always young, yeah, and we know how
young children alike and I'd rather not put that situation to the test if that
makes sense because you'll have two schools that will be closing at the
relatively at the same time it's a hotbed of ASB
Thank you, Councillor.
That clarifies that part.
The only point I had, and I'm mindful not to lead the committee, but equally, this is
your decision and we need to sort of go away and address it.
The original reason for the commission was around highway and transport congestion impacts.
That's not been explicitly cited by any members in wanting to refuse this permission.
I just want to confirm how I understood that correctly or did you mean to say that but
it hasn't quite come out?
I just need to be, I think, clear as to whether that was meant.
Thank you.
When I was saying that should be taken into account the other schools, I was implicitly
saying highway and other impacts.
Thank you, chair.
So in terms of reasons for refusal, the committee are advocating that, sorry, minded to refuse
the submission of Section 73 on the basis of the impact of the, particularly the closing
time with regard to nearby George Green School and in particular the uncertain effects around
whether that would have antisocial behaviour impacts which I guess are linked to matters
of community safety. The cumulative impact which Councillor Parker has described as sort
of agent of change principle around the relationship of these changes with the way that other schools
in the wider area operate and we've heard from the committee about where those schools
are including the ones that have been assessed.
And an insufficient consideration has been given to the overall transport impacts associated
with those changes.
I think I've captured that correctly.
I've mentioned that we can't include the fact that lots of people have objected.
that's just part of the process.
It wouldn't be a reason for refusal in itself.
Unless I've missed anything, Chair,
then I would suggest that the procedure is either yourself
or any Councillor can remove that the permission is refused
and that these are adopted as the,
in principle, reasons for refusal.
Vote on those.
But then I would also recommend, if you agree,
deferring the application and we'll bring an update report
I think that was clarified for you.
So on the basis of what Paul just said, the reasonings that have been given by councillors,
can we agree on deferring and I'll pass it on to Paul to advise us in terms of what the
procedure is going forward.
We're just going to cheque the procedure for you and let you know what the options are.
Thank you.
So you're not obliged to defer the application.
We have done that on previous occasions
where there have been matters that the committee
have wanted more advice on to make sure
that the decision is sound and robust
because obviously you need to bear in mind
that if this permission is refused
then it may be subject to an appeal,
so it may be determined by the planning inspector.
However, you're not obliged to defer it
if you are happy that you've articulated
your reasons for refusal adequately and that your mind is then delegated that to officers
to deal with without you being brought back to the committee. So those are your two options.
Either way, though, you should vote to confirm that you're refusing based on those reasons.
So I would vote on the reasons first so that you wish to refuse language based on the reasons
that we've just discussed. So that's the first thing. So normally, as I said, either yourself
or another member can move a refusal, have that seconded and then vote on it.
Okay, so as explained by Paul, we are going to vote on the reasoning that members have given for refusing the application.
So on that, can I see all those in favour of refusing the application?
APPLAUSE
Can I just ask Paul to just go for the thing?
Thank you, chair, so the committee have resolved that the Section 73 application should be refused for the reasons that we discussed, which relate to anti -social behaviour and cumulative transport impacts.
As I said, Chair, you are perfectly within your gift to agree that that's now delegated
back to officers to draught up those reasons and issue the decision, or alternatively if
you wish to see the detailed wording you can ask for it to be deferred and brought back.
It's entirely up to you.
The procedures allow both options.
So, I also give a reason for, I believe, not in compliance with the Public Sector Equity
Act, Equity Duty Act 2020 -10.
So we will move on to voting to adopt the...
and the Secretary of Quality's duty,
but that wasn't previously voted on,
so we've just voted on that to add that
as additional reasons.
So we've now got those groups of reasons,
those have been accepted by the committee
as reasons for refusal.
As I say, the final stage is just,
Chair, you can move to whether you would like
the application deferred and then a report brought back
for those reasons set out in detail.
Or alternatively, you can delegate to officers.
So if you prefer, I'll just vote on it.
May I be addressed briefly?
May I?
No, not on a point of order.
Can you please turn off your mic, please?
Thank you.
Okay.
We are again, we're going to go back to the vote on the conditions set and agreed upon by members.
So all those in favour of the amended reasoning given to reject the application, please show of hands.
Thank you.
Is everyone happy members to delegate to officers to buy the report?
Can I see a show of hands?
Thank you, Chair.
So the committee has resolved to refuse the Section 73 application and to delegate the
task of issuing the refusal decision back to the Director of Funding and Building Control
in accordance with those three principle reasons for refusal.
Obviously, we would be then drafting those up as best we can
in terms of links to policy and evidence.
Thank you, Jay.
Thank you very much.
Okay, thank you very much.
We'll move on now.

6 OTHER PLANNING MATTERS

We don't have any other planning matters to consider this evening.
The next meeting will be on Thursday 5th November 2026.
As we have no further reports to consider, I now close this meeting.
Thank you very much for your contribution.