top of page

Gidea Park School - Planning Application

Writer's picture: David TaylorDavid Taylor

On Thursday 28th November, Havering Council denied planning permission for Gidea Park Primary school to build a new multi-use games area (MUGA).


Since the announcement, I have received a large amount of messages in favour and against the decision made. A lot of what's been written are questions about the process and the decision. So, I've taken the time to outline my understanding below.


As I am not a Planning Officer, this is not legal advice and nor is it a professional opinion. It is, however, my understanding of what's taken place.


I have also written to the Head of Gidea Park Primary, offering a meeting to chat to them and the PTA to share my view.


Below I cover a view things, the planning process and then the decision itself.


You can skip to where you want using the 3 links below, though I'd hope you can read through in full.


Hope this helps, somewhat! I've tried to be as jargon free as I can!


David


Jump to section:


 

Before you read on, please consider subscribing to my regular updates.


I send regular email updates, on my work and on key developments in Havering. If you'd like to get these, please sign-up to get my emails.


Your information isn't shared with anyone else, including any political party, and I do not send election campaign material.


 

Planning Process

When submitting a planning application, in Havering, applicants have to ensure that their proposals fit into a number of frameworks. These frameworks exist at 3 levels, local, London, and national.


Locally, the Havering Local Plan will outline what the Council deems as an acceptable development. This document is 140 pages long and covers things such as sightlines for historic buildings, suggested areas for development (in order to meet national and London housing targets), and requirements around landscaping.


An example of this will be 11.2.2 - this says that "landscape schemes will be required for all development proposals".


The plan sets out the Council's vision for the borough, up until 2031. As well as some rules, such as the need for a landscaping proposal, the plan also acts as a guide. For example, a large part of Havering's Local Plan talks about our green spaces and how it wants better wildlife habitats.


These rules and guidance will impact a Planning Officer's decision. If a rule isn't followed, then it's highly likely that an application is declined. If a proposal goes against the guidance, such as making wildlife habitat worse, it is likely the Officer will decide the application is not in-line with the Local Plan and reject it.


My examples above are not specific to the Gidea Park Primary MUGA. But, they give an idea of what is in the Local Plan and it's impact.




At a London level, the London Plan does much of what the Local Plan does and much more.


The London plan is an even bigger document, that goes into minute details in some areas.


Chapter 5, section 4 covers play and informal recreation. This lists some requirements that Boroughs must implement. For example, a play area must be overlooked in order to give passive surveillance. A play area must contain new trees or planting, and it must be 'stimulating'.


Taking the 'stimulating' requirement, as an example.


Some housing developers get away with the most pathetic play areas. They chuck in a few logs and rocks, yet they get away with it. Why?


Well, they hire 'play experts' and similar. Those professionals will draw up extensive documents telling the Planning Officer that logs contain different textures of nature, provide a connection to the environment, and so on. A Planning Officer is quite likely to take the advice of the play professional.


The London Plan means that, an application such as the Gidea Park MUGA, will have to put in a really detailed proposal, likely backed with some substantial evidence.


5.5.4, in the London Plan, makes reference to Sports England guidance when providing a new playing pitch. This is relevant to the decision made by Havering Council.


As with the Local Plan, Planning Officers have to make sure things line up with the London plan.





At a national level, planning legislation goes on forever. But, the short of it is that it's another level of requirements on top of the two plans already discussed. This legislation also governs how a decision is made by local authorities.


Some applications will go to a panel of Councillors, others will just be decided by the Planning Officer. This is because some schemes have less impact on the community than others.


In the event that an application is denied, the Planning Officer will have to give their reasons. This is because a decision can be challenged in courts or by someone higher up. For example, the Mayor of London can 'call-in' an application and assess it.


When reviewing the legal challenge, the Officer's decision will be scrutinised and they will have to have demonstrated that they worked in-line with the three stages above. This is vital.


Imagine the development is for a block of flats, near your home. You may want to object to it and do so on the grounds that it blocks light entering your home. A Planning Officer will want the developer to do a light-study and will make their decision based on that. If the Officer decides the plans show you will lose light, they can reject the plan or make recommendations for changes. If it doesn't block your light, according to the evidence, then they can approve it. Any challenge you then make, to the decision, will likely be thrown-out.


So, on to why Havering Council rejected the MUGA Plan.


 

Reasons for Refusal

I have to re-iterate that I am not a planning professional, nor is this legal advice. This is my interpretation of what the reasons are. I'm hoping to be helpful here, it isn't my opinion of whether the plan was suitable or not.


1) The proposal means the loss of a playing field, doesn't meet Sports England's Playing Fields Policy, or line up with the National Planning Policy Framework (Para 103).

Straight away this is a big blow to the application. As I've outlined above, the London Plan is suggestive that new sports facilities meet Sports England policies. I don't know, and don't want to guess, all the reasons behind that. But, it ties one hand behind the Planning Officer's back.


The Planning Policy Framework paragraph, that the officer refers to, outlines that playing fields should not be built on, except under certain conditions. As the site of the MUGA is an existing playing field, it appears the Planning Officer has concluded that there would be a loss of a playing field.


Given that the field would be replaced by a sports facility (MUGA) then maybe that could be contested. But, remember back to the policies on nature etc. The proposal would replace grass with astroturf.



2) The proposed opening hours, of after school etc. may impact on the local neighbourhood. The application was limited in how the site would limit that.


This reason for refusal is, in short, saying that the application doesn't go into enough detail about how they'd stop light and noise from spilling onto the surrounding area. When the application first went in, a number of residents reached out to councillors with objections about noise, they also responded to the official consultation.


Planning Officers will, therefore, want to see that the noise would be manageable.


The Officer states that the proposals are not in line with D14 in the London Plan, which is a policy outlining how an application must demonstrate that their proposal won't impact the surrounding area.


3) The proposal didn't give enough information around parking and vehicle use.


This one is probably quite cut and dry for the Officer. The proposal was that the site be used by outside groups. The school would have to demonstrate how they would prevent cars from parking all over the local neighbourhood for this.


One option could be that they provide information on allowing the use of the school car park etc. Many developers hire expensive consultants to study traffic flow before they get their applications in. That's perhaps not possible for the school, but it answers the question of how people can get away with building a load of flats.


4) There was no ecological appraisal

This may be another black and white situation, where the Officer is left with little choice. Again, referring to the Local Plan and London Plan, the Officer outlines that the application needed an ecological study.


Think of all the times we hear about something being blocked due to discovering bats or newts. I've even seen one application in which there were concerns raised that the lighting, from a warehouse, may confuse migrating birds!


Without this study, I'd say it is quite unlikely that an application would go through.


So what is my conclusion?


 

Opinion and Conclusion


The short conclusion, and a rather brutal one, would be that the application wasn't robust enough.


The Officer, in their reasons for rejection, states that they considered suggesting amendments, but that the conflict with local planning policy meant they refused it.


Planning is by no means a simple thing and I admire anyone who takes on the submission of an application themselves. The process can be expensive, requiring a lot of 'experts' to be brought in, and often puts many people off.


On one Youtube I follow, someone wanted to put carp in a lake they owned, so people could fish it. That required planning permission. They had to do multiple ecological assessments, even testing the water for newt pee. Because newt pee was found, there was no chance they'd get approval. Not without spending another £400k in building a new lake and moving the newts to it. In their application, the person spent around £45,000. That's money gone!


Havering's Planning Officer has given some very specific reasons for rejection, highlighting the paragraphs and policies that they thing haven't been met. Whilst some are telling me that this was a 'cruel' decision, or a 'bad attitude' it goes to demonstrate that the Officer is being professional.


Planning Officers are not just any chap with a pencil and an opinion. Like a teacher, they have to go through a lot of training and they can lose their jobs if they don't follow the rules. If they approved this application, and it went to appeal, a court would almost certainly agree with the officer, as there are bits missing.


It is tough that schools have to go through so much, just to get a new playing facility for their kids. Especially as the Gidea Park Primary playing field is often unusable. Financial constraints mean that the school cannot afford the same level of experts that big developers use.


I want our children to have good playing facilities! I also want local neighbours to not have to be disturbed by shouting and grunting men in the evenings, with floodlights pouring into their gardens. There is a balance to be found and I hope it can be!


I've written to the Head of Gidea Park Primary and offered to meet, so that I can find out how to be helpful.



 

Before you read on, please consider subscribing to my regular updates.


I send regular email updates, on my work and on key developments in Havering. If you'd like to get these, please sign-up to get my emails.


Your information isn't shared with anyone else, including any political party, and I do not send election campaign material.


 

0 comments

Comments


bottom of page