Key information
Request reference number: FOI - 6520
Date of response:
Summary of request
INFORMATION REQUEST
1. The Applicant only carried out an alternative site search in November 2016 after this was requested by the Mayor at the Stage 1 Referral of the first planning application (which was rejected by Bromley Council). As such, it was a retrospective exercise and also did not involve a robust assessment or comparison of the alternative sites. When the Free School Application Form was submitted by the new Boys School to the Department for Education in August 2014, the proposed site was the only one put forward. Other more highly ranked sites, including Brownfield sites, are identified in Bromley's Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan which could have been taken forward if a proper exercise had been carried out back in 2014. Please can you explain how it was concluded in the Stage I Referral Report of 23 August 2017 that the applicant had carried out a proper search for alternative sites? Given that we pointed out the shortcomings of the applicant's alternative site search in the note attached to our e-mail of 24 October 2017, please can you explain why no mention of this was made in the Stage II Referral Report?
2. It is stated in paragraph 26 of the Stage I Referral Report of 23 August 2017 that “the existing courts are currently disused and have been for some time”. We pointed out in the note attached to our e-mail of 24 October 2017 that the area where the grass tennis courts used to be (about 3,866sqm) is actually being used by the pupils at the existing Bullers Wood School for Girls to play football and rugby and for private football coaching (with a photograph included showing a football goal and training squares in this area). We also pointed out that two car parks are being built on further existing open areas on the site (totally about 3,300sqm), which was not taken into account in the Stage I Referral Report. Please can you explain why this has all been ignored in the Stage II Referral Report?
3. It is stated in paragraph 10 of the Stage II Referral Report of 20 November 2017 that “GLA and Bromley Council officers and the applicant have worked with Sport England to address concerns raised regarding the loss of playing fields…”. Sport England clearly set out in an e-mail dated 23 September 2016 changes that would potentially allow the proposed development to fall within exception E5 to its policy on planning applications for development on playing fields. However, none of the changes suggested by Sport England have been included by the applicant under either the first or second planning application. Therefore, please can you explain exactly how the GLA officers, Bromley Council and the applicant “worked with” Sport England to address its concerns?
4. It is stated in paragraph 22 of the Stage II Referral Report that the GLA received 168 direct representations to the Mayor. Please can you confirm how many of those representations were in support of the planning application and how many were opposed to it?
5. Please can you provide us with copies of any representations received by the Mayor or the GLA officers in respect of this planning application from Local Councillors, London Assembly Constituency Members and Members of Parliament?
6. It is stated in paragraph 31 of the Stage II Referral Report that “whilst the proposal would result in additional traffic delay on local roads, this additionality is not considered to have a significant impact on the highways network”. As pointed out in the note attached to our e-mail of 24 October 2017, the traffic impact assessment submitted by the applicant is based on questionable travel survey data and a series of contrived assumptions aimed at reducing the school trip attraction figures and there are errors in the base traffic flow inputs and modelling itself. In addition, the reports prepared by Bromley Council’s highways officer and two traffic consultants, Glanville and Odyssey, all conclude that the applicant has not demonstrated that the cumulative residual impacts of the proposed development are not severe. Given this, please can you explain exactly how the TfL officers reached their conclusion?
Related documents
FOI - 6520 response