Itemno • EDINBVRGH. Report no THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL Planning Permission in Principle 11/02454/PPP at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary 51 Little France Crescent Edinburgh EH164SA
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 11/02454/PPP, submitted by NHS Lothian. The application is for: Planning permission in principle for erection of Children"s Hospital including department for clinical neurosciences + ancillary facilities, helipad, associated enabling development including energy centre, Vacuum Insulated Evaporator (VIE), car parking, revised access + public transport arrangements, public realm works + landscaping (car parking, access + public transport arrangements in detail).
It is recommended that this application be GRANTED subject to the conditions below.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The red line site boundary which comprises the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (RIE) campus extends to approximately 28.3 ha. The RIE sits within the Edinburgh BioQuarter, a wider area of land extending to the south and east which is currently being developed as a centre for biomedical research including academic research and related commercial developments linking with the existing hospital. Edinburgh City Centre is located approximately 4.5
1 km to the north west of the site. The Sheriffhall Roundabout, which provides access to the trunk road network, lies approximately 3.5 km to the south east accessed from Old Dalkeith (A7) to the west.
The RIE campus is predominantly flat and lies in a shallow valley between Craigmillar Hill to the North West and Edmonstone Ridge to the south. Craigmillar Castle, a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) (Reference No 90129), scheduled on 21 October 1994, is located on Craigmillar Hill. The RIE site is generally flat, although there are various embankments associated with the Niddrie Burn which flows to the south of hospital and the main car park B. The northern edges of the site slope up towards Craigmillar Hill.
To the west, the site adjoins a petrol station and a row of residential cottages adjoining Old Dalkeith Road. Beyond Old Dalkeith Road lie the residential areas of Craigour and Moredun which include 3 large tower blocks and smaller scale housing and Liberton Golf Course. To the east and south east of the site lies a recently constructed hospital car park and the under construction Niddrie Burn river restoration and Public Transport Link.
The existing buildings within the RIE site wrap around Little France Crescent, the main route through the campus. The main buildings are predominantly white clad, three storey (four including plant) buildings which are either linked internally or via elevated walkways. As well as the main hospital building which incorporates 870 beds, the RIE site contains an existing nursery building, located to the north west of the main car park B and the Edinburgh University medical school.
Little France Crescent to the north and Little France Drive to the south, provide access through the site in a loop system from Old Dalkeith Road (A7). There is a further loop road around the north and east of the RIE main building. The southern access is the current 'blue light' route, with the northern access being a secondary route. There is a further 'blue light' route from the existing hospital helipad in the north east corner of the site via the loop road. The existing helipad is located on an elevated site in the north east corner of the RIE campus approximately 560 metres by road from A&E. The facility is non-compliant with current CAA regulations, being only accessible from the east, it is unsuitable for night time use by air ambulance helicopters, although larger military helicopters are able to use the facility.
Buses enter the campus from via the southern or northern access road, and then traverse the site via Little France Crescent to allow passengers to alight at stops located in close proximity to the west entrance of the RIE. Approximately 50 buses serve the RIE site every hour including terminating and through services. Each of the 3 main bus stop locations are within a short walk from the RIE main entrance and include covered shelters. There are further bus stops on Old Dalkeith Road to the North West and south west. These are accessible from the RIE main entrance at walking distances of between 440 and 510 metres. All bus services including express routes but with the exception of a longer distance route from Midlothian and the Borders (95/A/X95), currently enter the RIE site.
2 There are five main car parks within the campus containing 1712 spaces. A further 30 spaces are provided in a university car park and 2 for the creche. A new car park constructed to the east of the RIE campus shall provide a further 1127 spaces, partly to replace spaces intended to be lost from car park B. A cycle route enters the site from the north and extends through the car park B towards Old Dalkeith Road. The route along the northern boundary route is currently compromised by the steep gradient and includes steps.
The main development site for the new hospital is the existing main car park B, to the south west of the main entrance to the RIE, which currently contains 815 parking spaces.
Site History
7 December 2009 - A Proposal of Application Notice (reference 09/03140/PAN) was submitted for the development;
13 May 2011 - Full planning permission granted for a 464 sq m single storey extension to existing University of Edinburgh Chancellor's Building to form a Neurology Clinic (reference 11/00799/FUL).
Other Relevant History
23 December 2004 - Outline planning permission was granted for the development of up to 133,525 square metres of biomedical research uses on a 27 ha site to the south (reference 02/04372/0UT);
22 March 2006 - Planning permission was deemed to be granted for a public transport link connecting Craigmillar and the RIE on land to the east (reference 04/02469/CEC);
26 May 2010 - Full planning permission granted for the creation of a surface level car park containing 1127 spaces together with access and landscaping (reference 10100320/FUL) on land to the east of the RIE campus designed to accommodate future hospital development on car park B; and
23 August 2010 - Full planning consent was granted for the Niddrie Burn Restoration Project on land to the south and east (reference 08/02474/FUL).
3 Pre-Application Process
The pre-application consultation involved public exhibitions which were held at various locations in Edinburgh including hospitals and at Craigmillar Library between April and May 2010. The events were publicised to Craigmillar, Liberton and Grange/ Prestonfield Community Councils and through the Neighbourhood Partnership. A total of 65 comments were generated including regarding:
Total parking numbers and proximity parking for visitors and patients;
The location and provision of disabled parking and cyclists parking and connections;
The implications of the public transport changes;
The functionality of the public square and access to open space;
Security issues relating to CCTV and the proposed landscaping details;
The accessibility and legibility of the wider site; and
The design of internal spaces and the external appearance of the building.
Full details can be found in the Pre-Application Consultation report, which sets out the findings from the community consultation. This is available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Portal.
A pre-application report was presented to the Committee on 10 November 2010. A further report was presented to Committee following changes to the proposals on 22 June 2011. At the first meeting, the Committee requested further information in relation to access and public transport links, car parking, cycle links/parking, and air quality. At the second meeting, the Committee requested further information regarding the position of helipad, frequency of use and potential noise issues. Additional information was requested regarding bus stop locations and consultation with transport user groups and fees for the new car park. Further details of building heights and the relationship with Craigmillar Castle and details of the proposed Energy centre were also requested. The Committee visited the site of the RSCH/ DCN, the site of the enabling works and the existing steading properties on Old Dalkeith Road on 3 November 2011 .
The proposals were submitted to the Urban Design Panel on 28 October 2009. Full details of the response can be found in the Consultations section.
4 Description Of The Proposal
The proposals, which are for Planning Permission in Principle (PPP), are to erect a new Royal Sick Children's Hospital (RSCH) and Department of Clinical Neurosciences (DCN) on the existing main car park B to the south west of the main entrance to the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (RI E). The RSCH and DCN would be relocated from existing locations at Sciennes and at the Western General Hospital, and would include various ancillary facilities notably patient hotels and a roof top helipad. Accident & Emergency (A&E) facilities proposed would physically link with the existing A&E Department within the RIE to create a new major trauma centre for adult and child patients.
The linkage of the two A&E functions would require the closure of Little France Crescent. A scheme of enabling works is proposed involving the upgrading of the existing loop road to the north and east of the existing hospital to provide an alternative bus route and a new bus terminus adjacent to the RIE east entrance. Parts of the route with the exception of the bus terminus and the section of adjacent loop road are proposed in detail. Various public realm and landscaping works are also proposed. Further enabling works which have been designed in detail, include the provision of a cycle way connecting with Craigmillar Castle Road to the north and the temporary relocation of the vacuum insulated enclosure (VIE) to a position to the east of the existing RIE building. The provision of flood defences along the southern boundary of the site with the Niddrie Burn is also included, and an outline design for the flood protection works has been submitted.
Design implications of proposed 'NPD' (Non-Profit Distributing) delivery method
The proposed funding model for delivering the RSCHI DCN known as 'NPD' (Non-Profit Distributing) relies on private sector rather than direct public funding, and essentially allows private sector companies to bid to construct the hospital within a series of fixed parameters. The applicant has indicated that in order for this model to work successfully within the RIE site, the development requires to be self contained. This therefore necessitates the provision of a separate energy centre and separate Facilities Management (FM) services.
The 'reference design' proposals submitted for this application are intended to test the floor space requirements and critical adjacencies along with current design aspirations for the site. Once approved in principle the design will be used to inform the bidding process. A more detailed design exercise will then be undertaken by the successful bidders. They will design the detailed layout and design and massing, architectural form, fac;ade detailing and material selection. The design may change during this process, and for these reasons it should be noted that the current design is just one possible option for the
5 development. The critical adjacencies that govern the location of individual elements of the hospital are set out below.
Critical Adjacencies
1. The co-location of children's hospitals alongside maternity and adult services. This is seen to be a minimum standard for delivering modern healthcare.
2. The co-location of A&E departments within the RIE site. This is fixed by the location of the existing A&E Department.
3. The Paediatric Acute Receiving Unit (PARU) and conjoined radiology departments must be co-located with A&E.
4. The 'hot core', a vertical connection providing rapid vertical access to the co-joined theatre suite, the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit and the DCN Acute Care department requires to be located immediately adjacent to A&E. The hot core also provides direct access to the rooftop helipad.
5. For a major trauma centre, the provision of a rooftop helicopter is seen to be a critical requirement as it removes the need for need for secondary patient transfer. The rooftop helipad requires a direct connection with A&E. The position of the helipad is fixed by the position of the hot core. From a technical/ safety perspective, the location of the helicopter requires to be the highest point of the building. The helipad level is also governed by the height of the lift shaft (plus 'over-run' facility) within the 'hot-core' plus any pad supporting structure.
6. The Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) unit must have a ground floor location with its own dedicated entrance and access to a secure garden.
7. The NHS clinical brief requires the four paediatric wards (Medical Inpatients, Surgical Inpatients, Haematology/Oncology Inpatients and Paediatric Neuroscience ward) to be co-located horizontally on the same floor. The patient hotels require to be at the same level as the paediatric inpatient wards.
6 Key departments to be contained in the RSCHI DCN
The following key departments require to be located within the RSCH/ DCN building:
A & E, Paediatric Acute Receiving Unit (PARU), Combined Radiology, DCN Outpatients, Sick Kids Outpatients, Family Support, CAMHS, Spiritual Care, Catering (Patient and Non-Patient), Estates, Staff Change, Domestic Services, Materials management, Combined theatres, Critical Care, Surgical Admissions Unit, DCN Acute Care, Bereavement Suite, DCN Inpatients, DCN Therapies Combined, Neurophysiology, Medical Records, Medical inpatients, Surgical inpatients, Haematology/Oncology Inpatients, Neuroscience Inpatients, Sleep lab, Medical Day Care Unit, Academic Centre, Family Hotels (Ronald McDonald and Clic Sargent), Clinical Management.
Reference Design
Based on the critical adjacencies and individual department floor space requirements, a reference design has been prepared which provides illustrative floor plans, and sections showing current massing and the position of buildings. Details of maximum building heights are also provided along with key elements of public realm and landscaping, points of access and egress. The layout has been determined to be compliant with clinical requirements. As highlighted in the Design Statement and Addendum, key elements of the design are as follows:
1. Matters which fix the location of public entrances include the intended redefinition of Car Park E (to the north west of the site) from staff parking to public car parking for the RSCH/ DCN facility. The rerouting of public transport to a new bus terminus to the east of the RIE and the existing position of the main pedestrian entrance to RIE to the north east of the development site also indicate the need for an entrance from the east.
2. As a result of 1 above, a double frontage for the development has been shown with public entrances linking into a main public circulation space which contains a void extending up to reveal roof level glazing. The western entrance links to a covered public walkway.
3. Three distinct development zones are proposed which separate the various different hospital functions from south to north. These include a working zone (a location for the energy centre and emergency access to A&E), an acute zone (containing the 'hot' clinical functions such as radiology, theatres, inpatient wards etc.) and a 'clinic' zone (containing the children's hospital outpatient and therapy functions).
7 4. The design seeks to respond to opportunities for southerly aspect and view and to provide high quality accessible garden areas. Accordingly the massing of the building steps down towards the south. Various internal and higher level courtyards are proposed within the design. The garden areas are seen to provide opportunities for play/therapy and to improve the outlook for patients. The CAMHS unit and secure garden are shown along the western extent of the development site.
5. In order to ensure that the proposals sits comfortably in its surroundings and to limit the impact of the development on key views including from Old Dalkeith Road and Craigmillar Castle, the overall height of the building has been minimised. The limitation of height is also a product of the critical adjacencies which require a more horizontal building form;
6. The design seeks to create a new identity for the Royal Hospital for Sick Children and Department of Clinical Neurosciences and also to redefine, repair and improve the user experience for those arriving to the RIE site from Old Dalkieth Road. This is to be achieved by:
• Creating a new zone of public realm importance; and
• Fragmenting the mass of the building via the approach to zoning highlighted in point 3.
7. Within the design the proposed roof top helipad is seen to be a key opportunity for architectural expression.
8. The relocation of a combined pedestrian/ cycle route from within the car park to a position along the western boundary.
9. The re-configuration of drop off areas at the western entrance of the RIE
10. The inclusion of a substantial basement to contain Facilities Management (FM) and proximity parking is intended to minimise the overall mass/ height of the building and to free up space for the creation of high quality spaces at ground floor level.
11. Materials for the development are not shown, but there is recognition in terms of protecting longer distance views, that a replication of the white cladding used for the existing hospital would not be appropriate.
12. It is the applicant's intention to achieve Secure by Design accreditation for the hospital.
8 Maximum Building Heights
The proposed maximum building heights are referenced against existing site levels of between 51.8-53.2m ADD. The proposed storey height would generally be 4 storeys (74.5m ADD), with additional rooftop plant and a substantial basement. The building height would step down to 3 storeys (69m ADD) towards the southern boundary and single storey (56.25 ADD) on the western edge of the development. The proposed energy centre to be situated at the southern end of the car park site would have a maximum height of 58.5m ADD. This figure excludes the proposed extraction flues which would add a further 15m to the overall height. The proposed helipad to be located to the north west of the proposed A & E link to the existing RIE would be the highest part of the building at 75.5m ADD.
Maximum floor space and bed numbers
The maximum building floor space would be 48,500m2 Gross Internal Area (GIA). Patient bed numbers for the RSCH would total 173, with 69 beds for DCN and 36 beds for the proposed family hotels.
Access and car parking
A replacement car park and additional spaces for the new hospital has already been delivered under a previous application on land to the east of the previous RIE boundary. This provision includes a re-provision of 815 spaces to be lost from Car Park B and a further 312 spaces intended to serve the replacement RSCHI DCN development. This construction has raised the total number of car parking on the RIE site to 2028 spaces. The new parking proposed as part of this application is limited to proximity parking and drop off spaces.
Proximity parking and secure cycle parking for the development would be located within the basement. This would total 60 parking spaces including 10 disabled spaces, and would be accessed via a ramped access road from the north. The proposed ramp would be adjacent to the existing children's nursery, connecting with an existing point of access from Little France Crescent. The access ramp serving the basement FM accommodation would be accessed to the south of the proposed energy centre. A looped service holding area would also be provided at ground level.
Emergency drop off parking totalling 24 spaces, an increase of 12 spaces, would be located to the south of the proposed A& E accessed from Little France Drive. A total of 5 ambulance drop off spaces would be provided to the south of the co-joined A&E.
9 Energy Centre
The development would be served by a stand-alone energy centre to be located to the south of the new hospital. This would incorporate a gas fired combined heat and power (CHP) system with 3 boilers (2 gas duty boilers, 1 oil standby boiler). Emissions from the energy centre would be vented via a chimney of maximum height 15 metres to be located on the roof of the building. Any associated chimneys for the standby system would terminate at the same point as the main chimney.
Open space/landscaping/boundary treatments
New planting in the form of new trees, grassed areas and shrubs is proposed within the main development. A secure garden is proposed for use by the CAMHS unit as well as accessible areas for PARU and other departments to be located in the south and south west corners of the development site. Various internal courtyard areas containing hard and soft landscaping are also proposed. These are mainly at ground floor level but also at upper levels as the development steps and have the potential to be suitable for play/therapy and for improving outlook for patients. To aid way finding there is scope for new public art to be situated at key locations within the site.
For the wider enabling works, an outline landscaping scheme is shown based on replacing the landscaping lost during the enabling works. A total of 458 trees may require to be removed and be re-provided, either in a similar position to existing or within designated areas within the wider site.
SUDS
The outline strategy produced for the application indicates proposed areas for SUDS serving the new hospital. In order to achieve the necessary Greenfield run off rates for the proposed roads and parking areas, a combination of underground cellular storage, filter trenches, porous paving and filter blankets are proposed. Although not formally part of the SUDS strategy, green roofs are also proposed in the application and have the potential to provide additional attenuation. Rainwater from roofs is proposed to connect with the existing RIE swale.
Flood Protection Works
There are no definitive records of the existing flood embankment, adjoining the Niddrie Burn. These require to be verified to ensure they are suitable as flood protection. This will involve intrusive site investigations and geotechnical testing. The outcome of the initial verification works will inform the detailed design of the flood embankments which will be remodelled as part of the development to provide a consistent protection against a 1: 1000 year flood risk event. Two specific locations where the embankments would currently be
10 overtopped by flood waters would be addressed by the works. An outline design for the replacement embankment has been presented in the application consisting of a sheet piled cut off wall to be constructed through the existing embankment with a 600mm freeboard allowance. The piles would be driven up to 14metres below the surface of the embankment and would then be topped with landscaping and a re-instated footpath.
Enabling works
The enabling works would consist of the following:
1. The permanent closure of the existing Little France Crescent to allow for the construction of the A&E link;
2. The realignment and widening of the loop road from 6m to a total width of7.3m;
3. The provision of bus stops at various amended locations along the loop road including 2 stops adjoining the Edinburgh University Medical School and further stops for non-terminating buses to the east of the RIE. Bus stops will also be re-positioned from the existing terminus at the western entrance of the RI E to a position further to the west;
4. The provision of 5 new bus lay-bys to the rear of the existing RIE to accommodate a replacement facility for terminating busses. This new terminus will include controlled bus turning facilities and pedestrian crossings and accompanying landscaping in the form of trees and hedging;
5. The relocation of access and egress junctions for car parks C and D on the eastern side of the RIE. These would be relocated approximately 140m to the north west and south west respectively with access to be formed via an upgrading of existing roundabouts/ turning areas;
6. Formal pedestrian crossings will be provided adjacent to bus lay-bys which will incorporate suitable lighting and bus real-time information;
7. Reconfigured junctions along the loop road to accommodate the bus movements;
8. The provision of an upgraded cycle/ pedestrian connection linking the RI E with Craigmillar Castle Road.
11 Phasing
The development is proposed in phases, with the enabling road works to be completed prior to the closure of Little France Crescent and the re-routing of public transport and the opening of car park F as a staff car park. The physical linkage of A&E departments and the construction of a new hospital plaza area outside the existing RIE main entrance would then be taken forward as part of the construction of RSCHI DCN. The flood prevention works and the construction of the cycleway connection would also be completed prior to the opening of the new hospital.
Previous Schemes
The proposals have been amended during the application and the following revisions have been made:
1. The form and arrangement of the northerly clinical block has been adjusted in response to a review of clinical needs. This has resulted in a more rational approach, removing the previously shown curved profile with a more angular design. The heights shown remain consistent with the previous iteration.
2. The previously shown basement courtyard has been removed in order to provide accessible garden areas adjacent to public areas on the ground floor. The proposed basement service areas would be lit by roof lights to be positioned within the courtyard.
3. The basement public parking and entrance ramp arrangement has been amended. The ramp access to the public car-park has been shifted south west in order to free up pedestrian space in front of the main entrance. A looped ramp approach is now proposed, accessed off the shared creche/RHSC drop-off zone. This is also to accommodate better the proposed relocated north - south cycle connection.
4. The proposed emergency access and drop off has been revised. The previously shown roundabout system which provided access to separated emergency drop off and ambulance drop offs has been removed and replaced with parking for both areas configured into a loop system with accompanying soft landscaping.
5. In association with point 4, the design and layout of the energy centre and adjacent ramp serving the basement service area have been revised. To accommodate the revised access layout, the energy centre has been relocated by 11 m from the western development boundary, to a revised distance of 31 m from properties on Old Dalkieth Road. The energy centre is now proposed as a flat roof form with sedum roof.
12 6. The single storey CAMHS unit is now presented as a squarer building form and is positioned 8 metres closer to existing properties on Old Dalkieith Road at a distance of 22m.
7. Changes to the internal floor space layouts, including the addition of a small restaurant at fourth floor level overlooking the main entrance and other minor repositioning works.
Submission documents
The following documents have been submitted in support of the application:
An Environmental Statement (ES) and associated non-technical summary have been submitted and cover air quality, biodiversity, landscape and visual impacts, noise and vibration, socio-economics, water resources and non-significant impacts. An addendum covering transport impacts on the Sheriffhall Roundabout and on the City Bypass was submitted on 5 August. A second addendum with further information regarding helicopter noise impacts was submitted on 12 October.
Reference design plan plans including conceptual drawings demonstrating key elements of the design and critical adjacencies. Further drawings detailing proposed phasing, maximum building heights, site layout, floor plans and sections.
Plans for the enabling road works including road layout, bus terminus, cycle path connection to Craigmillar Castle Road and indicating potential options for the areas currently not fully designed (Le. the areas between the site and the existing RIE main entrance).
Outline landscape strategy.
Transport Assessment - main issues covered.
Drainage Assessment and Flood Risk Assessment and associated addendum.
Outline SUDS strategy.
Design and access statement and associated addendum
Car parking study.
Sun path analysis.
Planning statement.
Pre-application consultation report (PAC).
13 Sustainability statement and associated sustainability form.
These documents are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Portal.
3. Officer's Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them? ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:
(a) the proposals comply in principle with the Development Plan;
(b) the proposals provide a development of appropriate scale and design in context with key views;
(c) the transport impacts of the development would be acceptable;
(d) the air quality impacts would be acceptable;
(e) the development is acceptable in terms of flood risk and SUDS;
(f) the landscape and ecology impacts of the development would be acceptable;
(g) the proposals comply with the Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Building (ESSB); and
(h) the helicopter use would be acceptable in terms of noise and amenity impacts.
14 (a) The various options for locating the RSCHI DCN development and the critical adjacencies are set out in the submitted Planning Statement, Design Statement and ES. The critical adjacencies are summarised in the description of the proposals above. The appraisal of site options commissioned by the applicant confirmed that only the RIE and St John's Hospital in Livingston met the key recommendations of independent reports that Children's specialist acute services should be co-located with acute adult, maternity and neonatal services. Other locations were discounted on this basis. The RIE had the additional benefit of providing a specialised neonatal unit compared to St John's which has a Special Care Babies Unit. A full option appraisal was carried out with the RIE being the favoured option in terms of meeting both services and space requirements.
Based on the consideration of the critical adjacencies, it is accepted that there is a clear need for the development to be located on this particular site linking with the existing adult A&E department in order to realise the health and research related benefits associated with this major piece of essential new civil infrastructure. This position accords with the previous decision by the Committee in May 2010 to approve additional car parking for a future RSCHI DCN on land to the east of the existing RIE.
The red line boundary plan has been amended during the application by removing a small area of ground adjacent to Old Dalkeith Road that was queried by a respondent in terms of ownership. This resolves this matter in terms of the application.
Overall, based on the critical adjacencies, the location chosen for the development is acceptable subject to the further consideration of key issues including: development height in terms of key views and residential amenity, transport, air quality, flooding, helicopter and noise issues, biodiversity and landscaping and sustainability. These issues are considered under the headings below.
(b) Policies Des 1, Des 3 and Des 5 in the ECLP require a high quality of design to be achieved which is appropriate in terms of scale, layout, form and materials in context with the surrounding area and key views. It must also be ensured that there are no significant amenity impacts.
Key views to and from Old Dalkeith Road and the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) of Craigmillar Castle and associated local and wider public views are seen to be a critical factor in the successful integration of the new hospital into the RIE campus and the surrounding landscape. These impacts are considered in the submitted ES. In a worst case there would be limited encroachment on the tree line of Craigmillar Castle Hill in views from Old Dalkeith Road. This is acceptable.
15 The development would be marginally higher than adjacent buildings within the RIE which are predominantly 3 storeys. The comments from A+DS highlight the potential benefits of an increase in building height in selected locations in order to break up the mass of the development, and in providing increased scope for sun and daylight to patient rooms, public realm and landscaping space. The potential design benefits resulting from an increased area for development is also noted in the response from AD+S. A further substantive increase in building heights would require a formal revision to the ES in order for the impact on the setting of the adjacent SAM and key views to be further assessed.
Due to the sensitivities involved in the key views, and the requirement for the consent to reflect broadly the submitted ES, it is not proposed to require substantive changes to the reference design at this stage. However in order to retain a degree of flexibility in the design, the maximum building heights for the northernmost 'clinical' part of the development have been increased to accord with the maximum 4 storey heights shown for the central 'acute' zone and would be a condition of consent. The design for the northernmost part of the development has also been rationalised to allow for future expansion space. The proposed extraction flues of up to 15 metres for the energy centre would add to the visual impact of this element but this is acceptable in context with the adjacent larger buildings.
The submitted sun and daylight calculations demonstrate that there would be no significant amenity impacts on the existing residential properties which would be well separated from the development, which steps down to either single storey or two storeys towards the western boundary. The position of buildings would be reserved, thereby retaining the potential for the building to flex outwards should this prove beneficial from a design perspective. Other matters relating to the design of buildings, including the extent and position of the individual uses within the maximum floor areas proposed in the application, the design of elevations, the sensitive use of materials in context with key views, and public realm and landscaping would be matters for further approval.
Overall subject to the recommended conditions, the submitted reference design and the ES demonstrate that a building of the floor space shown can be successfully accommodated in design terms and in relation to key views. Further design work would be undertaken prior to the detailed design stage in order to ensure that the benefits of the hospital from a design and user perspective are maxi mised.
(c) Policies Des 3 and Des 4 in the ECLP require that safe and convenient access and servicing is achieved in a manner that encourages walking and cycling and minimises potential conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and motorised traffic. Policies Tra 4, Tra 5 and Tra 6 in the ECLP require that appropriate provision is made for car and cycle parking in accordance with the Council's approved Parking Standards.
16 Impact of vehicular movements on the local and wider road network
The scope of the Transport Assessment (TA) was agreed with CEC Transport and assumes zero traffic growth except from committed developments. These include a new private hospital and care village at Edmonstone Estate to the south and phases 1-3 of the Bioquarter Development. The TA focuses on the impact of the RSCHI DCN development on the Old Dalkeith Corridor including the operation of key junctions with the RIE and adjoining junctions serving the local road network. Due to comments received from Transport Scotland and Midlothian Council an Addendum to the Environmental Statement was also submitted covering impacts on Sheriffhall Roundabout.
It is clear from the TA that existing junctions are at or near capacity and that there are also issues with traffic flows on Old Dalkeith Road and at Sheriffhall. The 242 bed RSCHI DCN development would result in a 28% increase in beds at the RIE. Assuming a similar pattern of car use as with the existing RIE, it is anticipated that this will generate 348 car movements (both arrivals and departures) in the AM peak (07:45-08:45) and 270 movements in the PM peak (17:00-18:00). The corresponding traffic growth on Old Dalkeith Road would be in the order of 5%. This is a minor increase and is acceptable subject to further consideration of the operation of individual junctions.
From the submitted ES addendum, vehicular movements through the Sheriffhall roundabout would increase by 1.3% or 154 vehicles in the AM peak, including a 5% increase (77 vehicles) in the number of vehicles using the Old Dalkeith Road (A7) arm of the junction. Transport Scotland has confirmed that in their view there will be no significant traffic impacts on the trunk road network that would give rise to environmental impacts. Midlothian Council asks that consideration be given to addressing the transport impacts on Sheriffhall by means of a developer contribution. Based on the findings of the additional assessment and the comments of Transport Scotland a developer contribution in respect of Sheriffhall is not a reasonable requirement.
The northern junction with the RIE would remain within capacity in the AM peak and would be at or just over capacity in the PM peak. This is acceptable and no alterations would be required. For the southern junction, this access is shared between the RIE and the adjacent Bioquarter and by the future Public Transport Link (PTL). The access is also the main 'blue light' route for the hospital. Factoring in the committed development, the southern junction would be significantly over capacity with large queues arising in the AM peak. To address this issue, the TA proposes to increase the length of the right turn lane from Old Dalkeith Road. This would address the capacity issue and the detailed design and implementation of these works would form part of a suitable legal agreement.
17 The remaining junctions in the vicinity of the RIE would remain either below or near capacity. To ensure that the Craigmillar Castle Road junction retains its functionality at peak times, additional keep clear markings are proposed. This work would also form part of a suitable legal agreement.
Overall the local and wider traffic impacts, factoring in committed development, would be limited and the implementation of specific works identified as mitigation measures can be controlled via a suitable legal agreement. This is acceptable.
Parking for the development
There is currently a total of 1716 car parking spaces within the RIE site. The TA and the accompanying Car Parking Study consider the parking demand for the development in context with existing parking provision and use patterns in the RIE. The majority of existing parking demand at the RIE is from staff, who tend to use the long stay car parking facilities. Staff parking demand peaks around 14:00 hours at the change of shifts, when around 1100 spaces are taken up by staff. Public parking demands peak between 19:00 - 20:00, when around 570 spaces are used. As a result of the current usage patterns, car park B is at practical capacity between 11 :00 - 16:00 and other car parks are also near or above capacity in similar timeframes. The public and staff car park C is at or over capacity between 10:00 - 17:00. There is no current capacity issues associated with Car park E.
Factoring in the new development and a similar pattern of car usage to existing, the proposal would result in a theoretical need for car parking in the order of 465 spaces. The proposed new parking includes 312 additional parking spaces which were approved by Committee in May 2010 and subsequently constructed as part of the new car park F. The 815 spaces to be lost from car park B through the current development have also been re provided in car park F. Those spaces cannot be used until the existing car park B closes and until the need for the additional spaces has been demonstrated. A further 60 disabled and child friendly proximity parking spaces are proposed within the proposed basement giving a total, excluding 24 drop off spaces, of 372 new spaces. Associated parking management proposals include the reallocation of the 273 space staff car park E at the northern entrance to the site for public car parking for the RSCHI DCN development, and the use of car park F solely for staff parking. This would create new public parking in close proximity to the RSCH/DCN development and is to be welcomed.
The Council's approved Parking Standards require parking for the hospital to be agreed on an individual basis. The development site is constrained and only a finite number of new spaces can be accommodated alongside the new development and in context with associated access and servicing requirements. Comments have been received from Midlothian Council regarding the impact of the development on the park and ride services at Sheriffhall. There is understood to be existing capacity at that site and a developer contribution would not be required.
18 On balance and factoring in the proposed improvements to parking management across the site, the proposed parking numbers are acceptable. The final number of car parking spaces, secure cycle spaces and motor cycle spaces to be provided within the development site and the management of car parking spaces would be a matter to be agreed as part of a future application for Approval of Matters specified in Conditions (AMC). The agreement of a Staff Travel Plan would be secured by means of a suitable legal agreement.
Access for busses and associated enabling works
The linkage of the two A & E departments across Little France Crescent would sever the existing bus corridor and require the re-routing of buses to a new terminus to the east of the existing RIE. The loop road to the north and east of the RIE currently serves the existing car parks, the helipad and service access and is 6m in width. The enabling works to be carried out prior to the closure of Little France Crescent and the construction of the new RSCH/DCN would widen and realign the loop road to a generally consistent width of 7.3 metres, thereby allowing buses and other large vehicles to pass each other without needing to slow down. The details provided in the application demonstrate that, in principle, the rerouting can be achieved successfully without detrimentally impacting on the operation of the hospital. The impact for buses and for pedestrians is considered below.
The increased distance would create delays for buses in the order of 2 minutes. This figure does not take into account the impact of additional pedestrian crossings proposed as part of the development, the impact of which is likely to be generally minor. It is understood that the main bus operators have acceded to the proposed re-routing and will continue to bring buses through the RI E. The future use of the RI E site by buses is a commercial matter that cannot be guaranteed, but there is a remaining concern that once the new terminus is operational, bus operators may make a commercial decision to have more direct services which avoid entering the RIE site. This would increase the usage of stops on Old Dalkeith Road which are at the limits of reasonable walking distances. This can be looked at in more detail once the changes have been implemented and the impact on bus operations can be clearly established.
The bus route along the loop road would continue to provide stops adjacent to the existing main entrance, and also provide stops both at and in close proximity to the new bus terminus at the rear of the hospital. These are all within reasonable walking distance of the main hospital facilities. The provision of appropriate real-time information at bus stops would be a legal agreement requirement and general way finding through the existing hospital would be looked at in terms of the detailed works. The provision of appropriate crossing facilities and bus shelters would be conditioned as part of the development.
19 Although acceptable in principle, the design of the bus terminus and the adjacent access road requires further consideration to ensure that access to the adjacent car parks is as direct as possible and that pedestrian movements on desire lines, and a high quality of public realm including landscaping and bus shelters can be achieved in context with the required vehicle movements, which also include service and emergency vehicles. There is potential for improvements to be found via a full review of the required vehicular movements in this area, and the final design of the works would be reserved for agreement by the Head of Planning. A further condition would ensure the works are complete and operational prior to the closure of Little France Crescent. Necessary traffic orders required to stop up the existing bus route would be progressed prior to commencement and an applicant informative is recommended to this effect.
In the medium to longer term the Transport Assessment prepared for future phases of the Bioquarter identifies the potential for buses to avoid the RI E loop road and access the new terminus from Little France Drive prior to looping back onto Old Dalkeith Road via the Bioquarter. Limited context can be given to the details containing the Bioquarter TA which has yet to be fully assessed. This further intervention is mentioned in the current TA for the RSCHI DCN but would not remove the need for the initial widening works to take place as a short- medium term need.
Buses using the future PTL will ultimately provide direct links to Craigmillar and a wider catchment area. The submitted TA does not consider the need for supporting the establishment of bus services along the PTL. Despite a desire to get this route established as soon as possible, this is not seen to be a reasonable requirement for the current development, which itself is critical infrastructure. There are legal agreement monies from other developments which can potentially be used for this purpose.
Overall the proposed enabling works and associated impacts on buses and bus users is acceptable subject to the proposed conditions and informative.
Cycle and pedestrian access
The development proposals outlined in the PPP have the potential to significantly improve the public realm in the area around the new hospital. The agreement of the detailed works to link between the existing RIE and the RSCHI DCN would be a matter for further approval. Proposals to provide a new public connection to A & E through the existing RIE main building are to be welcomed and can be looked at further in terms of the detailed design, but cannot be conditioned as part of the development. Pedestrian access for bus users is considered above and is acceptable subject to the previously mentioned conditions.
In terms of cycle access, the development would deliver a suitably graded cycle connection from the north of the RIE site to join with an existing cycle track adjacent to Craigmillar Castle Road. This has been designed and the detailed construction and delivery of this route would be conditioned as part of
20 the development. The redevelopment of car park B would remove an existing cycle connection which would require to be re-provided along the western boundary of the site. This would maintain suitable north - south cycle connections within the RIE site integrating with the new cycle connection to the north. The agreement of a replacement route for the cycle track would be a matter for approval as part of a future application for AMC. East - west pedestrian and cycle routes linking with the existing right of way and the proposed 'Park for Health' to the east of the RIE, would also be looked at as part of the detailed design of the development.
Overall the various transport matters are acceptable subject to the proposed conditions, informative and legal agreement matters.
(d) Policy Env 18 requires that air quality issues are assessed and any impacts appropriately mitigated. The air quality impacts from the development relate to the proposed energy centre and to increased emissions from road traffic.
The ES demonstrates that the proposed chimneys for the energy centre which is gas fired with a diesel back-up system, would be of a suitable height to ensure emissions can be appropriately controlled in line with the requirements of the Clean Energy Act 1993. The diesel system would be rarely used, and a condition and related applicant informative would ensure that the completed development complies with details contained in the ES. There would be no adverse air quality impacts arising from the energy centre. Visual impacts from the extraction flues are considered in section (b).
In terms of traffic issues, the site is neither part of nor close to an existing Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). However it must be considered whether the development and surrounding committed development would lead to a new AQMA being designated. Based on the assessment contained in the ES, there would be no significant impacts from the increased traffic volumes either on Old Dalkeith Road or at Sheriffhall.
In order to promote more sustainable electric vehicle use as part of the development, an applicant informative is recommended regarding the installation of electric charging points for service vehicles using the new hospital. This would be looked at as part of the detailed design.
Overall air quality impacts would be acceptable subject to the recommended condition and informative.
21 (e) Policy Env 17 in the ECLP requires that new development shall not increase existing flood risk or be at risk of flooding itself. Scottish Planning Policy advises that hospital developments are essential civil infrastructure and should not be at risk of from flooding events of an intensity of a 0.1 % Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) (1 :1000 year) flood. The acceptability in principle of the proposed basement accommodation must be considered in context with the flooding issues. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and associated Addendum has been submitted for the development and has been considered by SEPA and the Council's Flood Risk Officer.
The main flood risk to the RIE is fluvial flooding from the Niddrie Burn which is located 25m to the south of the proposed development site for the RSCHI DCN. The development site is significantly lower than the flood levels estimated in the nearby Niddrie Burn and without the protection of the existing bunds the site would be at risk from a 0.5% AEP (1 :200 year) flood. The extent to which the existing embankments along the southern boundary of the campus can acceptably mitigate the impacts of flooding in line with the requirements of the SPP is considered below. The flat nature of the site coupled with the potential for substantial runoff from Craigmillar Hill also presents risks of pluvial flooding during exceptional rainfall events. This is a lesser risk and the requirement is to demonstrate that the development would not be at risk at the 1 :200 year flood level. The issues relating to pluvial flooding are also considered below.
From the submitted FRA, the embankments designed to protect the RIE during major fluvial flooding events were constructed when the burn was realigned during the construction of the original RIE. During those works the burn channel was designed to a 1% AEP (1: 100 year) flood risk, with the embankments providing the remainder of the flood protection. However these were sized according to the amount of material remaining following the RIE construction rather than to provide a continuous and fixed flood defence level.
The surveys carried out for the FRA demonstrate that the embankments would be overtopped in two locations during a 1 :1000 year flood event. There are also no definitive records of the construction of the embankments which would require to be fully verified in order to be confirmed as being suitable for purpose or replaced. An outline design solution for the embankments involving sheet piled walls covered in earth to provide a continuous protection against a 1: 1000 year flood has been prepared and is acceptable in principle subject to further consideration of matters of detail. The flood protection works would form part of a suitable legal agreement.
However the embankments would only be effective if there are no other potential sources of fluvial flooding including from upstream. Whilst the modelling contained in the FRA appears to demonstrate that flood water does not enter the RIE site from upstream the modelling is based on estimated levels rather than a full topographical survey. A full topographic survey is proposed to be carried out at the detailed stage alongside further modelling work. Both SEPA and the Council's Flood Risk Officer are satisfied that this
22 does not present an issue in principle subject to the further level surveys and the requirement for further flood walls being agreed at the detailed stage. This would be covered in a suitable legal agreement.
In terms of pluvial flooding there is a risk of storm water ponding between the development site and the existing RIE main entrance. There is an existing risk to the RIE during major flood events as a result of surface water being piped under the existing RIE main building. The new development cannot be required to solve the flood risk problems of the existing hospital caused by surface water runoff as this would be beyond the bounds of what can be reasonably required under the remit of the application. Therefore a basic principle guiding future submissions under AMC is that the development should not be at risk of pluvial flooding at the agreed risk level and should not impact on flood risk at the existing RIE. However there may be associated benefits for the RI E from the attenuation proposed as part of the RSCHI DCN development and this can be further explored at the detailed stage.
Further level surveys will inform the preparation of a detailed Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) dealing with flood risk and SUDS. Potential methods of SUDS treatment are outlined in the application, and there is a potential link with the green and accessible roofs to be incorporated under approval of matters as part of the detailed building design. The preparation and agreement of the SWMP would form part of the legal agreement described above.
As part of the detailed design of the hospital appropriate finished floor levels and the design of the proposed basement would be agreed based on the results of the SWMP. This would need to balance the protection of the building from flooding and the requirement to provide suitable access for users. The developer has advised that an outline design solution for the basement and the associated access ramps has been prepared. Overall this is acceptable subject to full details demonstrating the suitability of the design being supplied under approval of matters linking with SWMP. A detailed SUDS strategy would also be a condition of the enabling road works.
Overall the proposed development is acceptable in principle in terms of both fluvial and pluvial flood risk subject to the conclusion of a suitable legal agreement. The detailed design of the development, the design of the flood protection works and SUDS details would be matters for further approval.
(f) The Niddrie Burn is a Site of Local Nature Conservation (SINC) and the ES confirms there are protected species including bats and otters in the local area.
The applicant proposes to maximise the potential for open space within the development site by including accessible courtyards and green and accessible roof areas at various levels within the hospital. The provision and design of these areas would be a matter to be agreed and is seen to be critical to the success of the devefopment. Revisions to the reference design during the application have secured the main courtyard space adjacent to the
23 public circulation area at ground floor rather than basement level, thereby ensuring that this can be made publicly available. This enhanced provision, integrating with detailed consideration of building placement, design and sun and daylighting issues at the AMC stage would go some way to addressing the concern raised by consultees including Scottish Natural Heritage and Architecture and Design Scotland regarding the provision of suitable open space.
Further open space would be created as secure gardens and at the main entrances to the development. Public art would form part of the provision. Landscaping and open space at the entrances to the buildings and generally within the site will have to be considered carefully in association with services and SUDS design to ensure that a high quality landscape provision can be achieved. The loss of trees and reprovision within and adjoining the development site would be agreed under an AMC application. The major public realm provision proposed as part of the application would remove any separate requirement to provide a developer contribution towards public realm in the wider area.
The replacement of landscaping lost due to the enabling works would be agreed by condition to enable these works to go ahead at an earlier stage. To accord with the ES and with best practice the reprovision of trees and shrubs would as far as possible reflect the amount of trees lost and the mix of trees within the wider RIE site. Similarly the loss of landscaping and habitats due to the flood works would be minimised through a construction environmental management plan (CEMP) and through the provision of a detailed landscaping scheme. Specific mitigation measures for biodiversity which are identified in the ES, such as provision for protected species and the removal of invasive plant species, would require to be implemented as part of the development. The use of sensitive lighting for the development would be achieved under approval of matters.
Overall the PPP proposals have demonstrated that suitable provision for landscaping and biodiversity can be achieved in line with the requirements of the ES. The final design and implementation of these works would be agreed by condition and approval of matters.
(g) A detailed sustainability appraisal has been prepared based on the reference design for the new hospital looking at the options for Low and Zero Carbon Technologies and energy saving measures. The design is based on requirements in Section 6 of the 2010 Building Standards Technical Handbook to achieve a 30% reduction in C02 emissions compared to 2007 building regulations. A stand alone gas fired CHP boiler system is the preferred option for the development. The details of this system are considered separately in section (d). Accompanying sustainability measures are likely to include efficiency measures such as improved u-values and air tightness, solar glazing, heat recovery systems and use of natural ventilation (opening windows). The applicant intends to meet or exceed the requirements under the 2010 regulations and to achieve accompanying BREEAM excellent accreditation.
24 Overall the approach outlined for sustainability is acceptable subject to further details specific to the detailed construction of the development being agreed under approval of matters.
(h) Policy Env 18 requires any health, environmental and amenity impacts from the proposed rooftop helicopter to be acceptable. The noise and other amenity impacts of the helipad are considered in the ES and in the associated Addendum. A number of objections have been received from adjacent properties regarding the noise, amenity and health and safety impacts of the helipad. Environmental Assessment have concluded that the operation of the helipad would introduce new noise impacts to adjacent residential properties and the nursery with no prospect of adequate mitigation, and are not in a position to support this part of the development. The detailed comments are contained in the consultation section of the report.
The helipad would be on the roof of the building, approximately 1OOm from the nearest residential properties, a group of 8 steading properties and a detached bungalow on Old Dalkeith Road. As per section (a), the location of the proposed helipad is fixed by the critical adjacencies. The use of helicopters at the RIE site is already established in terms of the existing use and their use is in order to transport critically ill or injured patients to the hospital. Night time use of the helicopters would be limited to hospital to hospital transfers of patients and a decision to land at the RIE would be based on a clinical needs assessment.
The applicant has indicated that helipad is required in order to comply with the design and location requirements contained in Health Building Note 15/03: Hospital Helipads (Department of Health 2008) that have informed the business case for the new hospital. The document states that 'since helicopter-borne patients are likely to be in a time-critical condition, it is important that the time taken to transfer them between the helicopter and hospital A&E department is short (ideally less than 2 minutes) and that the patient is protected as far as possible from adverse weather conditions. The safest, fastest and most efficient means of transfer is by trolley from the helicopter. Transferring patients from a helicopter to a road ambulance for the journey to A&E is always undesirable and often impractical, especially if they are connected to fluid, gas and electrical life-support systems.'
In addition the document indicates that the helipad must be clear of obstacles such as trees and buildings and there must be a minimum of two corridors for arrival and departure. To be able to be used at night by air ambulance helicopters, the helipad requires lighting approved by the Civil Aviation Authority. The existing helipad does not meet these technical location criteria and is unable to be used at night by air ambulance helicopters.
25 The detached position of the existing helipad is therefore unsuitable from a clinical and technical perspective. It would not directly or adequately serve the major trauma centre to be created through the linkage of child and adult A&E departments.
The new centre incorporating the helipad and co-joined A&E and specialist facilities in this location would significantly improve the provision of health care. For all these reasons there is a clear wider public need for the helipad.
In terms of the objections, Circular 4/2009 Development Management Procedures (Scottish Government 2009) states that 'the planning system operates in the long term public interest. It does not exist to protect the interests of one person or business against the activities of another. In distinguishing between public and private interests, the basic question is whether the proposal would unacceptably affect the amenity and existing use of land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest, not whether owners or occupiers of neighbouring or other existing properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development.'
The ES Addendum indicates that the predicted use of the helipad factoring in the proposed RSCHI DCN would be upwards of 3 flights per week. Since the ES Addendum was submitted and the comments from Environmental Assessment received, the applicants have confirmed the most recent use of the existing helipad since April 2011 (17 movements) and the number of night time flights which have had to be diverted to Edinburgh Airport due to a lack of night time landing facilities (2 movements). Based on these figures and the likelihood of some increases in use following the creation of the new RSCH/DCN facility, the applicants now contend that the use by air ambulances is likely to be in the order of 1-2 flights per week, with 1-2 flights per month at night time.
The character of helicopter noise is such that it will impact on amenity as the helicopter flies over or near residential properties prior to landing and after take off. During these events the consequence is that sleeping persons are likely to be disturbed. However, in balancing the needs of the residential properties with those of the wider public, it is clear that there is an overriding public benefit from allowing this ancillary use in this location.
In terms of the planning permission the detailed design of the helipad would be agreed through an AMC application. Planning cannot control the number and frequency of the flights so this cannot be agreed as part of the detailed design or by means of a planning condition. The applicant, however, has agreed in principle to enter into a Good Neighbour Agreement, regarding the flight paths in order to avoid as far as possible flying directly over residential properties. This is welcomed and an applicant informative is recommended to th i s effect.
26 Overall the proposed rooftop helipad is a critical requirement for the development and is an extension of an existing use for which there is a clear demonstrated need in the wider public interest. The amenity impacts are noted but are not an overriding factor that would justify refusal of the proposals.
The development is therefore acceptable in principle subject to a suitable legal agreement relating to transport and flooding and the agreement of conditions relating to the approval of matters, details of the enabling road works and associated landscaping, phasing, maximum building heights and floor space, the height and position of the rooftop helipad, accordance with the ES and with Construction Environmental Management Plan, archaeology, site investigation and noise from plant. The requirement for the related traffic road orders including for the stopping up of Little France Crescent is also noted in an applicant informative.
REASON FOR DECISION
The development of the new hospital, physically linking with the existing Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh to create a new major trauma centre and specialist medical and research facility would comply with the Edinburgh City Local Plan and associated guidance and best practice advice, and is acceptable in principle subject to the recommended conditions and legal agreement requirements. The overriding, wider public, need for the development outweighs any associated amenity impacts. In line with the submitted the Environmental Statement, the detailed design and construction of the hospital would be conditioned to ensure that there would be no significant environmental impacts.
27 John Bury Head of Planning i Contact/tel i Hamish Bell on 0131 5293143
Ward affected 16 - Liberton/Gilmerton ~ fAI I Local Plan Edinburgh City Local Plan
Statutory Urban Area, Open Space and Site of Local Nature Development Plan Conservation Provision Date registered 29 July 2011
Drawing numbersl 01A, 26, 27B, 30A, 38 Scheme
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Control Portal: www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Linda Hamilton on 0131 5293146. Email: [email protected].
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
28 Appendix A ·EDINBVRGH· THE CITY Of EDINBURGH COUNCIL
CITY DEVELOPMENT Application Type Planning Permission in Principle Application Address: Edinburgh Royal Infirmary 51 Little France Crescent Edinburgh EH164SA
Proposal: Planning permission in principle for erection of Children's Hospital including department for clinical neurosciences + ancillary facilities, helipad, associated enabling development including energy centre, VIE, car parking, revised access + public transport arrangements, public realm works + landscaping (car parking, access + public transport arrangements in detail). Reference No: 11/02454/PPP
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
Architecture and Design Scotland comment 31/08/2011
Introduction
This report relates to proposals for the re-provision of the Royal Hospital for Sick Children (RHSC), Edinburgh, incorporating the Department for Clinical Neurosciences, in a new building within the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (RIE) campus. The project was discussed at an A+DS Design Review Workshop held on the 12th July 2011 in The Lighthouse, Glasgow and an interim report was issued on the 2nd August 2011. Following a submission to Edinburgh City Council on the 29th July 2011 for Planning Permission in Principle, A+DS reviewed the associated drawings and information again, and have updated the report accordingly.
History of A+DS Involvement
A+DS has had some previous involvement with the project through the Healthcare Programme, with two Enablers being made available to the Project Team in the early part of 2008. One was appointed to help commission a masterplan for the wider RIE site whilst another was appointed to assist the Client Team through the briefing and early procurement stages; however their involvement was very limited in comparison to the scale of the project. Since the Enablers' commissions ended there has been some further engagement with the project. A+DS staff engaged in the AEDET sessions, providing comments on the developing proposals in October 2009 and May 2010.
29 A previous scheme was then presented to A+DS on the 24th August 2010, with a subsequent workshop on the 9th September 2010, presentation meeting on the 6th October 2010 and a further Design Review meeting on the 2nd November 2010. The last interim report on this scheme was issued along with two supplemental notes on the 10th December 2010. Some of the main issues arising from the reviews of the scheme in 2010 were as follows:
- We supported NHS Lothian's aspirations for the re-provision of the RHSC, particularly the vision that it should be unique, enduring and a landmark.
- Concern regarding the legibility of the RHSC proposals from outside the site, clear wayfinding being essential to fulfil the objective of lowering stress, and the need for the arrival sequence to better accommodate parents bringing children to the hospital by car.
- RIE arrival sequence being significantly amended with the 'front door' largely reversed, bringing the buildings eastern elevation into the experience of the city's public realm through amending bus routes. This requiring to be managed via adequate subliminal and actual signalling.
- Need for landscaping to create external spaces of continued amenity for the children, young people and their families.
- Potential for courtyards and roof gardens to create distinctive and usable spaces for therapy, play and respite provided these are adequately daylit and sensitively designed.
- Commended the concept of the 'ozone' and the language being developed for that, encouraging the Project Team to take this further to allow greater connectivity with the landscape, external spaces and A+E.
Current Proposals
Since proposals were seen at Design Review in 2010, we note the following significant alterations have been made to the Project Brief:
- Re-introduction of the Department of Clinical Neurosciences (DCN) to the scheme, requiring approximately 12,000sq.m of additional accommodation.
- Incorporation of an autonomous Energy Centre in response to the requirement for the facility to be 'self sufficient' in terms of energy (i.e. not relying on existing site service infrastructure) due to the potential for contractual issues between different private sector developers.
- Relocation of the existing helipad within the RIE campus on to the roof of the proposed RHSC building.
- Proposal for Facilities Management Services and some of the RHSC car parking provision to be accommodated underground in a basement storey, subject to testing for flooding etc.
30 Out with the development site boundary, we also note that a single storey extension to the existing Chancellor's Building for a Neurology Clinic has been consented adjacent to the proposed RHSC building.
A+DS Views
1 General
1. 1 We understand the reference design submitted for PPP is intended to test the likely impact of the development on the RIE campus, including the implications on transport and movement around the site, wayfinding and views etc, and that the Project Team's approach thus far is not intended to be a definitive design proposal. As advised within the Design & Access Statement, ref NAl1 o727/x(1 OO)x/15, we note the intent behind this design to be "that either a fully developed version of this reference design or an entirely new version (maintaining the core principles of the clinical functionality of the reference design) will be submitted by the successful NPD bidder': The following comments are therefore intended to highlight strengths and risks in the reference design, as well as areas of focus for future work with regard to both the planning process and the brief given to the bidding teams.
2 Response to the indicative scheme presented
2. 1 Relationship to Wider Context
The RHSC site sits at the bottom of a landscape basin; the slopes of which we highlight are consented for significant development changing the nature of place from semi-rural to urban intensities of form and use. Either side of this basin are landscape and historic features that are visible at parts of the route along Old Dalkeith Road, particularly from higher elevations. Similarly, the site is visually prominent along this route, particularly from the broad vistas at the two existing main entrances to the RIE. We therefore believe the development of the RHSC provides an opportunity to significantly improve the nature of this area of the city and the experience of arriving in the city. As part of a co ordinated and three-dimensional approach to development within the basin, this site offers greatest potential to break the uniformity of scale and massing to provide articulation and focus to the new area through the use of height and parallax, and sculpting out places with identity and amenity. However, the current Planning Policy appears to be prioritising the maintenance of views over this area, above the creation of place within this developing urban context.
We acknowledge that the reference design has been developed within the existing policy context. It shows that providing the required accommodation within the height restrictions on the site tends towards the development of a compact form with small courtyards and limited access to daylight, views and landscape (including external play areas) for many of the patients. We note that it also includes approximately 2,500sq.m of the required accommodation within a basement. It is still to be demonstrated that this is a viable option considering the flood risks inherent in the site and we highlight it is possible
31 that the volume of accommodation above ground may have to increase, thus exacerbating the pressures on proposed plan of the building. We believe the reference design demonstrates that there are significant risks and disadvantages associated with the constraints of the current policy approach to context. Further, we suggest that there are potential benefits to the local context in allowing the development to have greater visual prominence; provided of course that the scheme design is of sufficient quality to be a positive landmark in this area of the city.
2.2 Site Navigation
We consider that the approach described to the main site entrance, by creating a sequence of urban spaces - one linking the RHSC parking and the RHSC building, the next conceived as a heart linking the adult areas of the campus - has significant potential to provide both clarity of wayfinding and a positive arrival experience. Realising this concept will require the existing transport and landscaping provision to be unpicked, and re-planned along with careful consideration of the proposed extension to the Chancellor'S building through a public realm masterplan for the entire RIE campus. Notwithstanding ownership boundaries, such a masterplan should:
- Assist wayfinding
- Resolve pedestrian/vehicular interface, including access to the underground car park (if delivered)
- Create usable quality spaces
- Consider the nature of the public realm proposed towards the entrance point to the site in light of the limited number of people who are likely to arrive by foot
We also refer the Project Team to the latest Scottish Government guidance on Designing Places and Designing Streets in this regard.
In contrast, the current sketch proposals for the south entrance to the site demonstrates less potential than previous schemes, with the combination of two A+E entrances and an energy centre unlikely to provide a welcoming impression approaching the hospital campus, and the city, from the south. We suggest there are opportunities to connect the landscape in this area at different levels by utilising the existing burn, trees and topography as features to enhance the initial view and the amenity for users of the facility. This aspect of the proposals should be developed significantly in terms of routes, landscape and built form as the scheme develops.
In addition to the above notes, we refer to our previous comments on the nature of the RIE arrival sequence with the 'front door' largely reversed, bringing its eastern elevation into the experience of the city's public realm through amending bus routes.
32 2.3 Building Diagram
The building diagram was described as having 3 zones: a public zone containing consulting areas and the less technical parts of the hospital; a clinical zone containing theatres, diagnostics and inpatient accommodation; and a service zone. We acknowledge the idea of pulling out the public functions of the children's hospital into a distinct element and it has significant potential to break down the mass of the RHSC building, hence making the experience of visiting less daunting. It may also allow opportunities to 'normalise' the experience of prolonged periods as an inpatient - for example creating a Journey'to school.
However, we feel the clinical zone is less successful. It contains both RHSC and DCN functions and as such maintaining the identity of each and the connection of children's wards to the public zone (rather than feeling like part of the DCN/adult hospital) will require very careful planning and design. The routes, spaces and opportunities for views within the clinical area appeared highly constrained by both the intensity of the proposed floorplate and the proximity of the service zone, which present a barrier between the occupied areas and the landscape rather than allowing a 'softening of the building to the south to connect with the landscape' as described in the presentation.
In the scheme originally presented in August 2010, we were encouraged by the clarity and amenity of the 'o-zone', which was particularly strong as a welcoming, no institutional space. Such qualities need to be re-introduced into the developing proposals providing connection, child scaled spaces, and common identity between young people's inpatient areas and the rest of the RHSC. It should also extend to and link with the landscape/external spaces which provide amenity and breakout for young people both inpatient and, preferably, out patients. Furthermore, onward connection of the 'a-zone'to A+E would add to the sense of a single young people's hospital and provide easy access for those at A+E to external spaces for respite and to facilities such as catering.
2.4 Indicative Images
The 3D sketches provided as supporting information to the PPP application are helpful in explaining the intent of the reference design; however in some there appears to be confusion between what is drawn in plan and what is included in sketch form. In particular, the sketch of the public realm strategy does not show the ramp down to the basement parking area and its effect on the main entrance area.
Further, the sketches provided of both the external spaces and the 'a-zone' suggest an environment (both in articulation of elevations and the use of art) that might appeal more to pre-school children than older children. We encourage the Project Team to develop a language that is more cognisant of the range of young people who will use the facility, and refer to the concept design proposals presented by the Project Team during the earliest discussions as being more successful in this regard.
33 3 Recommendations
3. 1 The Planning Authority
We recommend the Planning Authority:
- Consider the PPP application in masterplanning terms only, leaving significant latitude for the RHSC's eventual designers to respond to the issues described above rather than be constrained by the envelope drawn in the reference design.
- Establish a firm rationale for view corridors in relation to this new urban setting; describing where views must be retained, and where they might be interrupted along a route in order to meet the other objectives described above such as aiding wayfinding, providing identity, and improving the landscape and visual amenity for patients, families and neighbouring developments.
- Provide strong design guidance on the spaces, routes and landscape corridors across this area of significant change - across boundaries of use and ownership - to provide co-ordination within this important new city district.
3.2 The Project Team
We recommend the Health Board and the Project Team:
- Address the masterplan of the whole ERI site with regard to creating a coherent place considering not only the proposed building but also the consequential reorientation of the adult hospital.
- Consider how areas with non-critical adjacencies, evident in the clinical adjacencies diagrams presented at the meeting in July 2011, might be clearly expressed as such in the briefing given to bidders, allowing room for manoeuvre in the developing design rather than simple adoption of the plans provided as part of the reference design. Further, allowing adjacencies to be accommodated vertically (as was shown to be beneficial in planning the new Stobhill Hospital) could free up opportunities for greater connectivity with landscape for play and respite, positive views to existing features around the site and beyond, good quality daylight in occupied spaces; all of which have been shown to have a material impact on patient outcomes.
- Compliment the clinical briefing being established with strong design standards, describing: core aspects of the patient's, staff and visitor's experience; what the development must achieve at these key points, and benchmarks (views of what success might look like) based on recent good practice. The achievement of these should be a fundamental consideration in the assessment and selection of the preferred bidder.
34 Conclusion
We welcome the chance to engage in this important project at such a formative and exciting stage and look forward to further engagement as the project develops. Above all, we advise that our recommendations above be implemented in order to allow, subsequent to PPP approval, flexibility for innovation in the development of the building and landscape designs, to better enhance the wellbeing of patients and staff alike. In addition, the A+DS Healthcare Design Programme would also be happy to assist in developing design briefing for the proposals (perhaps along the lines of Design Statements in SCIM) and also a means of communicating those requirements to bidding teams.
Archaeology comment 11/08/2011
The site proposed site for the new Sick Kids Hospital lies across the south eastern half of the site adjacent to the historic Little France Steading and mill. The Little France Mill is recorded in operation from the mid18th century and surviving range of buildings probably date to this period and are shown on the 1850's 1st Edition OS map. This map also shows a large mill dam which may extend into this development t site, along with a canalised route of the Niddrie Burn extending across the site to feed the designed landscape associated with the former Niddrie Marischal House to the North.
Based on the historical and archaeological evidence the site has been identified as occurring within an area of potential archaeological potential. Therefore this application must be considered under terms the Scottish Government Historic Environment Policy (SHEP), Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), PAN 0212011 and also under CEC's Edinburgh City Local Plan (adopted 2010) policies ENV8 & ENV9. The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.
Given the extent of modern development associated with the construction of the ERI it is considered that, on current information, the impact of this proposed scheme upon any buried archaeology is regard as moderate too low. However ground-breaking works associated with the construction of the hospital could disturb significant remains in particular associated with the adjacent Little France post-medieval mill and settlement. Accordingly it is recommended that a condition is attached to consent to ensure that a programme of archaeological works is undertaken prior to development commencing on site. In essence this will see a phased archaeological programme, the initial phase being a 10% archaeological evaluation of the site at the earliest opportunity, the results of which would allow for the production of appropriate mitigation strategies to be drawn up to ensure the protection and/or the excavation and recording of any surviving archaeological remains.
35 If consent is granted it is recommended that this programme of works is secured using a condition based upon CEC model condition as follows;
'No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (excavation, analysis & reporting, publication) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority. '
The work must be carried out by a professional archaeological organisation, either working to a brief prepared by CECAS or through a written scheme of investigation submitted to and agreed by CECAS for the site. Responsibility for the execution and resourcing of the programme of archaeological works and for the archiving and appropriate level of publication of the results lies with the applicant.
BAA comment 08/08/2011
The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. We, therefore, have no objection to this proposal.
Craigmillar Community Council comment 09/09/2011
No objection.
CTC Scotland comment 09/09/2011
No objection.
East Lothian Council Comment 15/08/2011
The proposed development is within the site of the existing Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. It does not appear that the proposals would have a significant impact on East Lothian and we therefore do not wish to make any detailed comments on the application or its Environmental Statement.
Edinburgh Urban Design Panel comment 28/10/2009
1. 1 This report relates to the proposed new Royal Hospital for Sick Children and Department of Clinical Neurosciences at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary at Little France.
1.2 The brief for the project envisages a new 48 000 m2 facility on the site of the existing car park to the South West of the main entrance to the existing ERI. As a consequence of this, it is proposed to relocate the car park to a larger site to the north east of the ERI on the site of the Bio Quarter. The relocation of the car park will form a separate planning application in advance of that for the new hospital building.
36 1.3 This is the first time that the proposals have been reviewed.
1.4 No declarations of interest were made by any Panel members in relation to this scheme.
1.5 This report should be read in conjunction with the pre meeting papers which provide an overview, context, concept, plans, sections and 3D visualisations of the scheme.
1.6 This report is the view of the Panel and is not attributable to anyone individual. The report does not prejudice any of the organisations who are represented at the Panel forming a differing view about the proposals at a later stage.
2 The Panel's views on the proposals
2.1 To aid the understanding of the proposal, it would be beneficial to see a more comprehensive set of drawings and analysis which explain the existing and developing context in and surrounding the site. This will be important to future assessment of the proposals.
2.2 The presentation highlights that there are a number of developments within the wider area as well as the proposals for the hospital. If the project is to be successful in urban design terms, it will be important to draw these various development proposals together into a coherent design strategy or masterplan which addresses such issues as access and landscape. The NHS is encouraged to work with its partners, for example the Bio Quarter, to achieve this.
2.3 Within the hospital site, such a strategy should consider routes from the proposed new car park to the ERI and to the Sick Children's building. It is very important to ensure that the length of routes is minimised and that the wayfinding and legibility of entrances are made as clear as possible. At the wider conceptual scale the design process should examine whether there is only one way to the hospital from the car park and how any route impacts on the design of the car park and the traffic arrangements at the hospital fronts.
2.4 In addition, at a detail level, consideration should be given to the design of the whole route from where it begins with the car park, as it traverses the existing hospital, through the central green space and transport interchange, and as it arrives at the entrance to the hospital. How the building itself is designed and its entrance articulated will also be important in this respect.
2.5 The new building should be designed in such a way that it does not compromise the legibility of access and entry to the existing ERI.
2.6 Consideration should be given to the management of the car parking spaces to ensure that priority is given for those who need to be parked closely to the buildings, for example visitors to the Sick Children's building who may have small children.
37 2.7 Any security problems associated with the neighbouring site of the Bio Quarter should be considered in order to ensure that these do not compromise the effective working of the hospital site.
2.8 Access to the building needs to be managed to mitigate potential for crime and theft within the proposed building.
2.9 As well as the views to and from the adjacent hills of the Edmonstone estate and Craigmillar Castle which the Council highlighted, consideration should be given to views towards the hospital site from Old Dalkeith Road. It will be important to create an attractive frontage to this road.
2.10 New car parking should be designed to ensure that landscaping screens the hard surfacing.
2. 11 Within the building, it will be important to ensure that concepts about making the building attractive for its users who include children of varying ages are carried through into the later stages of the design. In this regard "playful moments" within the building should be provided which are a result of an architectural approach rather than one which more obviously draws on imagery associated with children. For example, natural light drawn into the building could be used in an interesting way. Art may also be used.
Environmental Assessment comment 14/1112011
The application proposes to erect a new children's hospital, including a department for clinical neurosciences (DCN) and ancillary facilities which will include a helipad, energy centre and car parking. The application is for planning permission in principle (PPP) and is proposed to be sited on an existing area of car parking (known as Car Park B) adjacent to the hospital's Accident and Emergency Department. The site is surrounded to the north, north-west and east by existing hospital buildings. A residential steading (Uttle France Mills) and petrol filling station are situated immediately to the south east. Residential properties are also situated to the north-west (Mains of Craigmillar), to the west on Old Dalkeith Road, and across Old Dalkeith Road to the south (Including Nether Craigour, Upper Craigour and Moredunvale Road). A row of residential properties are also situated to the south-west of the application site on the north side of Dalkeith Road. Residential properties at Greendykes are situated around 500 metres to the north-east of the hospital and a development of up to one thousand properties known as New Greendykes is consented to the north-east (07101644IPPP). The Bio-Quarter development is situated to the south-east.
38 Noise
Details of the Noise Impact Assessment (NIA)
A NIA has been provided by the applicant which considered the noise impacts associated with the new helipad on nearby noise sensitive receptors with their windows open and closed. The arrival and departure of two different helicopter types were considered within the assessment: the Eurocopter EC135 helicopter, which is most likely to use the helipad and the Sikorski S- 61 (Search and Rescue SAR) helicopter which is likely to be the noisiest but least frequent helicopter using the helipad. The existing helipad can only accept helicopters arriving from and departing to the east. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) guidance states that a hospital helipad must have a minimum of two approach and departure tracks separated by 150 degrees. Therefore, an aviation consultant was enlisted to discuss likely routes to and from the new helipad and routes to and from the east, south-west and north-west were agreed as the most likely and were thus considered within the NIA.
There is no single satisfactory noise index for the measurement or prediction of the impact of noise from helicopters on the local community. Therefore, this Department discussed the most appropriate assessment methodology with the acoustic consultants for the application in an attempt to predict realistic noise impacts associated with the use of the proposed helipad.
The NIA considered all surrounding residential properties but focused on 6 of the nearest noise sensitive receptors (NSR) which are likely to be below or very close to the flight paths of the three proposed routes. The six receptors included residential properties at Hazelwood Grove (NSR A), Little France Mills (NSR B) (the noise levels affecting Acorns nursery adjacent to NSR B can also be extrapolated from NSR B), Upper Craigour (NSR C), Mount Vernon Road (NSR D), Mains of Craigmillar (NSR E), Greendykes Road (NSR F), future site of New Greendykes residential development (NSR G), Castleview House (NSR H).
The NIA initially provided averaged sound levels over one and eight hours which in the opinion of this Department did not provide an accurate assessment of the noise impacts likely to affect surrounding noise sensitive properties. Helicopter noise is a complex, difficult source to gauge and the human response to helicopter noise can be different from person to person. By their very nature, helicopters and the associated noise, comes and goes as the helicopter moves overhead and different helicopters have different noise levels and associated frequencies. However, after discussions with the acoustic consultant for the application, the LAmax criterion was deemed the most useful for assessment of impact on amenity due to the character of the noise that a helicopter produces. Therefore, isopleth mapped contours were provided which allowed assessment of all properties surrounding the site providing indicative external Lmax levels. The noise impact assessment then calculated the internal noise levels likely to be found within the surrounding NSR properties (A-H) with the windows open and closed.
39 Additionally, the acoustic consultant was asked to consider the impacts of the newly proposed south-west flight path on the nearby high rise flats at Castleview House, Little France House, Mary Tree House and Moredun House as the flight path will take helicopters closer to these higher flats. Therefore the assessment considered whether the upper flats would be affected by greater levels of noise due to the similarities in height with the helicopter as it descends and ascends during arrival and departure from and to the south west. (NSR H).
Criteria for Assessment of Amenity Impacts
The World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines for Community Noise recommends internal and external noise limits designed to protect health. The levels are based on actual scientific knowledge on the health effects of community noise. In addition, British Standard (BS) 8233:1999 (Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings Code of Practice) recommends internal noise levels within bedrooms and living rooms. The recommended WHO and BS 8233 levels are similar and are shown below:
World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines for Community Noise
Residential Dwellings: Recommended internal bedroom noise levels (above which sleep can be disturbed) - 30dB LAeq (45 dB LAeq external) and 45dB .' LAmax internal for single sound events (60dB LAmax external).
Daytime - 35dB LAeq internal (50dB LAeq external) to protect the majority of people from being moderately annoyed.
Daytime outdoor noise levels of less than 55dBA are desirable to prevent any significant community annoyance (e.g. in gardens and on balconies).
Nursery
Inside pre-school bedrooms (daytime) - 30dB LAeq and 45 dB LAmax.
BS 8233:1999 (Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings Code of Practice)
Bedrooms - 30dB LAeq, (For good sleeping conditions).
- 35dB LAeq, (For reasonable sleeping conditions)
(For a reasonable standard in bedrooms at night, individual noise events should not normally exceed 45 dB LAmax)
Living Rooms - 30dB LAeq (For good resting conditions)
- 40dB LAeq (For reasonable resting conditions)
40 The above recommended criteria have been used by this Department as a basis for the assessment of impact from the predicted helicopter noise.
Additionally, an assessment has been provided which considered the noise levels associated with the existing helipad for comparative reference.
Existing He/ipad
The existing helipad is situated in an elevated position to the north of the hospital. The nearest residential property to the existing helipad is at 1 Mains of Craigmillar and situated 190 metres to the north-west. There are maturing trees and a 20m level difference between the helipad and the property. Residential properties at Greendykes are situated around 500 metres to the north-east. The residential steading properties at Little France Mills and Acorns nursery are situated around 480 and 450 metres respectively to the south, however the existing RIE hospital building sits between the helipad and these properties. NHS Lothian has confirmed that the existing helipad does not meet the requirements of the CAA regulations for hospital sites and is no longer fit for purpose. The existing helipad can currently only receive helicopters arriving from and departing to the east and mainly during the daylight hours only as it is restricted by safety concerns relating to topography, lighting and trees. The existing helipad presently does not have the capability to allow flights to arrive from and depart in any other direction than to and from the east. Occasional night-time arrivals and departures do occur at present by SAR helicopters as these are the only helicopters able to safely navigate the existing topography and lighting issues surrounding the existing helipad. Additionally, the Planner has confirmed that up to one thousand residential properties have been consented to the east at "New Greendykes" which has yet to be master planned and consented in detail (07101644IPPP). However, once built, the nearest New Greendykes residential property is likely to be around 450 metres from the existing helipad. It is likely that the existing he/ipad, if still in use when these properties are occupied, would have caused high levels of noise to affect these properties during times when helicopters approached and departed from the east. The application planning statement advises that an average of 1-2 patients per week requires air transfer to services at the RIE. However, as the existing helipad is unable to support 2417 flights, only 37% of patients to be transferred to the RIE by air actually land at Little France.
The Council has not received any noise complaints from helicopter movements associated with the existing he/ipad during the day or night. However, limited night time flights occur at present to the existing he/ipad and arrivals and departures only occur in an easterly direction which at present has limited numbers of sensitive receptors below the flight path. Mature trees and a 20 metre ground level difference between the nearest property at Mains of Craigmillar and the existing helipad may help to decrease the psychological effects associated with noise from the helipad use.
41 Proposed New Helipad
The new helipad will be situated on top of the new hospital around 400 metres further south than the existing position. Therefore, the nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed helipad will be the residential properties at Little France Mills which will be situated around 100 metres to the south west. Situated within the existing RIE grounds is the Acorns Nursery which is around 130 metres away. Once New Greendykes is built, those properties will be around 800 metres away and Greendykes around 900 metres. The properties at Upper Craigour will be around 200 metres away with the high rise flats around 300 metres away.
Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) Results
The NIA provided an assessment of LAeq (8 hour), LAeq (1 hour) and Lmax levels associated with two of the possible helicopters that could use the new helipad. Isopleth contoured maps were provided which detailed the external Lmax noise levels likely to occur during each helicopter movement. Further extrapolation of the predicted external noise levels allows the internal Lmax noise levels to be assessed for the surrounding residential properties.
The NIA advises that the levels of noise from both helicopter types would not be significantly different once the number of flights by each helicopter flight and modelling corrections were considered. However, it is clear that noise levels predicted to occur from both helicopter types at most of the NSR (with windows open) were found to be above WHO recommended levels.
The isopleth mapped contours provided with the application indicate the external noise levels (which the NIA extrapolates to indoor levels) where the WHO recommended 45dB Lmax level for sleep disturbance begins to take effect. Thereafter, the contours indicate where the noise levels increase as the helicopter begins to descend for arrival at the helipad. Isopleth contoured maps have also been provided which indicate the noise levels for when the helicopters ascend from the helipad as it departs the helipad. The maps show the WHO indicator levels for sleep disturbance (i.e. 60dB Lmax, external) to be spread over a significant area surrounding the proposed helipad. It is the opinion of this Department that amenity is unlikely to be noticeably affected by the properties shown at the outer isopleth contours because the increased noise levels will be short lived and partially masked by existing ambient noise levels (e.g. from road traffic noise). However, this Department's main concerns relate to the properties which are closer to the helipad; when the helicopter is closer to the ground, may be flying immediately overhead and are more likely to be affected by the frequency of the visits. The properties to the south of the proposed helipad and in particular at Little France Mills, Upper Craigour, Old Dalkeith Road and Castleview House are of most concern. Additionally, the results showed that the properties at Little France Mills will be significantly affected by all three proposed helicopter routes to and from the helipad. In effect, this means that there is no route that the helicopter can take which will provide at least temporary relief to these properties from helicopter noise.
42 As previously stated the predicted LAeq noise levels provide an averaged level over time which in the opinion of this Department does not indicate the realistic noise levels associated with a helicopter flying immediately overhead. Therefore, the results shown below have concentrated on the Lmax levels. A spread of the predicted internal Lmax noise levels is shown below for the Eurocopter EC135 and Sikorski S-61 when the property has the window partially open for ventilation purposes:
Location Eurocopter Predicted Noise Internal WHO Difference EC135 Level (d8A) Guidance Movement Little France Mills 70 45 +25 (NSR 8) from East To South-West 86 45 +41 To North-West 73 45 +28 Upper Craigour 63 45 +18 (NSR C) to East To South-West 64 45 +19 To North-West 61 45 +16 Castleview 61 46 +41 House (NSR H) to East To South-West 69 45 +24 To North-West 61 45 +16 New Greendykes 66 45 +21 (NSR G) From East To South-West 49 45 +4 To North-West 49 45 +4
43 Location Sikorski S-61 Predicted Noise Internal WHO Difference Movement Level (dBA) Guidance Little France Mills 67 45 +22 (NSR B) to East To South-West 82 45 +37 To North-West 68 45 +23 Upper Craigour 58 45 +13 (NSR C) from East From South-West 60 45 +15 To North-West 55 45 +10 Castleview 56 45 +11 House (NSR H) from East From South-West 65 45 +20 From North-West 57 45 +12 New Greendykes 72 45 +27 (NSR G) From East From South-West 50 45 +5 From North-West 52 45 +7
The assessment also provided predicted noise levels with the surrounding residential property windows being closed. This would still leave a number of properties with internal noise levels above the recommended WHO levels for sleep disturbance. This would also make no change to the levels experienced within gardens of the nearby residential properties with many properties being affected by noise levels well above those recommended by the WHO to indicate annoyance.
The highest predicted noise levels were found at Little France Mills (NSR B) which are the closest sensitive properties to the helipad. The highest levels were found to occur when the Eurocopter EC135 departed to the south west and would most likely occur when the helicopter is flying immediately above the properties. The levels found were 86dB with the windows partially open for ventilation purposes (41 dB above the levels which WHO state are likely to cause sleep disturbance. Should the windows be closed, the property is still likely to be affected by internal levels of around 71dB. In this case, the levels are still 26dB above the recommended WHO levels. These noise levels are highly likely to cause sleep disturbance should the helicopter movement occur at night.
The quietest route that could be taken by a helicopter would be away from the Little France Mills properties to the east. In this situation, the noise levels within the properties are likely to be around 67dB with the windows open for ventilation purposes. This noise level is 22dB above the WHO specified indicator for the onset of sleep disturbance. Should windows be closed, the property is likely to be affected by internal noise levels of around 7dB above the recommended WHO levels. These noise levels also have the potential to cause sleep disturbance.
44 It should be noted that the above stated levels are internal and the levels within the garden grounds of Little France Mills and the Acorns nursery will be in the region of 101dB if a flight travels immediately over the garden area. This level is 46dB above the recommended WHO level for external noise which is likely to cause annoyance. Levels similar to those predicted above are likely to cause extremely serious annoyance and could draw considerable complaint.
It can therefore be seen that the properties at Little France Mills are likely to be seriously affected by noise from the helicopter flights to and from the helipad in any of the three directions proposed. It can also be extrapolated that the further away from the helipad, the noise levels and associated impacts will also decrease over distance away from the helipad. In this regard, it is difficult to quantify exactly how many properties are likely to be affected by unacceptable levels of noise. However, considering the area to the south of the proposed helipad is a reasonably well built up residential area, the number of properties affected could be significant.
The acoustic consultant has advised that the noise levels affecting the higher flats within Castleview House, Little France House, Mary Tree House and Moredun House would be no worse than the levels likely to be found at ground level due to the relatively small difference between helicopter and ground floor and helicopter and top floor. The NIA advises that the difference between the ground floor and the top floor flat will be an imperceptible 1dB. However, the predicted LAmax noise level found at NSR H (whether top or bottom flat) when a Eurocopter EC135 is departing the helipad to the south west is 69dB. This level is 24dB above the recommended WHO levels for sleep disturbance.
When considering the likelihood of complaints, the overall impacts associated with the new helipad require to be balanced against the likely frequency and occurrence time of each helicopter movement. The information provided with the application suggests that a minimum of three arrivals and departures per week are likely and could occur during the day or night (there is also the issue of potential training flights required to be carried out to and from the site.) The hospital operations occurring on site will intensify by the additional hospital building and services proposed within this application. It is likely that should the new helipad be consented, the existing RIE and proposed hospitals will accept more patients by helicopter than presently can occur. Therefore, as the hospital services increase, the number of flights per week is also likely to increase over time. The existing helipad is restricted by lighting, trees and topography in relation to when helicopter visits can occur both day and night. At present the existing helipad site constraints only allow helicopters to arrive and depart during the daylight hours. There-after, only Search and Rescue (SAR) (e.g. Sea-king or MOD) helicopters are able to land at the existing helipad outwith daylight hours. The agent has confirmed that the number of visits to and from a new helipad by the quieter Eurocopter is likely to rise from the minimum of 3 visits per week predicted at present. However the SAR helicopters, which are noisier and presently more likely to be used at night, should reduce providing some benefits in terms of noise impacts. Should the
45 helipad be moved from the existing position to the newly proposed site, it is likely that the consented properties at Greendykes and existing properties at Mains of Craigmillar are likely to have slightly decreased noise impacts from the reduced use of the existing helipad. However, the eastern route already in use with the existing helipad will continue to be operational for the proposed helipad. The consented properties at New Greendykes are therefore still likely to be affected by noise from the use of the new helipad and Mains of Craigmillar is likely to have increased noise levels from the new north-west route being utilised. Additionally, the properties to the south west of the existing hospital are likely to have increased levels of noise affecting them. In terms of numbers, though, the quantity of properties affected by noise from the new helipad due to the newly introduced routes to the north-west and south-west is likely to be greatly increased and therefore more likely to draw complaint.
The noise impact assessment does advise that the existing properties at Little France Mills are already affected by noise from the existing helipad use. These levels have also been found to be above WHO recommended levels for sleep disturbance when the property has windows open. However, the existing noise levels are significantly lower than presently occurs and the frequency of helicopter movements is likely to be less than will occur with the proposed helipad. Additionally, the existing RIE hospital buildings are situated between the existing helipad and Little France Mills and are likely to reduce the noise, especially when the helicopter is closer to the ground. However, should the new helipad be consented, there is likely to be less visits of the noisier search and rescue (SAR) helicopters which are presently the only helicopters able to land at the existing helipad at night. Albeit SAR helicopters do not presently land at the existing helipad at night on a regular basis.
Existing Acorns Nursery and RIE
Immediately to the east of the proposed site and within the grounds of the existing hospital is the Acorns private nursery. The nursery internal noise levels predicted to occur when a helicopter flies over head or lands on the proposed helipad are likely to be loud enough to cause sleep disturbance and externally to cause significant annoyance (e.g. Eurocopter EC135 departing to the south west would cause internal nursery noise levels of 86dB with windows open, and is 41dB above the levels recommended by WHO which are likely to cause sleep disturbance). Therefore, there is the possibility that positioning the helipad in close vicinity of the nursery is likely to cause sleep disturbance to nursery infants and may impact upon the future operations of the nursery.
A noise impact assessment has not been provided which assesses the impacts upon the existing RIE or proposed hospitals. However, the agent has confirmed that NHS Lothian recognise the potential noise issues regarding helicopter operations and accept that the positives of having the helipad outweigh the negative impacts on patients from the helipad being situated on the roof.
46 Mitigation
The Planning (Scotland) Act 2006, Section 75 (D) allows for a legal agreement to be drawn up between a local community body and the applicant. The agent for the application has confirmed that a good neighbour agreement (GNA) will be implemented prior to the start of the new helipad use but likely to be in a less formalised manner because no community body has come forward at this stage. The agent has confirmed that the GNA will consider the properties most affected by the helicopter noise and try to implement methods to deal with the noise. Such methods could include the use of flight paths which cause the least disturbance and not flying directly over residential properties where this is possible. However, it is debatable as to how much affect this will have on reducing the noise impacts upon the very closest properties at Little France Mills because the predicted noise levels indicate that any route taken to and from the helipad is likely to be intrusive to these residents. The agent for the application has confirmed, in association with an NHS helicopter pilot, that noise impacts from a helicopter fly-over are worst felt by those immediately below the helicopter. In the application situation, certain consideration within the GNA could be given to always arriving from and departing to the east at night time, therefore not flying directly over the nearest residential properties at Little France Mills. However, even with such attempts to deal with the associated helicopter noise, the internal noise levels within the nearest residential properties are likely to be considerable and highly likely to cause sleep disturbance if the helicopter movements occur at night. There is also no guarantee that the less intrusive routes will always be used as no formal enforcement measure is available to ensure it. Additionally, once the properties at New Greendykes are built, it is likely that such a mitigation measure will only transfer the noise impacts to these eastern properties instead, although they will be further away from the helipad than Little France Mills and therefore the noise impacts will not be as acute.
The application is for Planning Permission in Principle (PPP) and therefore the position of the helipad is not confirmed at this stage. However, the indicative position shown on plans during discussions between the Council and the applicant (and assessed within the NIA) has considered the helipad in the optimum position possible on top of the proposed building in terms of decreasing noise impacts. The helipad in this position is at the furthest point on the roof from the nearest residential properties with the building able to provide slight barrier attenuation by breaking the line of sight around the point of helicopter landing. It can therefore be presumed that positioning the helipad at any other point on top of the proposed building is more likely to increase the noise impacts on the properties at little France Mills even further. In effect, there is no other site on top of the proposed building that the helipad can go which would decrease the noise impacts from the helipad and its associated use.
47 The helipad itself is proposed to be on the roof of the hospital, raised around 25 metres from the ground. The acoustic consultant has confirmed that increasing the helipad height is unlikely to perceptively change the noise levels associated with the use of the helipad at any of the nearby noise sensitive receptors. Additionally, mitigation in terms of barriers built surrounding the helipad which would break the line of sight between Little France Mills and the helipad is not an option on safety grounds and would be rendered ineffective once the helicopter takes off.
Planning has confirmed that it is not reasonable to condition the use of the helipad either to hours of use or number of helicopters visiting the helipad. Additionally, a Section 75 legal agreement, in terms of controlling the times and number of helicopter movements, is deemed unworkable for an emergency service and a formal Section 75 (D) agreement with a local community body considered difficult to implement in practical terms by the agent, applicant and Planner.
The Council Noise Team has confirmed that they would not be able to take any enforcement action against the helipad operator should noise complaints be received from the occupants of nearby residential properties. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part Ill, Section 79, noise from aircraft is specifically exempted from statutory nuisance provisions. This means that the Local Authority cannot take action in relation to noise from helicopters overhead and complainants will be required to consider their own actions. The enforcing authority in relation to airspace is the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA); however their priority is to ensure that flights do not interfere with each other in terms of Health and Safety, not their frequency over the same flight path. The CAA will encourage noise complaints to be made to the helicopter operator which in this case will be NHS Lothian. In such circumstances it is likely that NHS Lothian will only be able attempt to ensure that the GNA is being implemented by all helicopter pilots. Thereafter, the occupants will be expected to accept the status quo as the helipad operator will be implementing all best practicable means to minimise noise complaints.
A full feasibility study and aviation risk assessment of all possible options has been provided by the applicant. The agent has confirmed that other possible sites for the helipad have been considered but do not meet the clinical requirements of introducing a new helipad. The applicant has also confirmed that an upgrade of the existing helipad to allow daytime and night time helicopter landings of all helicopter types (which presently does not cause noise complaints to be received by the Council) is not feasible due to clinical, lighting and landscaping issues and concerns.
48 The NIA considered the impacts associated with helicopter flight paths with the residential windows open and closed. The south-west route was found to produce the highest levels at NSR B because the helicopter is likely to fly close to or directly over the top of these properties. Mitigation in the form of improved insulation or glazing is unlikely to provide any noticeable benefits to the nearer residential properties due to how high the levels are likely to be. It is likely that the residential properties at Little France Mills, which have roof Velux windows to rooms in the upper floor, are likely to be seriously affected by the helipad use whatever route is utilised. The predicted noise levels will be well above the WHO recommended standard for the onset of sleep disturbance even if windows are closed. This Department is of the opinion that occupants of residential properties should be allowed to partially open their windows for ventilation purposes. However, it is likely that this right will be effectively lost by the occupants of the nearest residential properties. In any event, insulation and improved glazing is not a recommended method to deal with commercial noise as any mitigation effects provided are soon rendered ineffective once a window is opened for ventilation purposes.
Helicopter Noise Conclusions
Helicopter noise can have a high frequency impulsive/tonal whine generated by rotary motors and have unique modes of flight (e.g. hovering and low flying). In addition helicopters, by their very nature, cause loud bursts of noise to the area beneath the area of flight and within minutes the noise can have disappeared once the helicopter has departed the area. Social surveys indicate that helicopter noise can be up to 15dB more annoying than fixed wing aircraft for the same or lower measured sound level. Therefore, the character of helicopter noise can be described as annoying, disturbing and intrusive. This is borne out from the fact that this Department has received a number of noise complaints in relation to helicopter noise in the past. These have mainly been due to private helicopter use or commercial sight seeing operations. It is generally accepted that most noise complaints in the UK are centred around helicopter infrastructure similar to the helipad proposed within this application.
When considering whether noise complaints are likely to occur from nearby occupants of residential properties, whether to the Council or to the hospital, this Department must always consider the details of the proposal. It is the experience of this Department that complaints are less likely to occur if the operation is perceived to be of an emergency nature and of high importance. However, this Department is concerned that complaints are still likely to be received by the Council and hospital from occupants of the nearer and more localised residential properties due to the high levels of noise predicted to occur within their property. It is also unlikely that anything can be done to reduce those helicopter levels except for keeping windows closed. However, even with windows closed, the noise levels likely to be found within some of the nearest residential properties will still be well above the WHO recommended levels for sleep disturbance and daytime annoyance. The noise impact assessment indicates that a number of residential external areas (e.g. gardens) will also be significantly affected by high levels of noise (well above
49 the levels recommended by the WHO in terms of daytime annoyance). In particular, for those properties in close proximity to the helipad, the noise levels in gardens are likely to be high and sustained over the period of helicopter arrival, patient transfer and departure. Vice versa the noise impacts are likely to be for a short duration in gardens of properties which are further away from the helipad and only occur when the helicopter flies close by and directly overhead.
The agent for the application advised that it is envisaged that a minimum of three helicopter arrivals and three helicopter departures will occur at the newly proposed helipad within a standard week. It is also possible that the helicopter movements are as likely to occur during the day as they are at night. The information provided with the application anticipates that two to four of the patient air transfers per month will occur during the night. However, in a worst case scenario a number of helicopter movements may occur at night. Therefore, it is possible that each helicopter movement could cause sleep disturbance and annoyance each time it arrives and departs. In this regard, it has been confirmed that the helicopter is unlikely to spend any more time than is required on the helipad and will depart once the patient has been safely removed from the helipad.
The WHO advises that the magnitude of impact upon residential occupants is likely to be affected by the both the noise level and the number of noise events. It is also important to consider when the noise events occur. On this basis, it is likely that nearby residents may by unlikely to complain if irregular helicopter visits occur during the daytime. However, should the helicopter visits occur regularly through the night time, causing sleep disturbance and annoyance, then it is likely that the adverse noise impacts could become intrusive and quite pronounced over time. The main issues of concern relate to the potential number of properties likely to be affected and the distance of immediate noise sensitive properties from the proposed helipad. It is possible that a significant number of properties could be affected by noise associated with the operation of the new helipad and noise sensitive properties are being brought significantly closer to the helipad than occurs at present with the existing helipad. On balance, it is the opinion of this Department that should such circumstances arise, residential amenity is likely to be detrimentally impacted upon by the approval of this application.
50 Helicopter DowndraftlDownwash
Other issues of concern from the helipad use relate to downdraft (the associated winds forced downward towards the ground during arrival and departure of the helicopter). Downdraft occurs when the helicopter is transitioning from forward flight to hover and landing. The agent has enlisted the services of an aviation consultant who has advised that downdraft normally occurs close to the helipad (circa 50 metres away) and that the nearest residential properties, one hundred metres away, are unlikely to be affected by any associated downdrafts. Additionally, the aviation consultant advised that the height of the helipad will decrease any downdraft impacts on surrounding properties.
Floodlighting
The proposed helipad will require floodlighting compliant with Civil Aviation Authority requirements and the new hospital grounds will require to be adequately lit. It is likely that the lighting will be able to be suitably directed to ensure that the nearby residential properties are not affected by light spillage or glare. Therefore, this issue could be adequately dealt with by condition.
Air Quality
The applicant proposes a major redevelopment on the existing Car Park B at the Royal Infirmary Edinburgh (RIE) site. Environmental Assessment initially voiced concerns regarding the potential local air quality impacts a development of this size and scale may have. This Department requested that an air quality impact assessment be carried out to address transport, on site energy production and construction phase air quality impacts. This assessment has now been carried out to the satisfaction of this Department.
Transport
The proposed new buildings will be constructed on the site of the existing Car Park B which currently has 815 spaces for staff and visitors at the front and to the west of the existing RIE hospital. A new car park has been granted planning permission under a separate application and has now been constructed. The new car park is to the east of the RIE site and provides 1, 176 car parking spaces which will provide an overall net gain of 361 car parking spaces. The application site is not located near any of Edinburgh's Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) however increased traffic flows caused by developments of this size need to be assessed to ensure that they do not lead to further AQMAs being declared for Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) which is a transport related pollutant.
51 The air quality impact assessment has taken into account cumulative traffic impacts by using traffic flow data from other consented schemes in the surrounding area of the proposed site. These schemes include the proposed 'Bioquarter' and Edmonstone Hospital and Care Village.
The applicant has highlighted the fact that the proposed development is a relocation rather than an additional new hospital, moving from the current Royal Hospital for Sick Children site at Sciennes. The existing RIE hospital is in close proximity to the city centre AQMA and therefore any reduction in traffic in this location would be beneficial. However, this will ultimately depend on the long-term use of the existing site at Sciennes.
The assessment has concluded that with regard to transport related N02 concentrations, the effect of the development will be negligible at all receptors, with the exception of the central area of the hospital, which is predicted to experience beneficial effects due to the existing car park being removed. Environmental Assessment can concur with this.
The Scottish Government has recently announced its commitment to low emission vehicles with regards to sustainable transport for the future and states that the Public Sector should be leading the change from conventional to electric vehicles. NHS fleet vehicles would be able to make use of any electric vehicle charging facilities installed. CEC has recently reviewed its guidance on parking standards, and now states that developers should consider the potential to incorporate a provision to encourage electric vehicle charging infrastructure throughout all types of development. An Informative will be recommended to encourage the installation of electric vehicle charging facilities.
Energy Centre
The proposed development includes a dedicated energy centre for electrical and heating supply. The proposed energy centre includes provision of a gas fired combined heat and power (CHP) plant and three gaS/oil fired boilers (2 x duty; 1 x standby).
An appropriate air quality model has been used for this assessment. This is a fully validated model appropriate for an assessment of this type. The modelling considers many factors and ensures that the chimney (15m) serving the energy centre is an appropriate height. The assessment takes into account the size of the boilers, fuel types and the heights of any nearby buildings. Emissions from the emergency generators have not been modelled as they will be used infrequently.
Environmental Assessment would recommend that any chimney serving the emergency generators terminate at the same point as the gas CHP chimney. It should also be noted that any relevant alterations to the plan will require the chimney height to be recalculated. A note should be made in the log book of the periods during which any standby boiler or furnace is fired or any alternative fuel is used. Furthermore the construction or alteration of a
52 chimney and/or the installation of a furnace or other heat producing appliance whether by way of new work or by way of replacement requires approval under the provisions of the Building Regulations. An informative will be recommended to address the above mentioned chimney.
With the information provided the applicant has demonstrated that the energy centre will comply with the Clean Air Act 1993
Construction Phase
The development may give rise to significant pollution sources during the construction phase which could affect nearby sensitive locations, for example the hospital and residential areas, which are both very sensitive to dust.
Mitigation measures will be required where any significant impacts have been identified. The measures to be employed to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects have been identified in the air quality impact assessment. Should this application be consented, this Department recommends that a condition be attached to ensure neighbouring amenity is protected during the construction phase.
Air Quality Summary
The proposed scheme is predicted to result in air quality improvements at some receptor locations and slight increases in pollutant concentrations at other locations. However there will be no exceedance of any relevant air quality objectives or limit value. The energy centre will need to comply with the chimney height requirements set out in the Clean Air Act and relevant mitigation measures adopted to control construction phase dust impacts.
Taking these factors into account the impact assessment confirms that emissions from the proposed scheme should only have a minor effect on local air quality. Environmental Assessment can concur with these findings.
Overall Conclusions
On the basis of the information provided, it is likely that many of the surrounding properties shown as being affected by the lower levels of helicopter noise and which are distant from the helipad will not have their existing level of residential amenity significantly affected by this proposal. The occupants of these properties are less likely to complain due to the lower noise levels, the transience of the noise source and the perceived emergency nature of the helicopter use. However, this Department is of the opinion that the operation of the new helipad is likely to introduce new noise impacts to a number of the nearer residential properties. The information provided by the applicant confirms that the levels of noise associated with the helicopter movements arriving from and departing to all three routes will produce noise levels above WHO and BS 8233 recommended levels within many residential properties surrounding the site. Some properties will also be affected by significantly high levels of external garden noise. In particular, the properties
53 nearest to the helipad are likely to be affected by high levels of noise every time a helicopter arrival or departure occurs and from any direction. Additionally, in terms of controlling or reducing the noise, there does not appear to be a workable mitigation measure which would allow these properties to be given any kind of break from the noise impacts.
Therefore, this Department is not in a position to support this application due to the likely detrimental amenity impacts from noise associated with the helipad use on existing, surrounding residential properties. However, should Committee decide to support the application then the following conditions and informatives should be attached to any consent:
Conditions
Site in General
Prior to the commencement of construction works on site:
(a) A site survey (including intrusive investigation where necessary) must be carried out to establish to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning, either that the level of risk posed to human health and the wider environment by contaminants in, on or under the land is acceptable, or that remedial and/or protective measures could be undertaken to bring the risks to an acceptable level in relation to the development; and
(b) Where necessary, a detailed schedule of any remedial and for protective measures, including their programming, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning.
Any required remedial and/or protective measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved schedule and documentary evidence to certify those works shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning.
Noise - Hospital
The detailed design and position of the helipad should be reserved with details provided at the approval of matters in conditions (AMC) stage all to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning.
The design, installation and operation of any plant, machinery or equipment shall be such that any associated noise complies with NR25 when measured within any nearby living apartment.
Floodlighting
The floodlighting system shall be so controlled so there is no direct illumination of neighbouring land, and so that any light spillage onto neighbouring land shall not exceed 25 lux.
54 No development shall take place until a scheme for protecting the existing residential accommodation from excessive additional illumination and/or glare has been submitted and approved in writing by the Head of Planning. The scheme should show that the design, installation and operation of the floodlighting system shall be such that no floodlighting bulb or floodlighting bulb reflecting surface shall be visible within any residential premises. All works which form a part of the approved scheme shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning prior to the floodlighting scheme coming into full use.
Air Quality
The development shall be completed in accordance with the requirements specified in the RHSC + DCN Little France Environmental Statement 209592- 30 dated July 2011 section 6.9 (to mitigate construction impacts).
Informatives
The developer shall investigate the installation of electric vehicle charging points with reference to Making the Connection - The Plug-in Vehicle Infrastructure Strategy, Office for Low Emission Vehicles (June 2011) .
Any chimney serving the emergency generators should terminate at the same point as the Gas CHP chimney. A note should be made in the log book of the periods during which any standby boiler or furnace is fired or any alternative fuel is used.
Environmental Assessment comment 29/08/2011
Environmental Assessment is currently not in a position to support the application due to insufficient information.
Lothian + Borders Police comment 30/08/2011
There is a proposal to install a segregated cycle way/footpath on the western perimeter of the site running from Old Dalkeith Road past the proposed Energy Centre and secure garden before connecting with Little France Crescent. Careful consideration should be given to this feature as separate cycle way/footpaths and unsupervised areas facilitate crime and anti social behaviour. Where it is unavoidable as in the case of a public right of way the cycleway/footpaths should incorporate the following features:
• Be as straight as possible
• Wide (preferably 3 metres)
• Well lit devoid of potential hiding places
• Overlooked by surrounding buildings
55 Although lighting throughout the site area should support CCTV, in crime prevention terms good quality lighting is proven to be far more effective in reducing crime and increasing public confidence. Therefore a suitable high quality lighting plan should be produced which places emphasis on lighting which produces white light, is non-oppressive, evenly distributed and complies with the appropriate British Standard. It is important that the lighting plan makes every effort to reduce areas of shadow particularly on footpaths and car parking areas and has the appropriate colour rendition and uniformity levels as agreed with the police ALO at a later date.
Midlothian Council comment 02/09/2011
The proposal to relocate the Royal Hospital for Sick Children and the Department for Clinical Neurosciences to the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary (ERI) site is likely to benefit Midlothian residents, through closer access, in terms of both health facilities and to jobs, and this is welcomed.
Notwithstanding these advantages, there are transportation matters that this Council considers need to be addressed.
I have considered the transportation assessment, and it is my understanding that this assumed that any capacity issues relating to the Sheriffhalll A 720 junction would be addressed through committed development, including the Shawfair development. It did not assess the impact of the additional traffic arising from the proposed developments at the ERI on the operation of the Sheriffhall junction, either in its current design, or once upgrading had been undertaken. This would appear to be a shortcoming of the assessment. Support of this proposal should acknowledge that there will be an increase in traffic along the A 7, from and including Sheriffhall, and the City of Edinburgh Council should seek developer contributions towards the upgrading of the Sheriffhall junction in recognition of the likely impact from the proposed development.
It is recognised that the Sheriffhall Park and Ride site is being used by those accessing the facilities at the ERI. The Park and Ride site is getting close to capacity. The proposed development at the ERI includes the replacement of lost on-site parking spaces, but with limited, if any, new spaces, despite the likelihood of the new medical facilities placing additional demands on parking. This could increase the pressure on the limited free spaces at the Sheriffhall Park and Ride site. Midlothian Council would welcome discussion with the City of Edinburgh Council and the applicant on this issue.
Scottish Government comment 25/08/2011
This response relates to the Scottish Ministers responsibilities for air quality and noise - on the basis of the information available and without prejudice to any further consideration the Scottish Ministers may be required to give we have no comments to offer on the Environmental Statement.
56 Scottish Natural Heritage comment on Environmental Statement 26/08/2011
SNH recognises the need for integration of Edinburgh's hospital facilities. However there is a risk that this development proposal may not provide adequate access and open space provision, and may have residual adverse impacts upon biodiversity. We offer our main comments below, and further advice on the potential biodiversity impacts in Annex 1.
We are content that most of the issues we raised at the scoping stage have been addressed. However we raised the issue of improved provision of non vehicular access links from the hospital site to nearby open space and the proposed 'park for health', and this has been only partly addressed. We welcome proposals to improve access links to the nearby Craigmillar Castle Park, and for green roofs and proposed public realm within the proposal. However we note that there is a general lack of proposed open space, particularly play facilities, within the application area. We consider that in line with Scottish Planning Policy (para 154 and 155) further opportunities should be sought to improve open space provision within the application area, and to improve access to nearby open space.
Access improvements would be best achieved by strengthening connections from the hospital grounds north-east wards to the proposed 'park for health' and on to the wider proposed South-East Wedge Parkland (as identified within the City's 2010 Open Space Strategy) which has strategic importance for the Central Scotland Green Network..
We also note that flood defence works and road widening works are likely to lead to a denuding of the existing vegetation and habitats within the ERI site as a whole (as indicated in Figures BE and BF in Appendix F). These works may lead to significant local environmental impacts, and we therefore recommend that the council secures clear further information of the scale and extent of the proposed road widening and flood defence works, as this detail is not found in the ES. Further clear details of the mitigation and compensation measures to protect vegetation and watercourses should also be secured. Detailed plans and proposals for all public realm areas, proposed planting, high quality boundary treatment and other environmental compensation measures that are necessary to deliver a whole development that is appropriate to its wider landscape setting, should also be secured. We recommend that such proposals are taken forward broadly in line with current proposals identified in indicative masterplans, and that these matters are secured through conditions attached to any outline consent.
Annex 1 - detailed comments on biodiversity and landscape & visual topics
57 Biodiversity
We consider the assessment of the natural heritage elements of this ES to be generally fair and accurate. The baseline information is adequate, the prediction of impacts is fair, and we support the proposed programme of mitigation. We strongly recommend that the proposed mitigation measures are secured by the council as described below.
European protected species - otter
We note the presence of otter on the Niddrie burn. We welcome the mitigation measures proposed (section 7.9.4.2), particularly the plan to continue surveying for otter resting places prior to construction. As the ES states, if an otter resting place is found then a licence is likely to be required before development can proceed.
European protected species - bats
We note that a low number of pipistrelles bats were detected foraging on the Niddrie burn. We support the suggested mitigation of directing lighting away from the Niddrie burn (section 7.9.5.2), and recommend that the council secures this mitigation through the use of a condition.
Other protected species - water vole, badger
We note that no evidence of water vole or badger was found during desktop study or site surveying. We have no further comments to make on these species.
Invasive non-native species
We note the presence of the controlled invasive non-native species giant hogweed and Himalayan balsam along the Niddrie burn. We recommend that the council secures the removal of these species before the start of construction works (as per section 7.9.2).
Niddrie burn locally designated site
We note and welcome the range of safeguards proposed to protect the Niddrie burn during the construction phase (as per section 7.9.2). We recommend that the council secures these safeguards through the use of conditions, or through the use of a Niddrie burn management plan.
Terrestrial habitat
As stated in the main letter, there is a risk of denuding the wider ERI site of vegetation during flood defence and road widening works. We recommend the council obtains clear details of how existing vegetation will be protected during works, and of compensation planting after completion.
58 Scottish Natural Heritage further comment 04/11/2011
Thank you for consulting us on the Environmental Statement (ES) addendum for the above development proposal.
SNH position statement
We welcome the addendum and recognise that some of the concerns raised· in our previous consultation response (dated 26 August 2011) have been addressed. We offer further comments and recommendations below.
Open space provision
We note that the central courtyard will now terminate at ground level, thereby aI/owing direct access. We welcome this change and recommend that the principle of creating this public open space is secured, at the PPP stage, by the Council.
We note that the existing RIE internal courtyards could contribute to open space provision. So we welcome the aspiration to improve their quality and accessibility. Again we recommend that the Council secures the principle of improving these courtyards now at the PPP stage.
Access
The Addendum makes significant progress in addressing our concerns about non vehicular access. We note that the north-south pedestrian and cycle route has been clarified, and that actions have been identified to improve existing and create new cycle ways and footways. Similarly the east-west pedestrian and cycle routes have been clarified. We note that the connecting route to the proposed 'Park for Health' appears to go through the middle of Car Park F. We recommend that the Council requests further consideration of this key access link. Better alternatives should be proposed as this represents a poor choice for aI/ users.
Vegetation and habitat loss
We welcome the additional information indicating the extent of potential loss of vegetation. We support the proposal that the details of mitigation and compensation planting should be secured by planning condition in agreement with the Council's landscaping specialists.
Scottish Rights of Way + Access Society
The National Catalogue of Rights of Way does not show any rights of way over the development site indicated on the existing site plan. Although, rights of way LC90 and LC91 lie nearby and are marked on the existing site plan, it appears that these rights of way are not directly affected by this application. As there is no definitive record of rights of way in Scotland, there may be other routes that meet the criteria but have not been recorded as they have not yet
59 come to our notice. You may be aware that there may now be general access rights over any area of land under the terms of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. It is also worth bearing in mind the Core Paths Plans, prepared by local authorities as part of their duties under this Act.
Neither the Society nor its individual officers carries professional indemnity insurance and in these circumstances any advice that we give, while given in good faith, is always given without recourse.
SEPA comment 12/08/2011
We object to this planning application on the grounds of a lack of information on flood risk. We will withdraw this objection if the issues detailed in Section 1 below are adequately addressed.
We would also ask that the planning conditions in Sections 2 and 3 be attached to any approved consent. If these are not applied, please consider this representation as an objection. Please also note the advice provided below.
Advice for the planning authority
1. Flood risk
1. 1 We object to the proposed development on the grounds that it may place buildings and persons at flood risk contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and Planning Advice Note (PAN) 69.
1.2 Full flood risk comments are detailed under Appendix 1. In summary however, before we could consider withdrawing our objection, we would wish to receive confirmation of the 0.5% AEP (1:200) and 0.1% (1:1,000) flows used within the Drainage Assessment and Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) report dated July 2011.
1.3 In addition to this objection, we would also highlight the following concerns which should be considered by the Planning Authority as Flood Prevention Authority. We would welcome further engagement regarding these matters should further information be forthcoming.
1.4 The existing flood defence bund appears to be informal in nature. The integrity of these structures needs to be assessed before consideration is given to upgrading them as they may need to be completely replaced. The Flood Prevention Authority should be consulted on the engineering design of the enhanced defences.
1.5 Prior to any consent being approved, it should be established who will be responsible for the necessary regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed defences.
60 1.6 It is proposed to construct a basement level to the new hospital. Based on the information provided, the finished floor level of the basement would be significantly below general groundwater levels. This is likely to result in a significant risk of water ingress and place the operation of the hospital at risk. There would also be a risk of surface waters entering the basement via access ramps. We would therefore suggest that this element of the hospital design is re-considered.
2. Surface water
2. 1 We note from the Drainage Assessment and Flood Risk Assessment dated July 2011 that new areas of parking and other external hard surfaces are to employ porous material to provide a level of treatment and attenuation at source. We welcome this inclusion, however it is assumed that surface water will then be conveyed to the existing swale which will provide the required two levels of overall treatment. Two thirds of the site is to be covered by roof, requiring a single level of treatment which will be provided by the existing swale.
2.2 We are satisfied with the principles of the proposed SUDS, however the overall scheme has not been confirmed in detail. Therefore, we request that a condition is attached to any approved consent requiring the submission of full details of the SUDS scheme. If this is not attached, please consider this representation as an objection. To assist, the following wording is suggested:
• Prior to the commencement of any works, a SUDS scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the planning authority, in consultation with SEPA, and all work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
• Reason: to ensure adequate protection of the water environment from surface water run-off.
2.3 We have not considered the water quantity aspect of this scheme. Comments from Scottish Water, where appropriate, the Local Authority Roads Department and the Local Authority Flood Prevention Unit should be sought on the SUDS strategy in terms of water quantity/flooding and adoption issues.
61 3. Environmental management
3.1 We note from section 4.3.8 of the Environmental Statement dated July 2011 that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be prepared prior to any construction works taking place. We welcome this inclusion, however as many of the proposed pollution prevention measures will not be regulated by us, we would request that a condition is attached to any approved consent requiring the submission of a full site specific Environmental Management Plan. If this is not attached, please consider this representation as an objection. To assist, the following wording is suggested:
3.2 At least two 2 months prior to the commencement of any works, a full site specific environmental management plan (EMP) must be submitted for the written approval of the planning authority, in consultation with SEPA and all work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.
3.3 Reason: to control pollution of air, land and water.
4. Watercourse engineering works
4. 1 The proposed flood risk management proposals for altering the existing bund may require authorisation from us under Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR). Due to the limited information submitted with regard to the extant of the proposed works, we are unable to comment as to whether any authorisation would be required.
4.2 We would therefore strongly suggest that the applicant contact a member of our local operations team, as outlined in section 9 below to discuss the matter in more detail.
This advice is given without prejudice to any decision made on elements of the proposal regulated by us, which may take into account factors not considered at the planning stage.
Detailed advice for the applicant
5. Content of flood risk information
5. 1 Please note that we are reliant on the accuracy and completeness of any information supplied by the applicant in undertaking our review, and can take no responsibility for incorrect data or interpretation made by the authors.
5.2 The advice contained in this letter is supplied to you by SEPA in terms of Section 72 (1) of the Flood Risk Management (Scot/and) Act 2009 on the basis of information held by SEPA as at the date hereof. It is intended as advice solely to Edinburgh Council as Planning Authority in
62 terms of the said Section 72 (1). Our briefing note entitled: "Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009: Flood risk advice to planning authorities" outlines the transitional changes to the basis of our advice inline with the phases of this legislation and can be downloaded from www.sepa.org.uk/flooding/flood_risk/planning_flooding.aspx.
6. Surface water
6. 1 Please note that we have requested that a planning condition be attached to any approved consent requiring full details of the finalised sustainable drainage (SUDS) surface water treatment. The SUDS treatment train should be followed which uses a logical sequence of facilities in series allowing run-off to pass through several different SUDS before reaching the receiving water body. Well designed this can form part of a wider green network, contribute to the amenity of the site and promote biodiversity.
6.2 Further guidance on the design of such systems and appropriate levels of treatment can be found in CIRIA's C697 manual entitled The SUDS Manual. Advice can also be found in the SEPA Guidance Note Planning advice on sustainable drainage systems (SUDS). Please refer to the SUDS section of our web site for details of regulatory requirements for surface water.
6.3 Comments should be sought from the local authority roads department and the local authority flood prevention unit on the acceptability of post development runoff rates for flood control.
6.4 Comments from Scottish Water should be sought where the facilities would be adopted by them. We encourage the design of systems to Sewers for Scotland Second Edition standards and the adoption of SUDS features by Scottish Water as we are of the view that this leads to best standards and maintenance.
7. Environmental management
7. 1 Please note that we have requested that a planning condition is attached to any consent requiring the submission of an environmental management plan (EMP) to be submitted at least two months prior to the proposed commencement of development. The EMP should incorporate detailed pollution prevention and mitigation measures for all construction elements potentially capable of giving rise to pollution during all phases of development.
7.2 Full details of what should be included in the EMP can be found on our website.
63 8. Pollution prevention and control
8. 1 We would highlight that should the net thermal rating for the energy centre combustion plant exceed 20mW, it would have to be regulated by us under the Pollution Prevention Control (Scot/and) Regulations 2000. The applicant should contact a member of our local operations team as detailed below to discuss the matter in more detail.
Appendix 1 - Detailed flood risk comments
In correspondence dated 25 July 2011, we provided flood risk comments for this proposal, based on a document prepared by Arup entitled Drainage Impact Assessment and Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (October 2010). The Drainage Assessment and Flood Risk Assessment report has since been updated (July 2011) and submitted in support of the proposed application.
Table 2 of the FRA contains the same design water level information as the previous report. The table lists the 0.5% AEP (1:200) and 0.1% AEP (1:1,000) flood levels for the Niddrie Bum at each cross-section in the model. The closest cross-section to the site is NB137 and the FRA estimates the water levels at this point as 54.31 mAOD and 54.71 mAOD for the 0.5% AEP (1 :200) and 0.1% AEP (1:1,000) floods respectively. In previous correspondence, we requested clarification regarding what flows have been used to determine these levels. This revised report still does not provide this information.
The revised FRA confirms that the bum channel was created to convey an estimated 1% AEP (1:100) flood which was assessed in May 1997. Unfortunately, the estimate of the design flow is not provided. It is also confirmed that the existing flood bund has no definitive design crest level and it is suggested that the bund was raised two or three years after originally being constructed "to address issues arising after a large rainfall event': This would suggest that the bum channel possibly does not convey the 1% AEP (1 :100) flood. It is indicated that the bund was sized on the amount of excess material that was available on the site, which would suggest that its design and construction is informal in nature.
The consultant advises that the likelihood of flooding to the site and the proposed development can be reduced by designing and upgrading the existing flood defence in order to withstand the 0.1% AEP (1:1,000) flood event. We would advise that firstly, it will be necessary to establish the structural integrity of the existing defences to determine if these are suitable for upgrading. They may need to be replaced altogether.
It is suggested that sheet piling through the existing embankment may form part of the solution to raise defences to a level that protects from the O. 1% AEP (1:1,000) flood event and include 600 mm offreeboard allowance. We would welcome an opportunity to comment on the design flow for these defences. The flood prevention authority should also be consulted on the engineering design of the proposed works and the future inspection and
64 maintenance. Consideration should also be given to the impact of any proposed engineering work to the risk of flooding elsewhere. The consultant argues that the modelling output indicates that the site at present is not inundated during a 0.5% (1:200) flood and so there is no requirement to provide compensatory storage, however the consultant is yet to disclose what flow this represents.
Table 1 of the revised FRA report provides a summary of groundwater levels recorded between a short summer period of 29 June 2010 to 13 August 2010. This varies between 1.90 metres and 3.28 metres below site ground levels. Based on this information, the consultant assesses the risk of flooding to the proposed development from groundwater flooding as low. However the Design and Access Statement indicates that the proposed hospital building has a basement which will house the plant, kitchen, estates, materials management, domestic services and staff changing facilities. It is also intended to provide some underground parking. Drawings indicate that intended finished floor levels for the basement are between 45.0 mAOD and 50.0 mAOD while the FRA estimates a groundwater level of 50.0 mAOD. The development is also in the path of the previous route of the watercourse prior to it being diverted around the existing Royal Infirmary building. There is therefore a risk of groundwater seeping into the basement and also surface waters getting into the lower ground levels by access ramps etc. Flooding of the basement could have a significant impact on the operation of the hospital.
SEPA further comment 27/09/2011
We previously objected to this application on grounds of flood risk as outlined in our response dated 12 August 2011.
Based on the information currently available to us, we now remove our objection subject to the planning condition in Section 1. 1 and the planning conditions in Sections 2 and 3 of our previous response, dated 12 August 2011, being attached to any approved consent. If these are not applied, please consider this representation as an objection. Please also note the advice provided below.
We recommend that this response is read in conjunction with our previous response, dated 12 August 2011, as comments within that response are still applicable to this application.
Advice for the planning authority
65 1. Flood risk
1. 1 Full flood risk comments are detailed under Appendix 1. In summary however, we can confirm that the design flows used in the flood risk assessment are adequate to assess the risk of flooding to the proposed new Royal Hospital for Sick Children. It is understood that other concerns regarding the risk of flooding to the new hospital cannot be addressed until the detailed design stage. We therefore now remove our objection subject to a planning condition being attached to the consent. To assist, the following wording is suggested:
Prior to approval of the detailed design, further flood risk information shall be submitted for the written approval of the planning authority, in consultation with SEPA, and all work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: to protect people and property from flood risk.
This advice is given without prejudice to any decision made on elements of the proposal regulated by us, which may take into account factors not considered at the planning stage.
Detailed advice for the applicant
2. Content of flood risk information
2. 1 Please note that we are reliant on the accuracy and completeness of any information supplied by the applicant in undertaking our review, and can take no responsibility for incorrect data or interpretation made by the authors.
2.2 The advice contained in this letter is supplied to you by SEPA in terms of Section 72 (1) of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 on the basis of information held by SEPA as at the date hereof. It is intended as advice solely to The City of Edinburgh Council as Planning Authority in terms of the said Section 72 (1). Our briefing note entitled: "Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009: Flood risk advice to planning authorities" outlines the transitional changes to the basis of our advice inline with the phases of this legislation and can be downloaded from www.sepa.org.uk/flooding/flood_risk/planning_flooding.aspx.
SEPA further comment 21/1012011
As we understand the Environmental Statement Addendum dated 11 October 2011 primarily addresses noise issues related to proposed helicopter operations. As this is outwith SEPA's remit, we have no further comment on the application at this stage.
66 Scottish Water comment 11/08/2011
Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application. Since the introduction of the Water Services (Scotland) Act 2005 in April 2008 the water industry in Scotland has opened up to market competition for non-domestic customers. Non-domestic Household customers now require a Licensed Provider to act on their behalf for new water and waste water connections - further details can be obtained at www.scotlandontap.gov.uk.
Due to the size of this proposed development it is necessary for Scottish Water to assess the impact this new demand will have on our existing infrastructure. With Any development of 10 or more housing units, or equivalent, there is a requirement to submit a fully completed Development Impact Assessment form - Development Impact Assessment forms can be found at www.scottishwater.co.uk.
ALNWICKHILL 1879 Water Treatment Works currently has capacity to service this proposed development.
A VSE PFI - EDINBURGH Waste Water Treatment Works currently has capacity to service this proposed development.
In some circumstances it may be necessary for the Developer to fund works on existing infrastructure to enable their development to connect. Should we become aware of any issues such as flooding, low pressure, etc the Developer will be required to fund works to mitigate the effect of the development on existing customers. Scottish Water can make a contribution to these costs through Reasonable Cost funding rules.
A totally separate drainage system will be required with the surface water discharging to a suitable outlet. Scottish Water requires a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) as detailed in Sewers for Scotland 2 if the system is to be considered for adoption.
These proposals may involve the discharge of trade effluent to the public sewer and may be subject to control as defined in Part 11 of the Trade Effluent Control and Charging Scheme. No substance may be discharged to the public sewerage system that is likely to interfere with the free flow of its content, have detriment to treatment / disposal of their contents, or be prejudicial to health.
Scottish Water's current minimum level of service for water pressure is 1.0 bar or 10m head at the customer's boundary internal outlet. Any property which cannot be adequately serviced from the available pressure may require private pumping arrangements installed, subject to compliance with the current water byelaws. If the developer wishes to enquire about Scottish Water's procedure for checking the water pressure in the area then they should write to the Customer Connections department at the above address.
67 There may be contaminated land issues relevant to the development of this site. The developer must ensure that satisfactory precautionary measures are taken to protect public water and sewer pipes from any possible contamination. The developer may have to submit a full soil investigation report to Scottish Water. Customer Connections will be able to provide advice on this subject on request.
CEC Transport comment 16/11/2011
I have no objections to the proposed application subject to the following being included as conditions or informatives as appropriate:
1. The extent of adoptable roads, including footways, footpaths, accesses, cycle tracks, verges and service strips to be agreed prior to the submission of any detailed application, including diversion or closure of existing routes. The applicant should note that this will include details of lighting, drainage, Sustainable Urban Drainage, materials, structures, layout, design and specification;
2. Whilst it is understood that the re-positioning of the bus interchange, from the northern to the southern RIE entrance, and the rerouting of buses to the rear of the site has been agreed in principle with the bus companies, it is recommended that the detailed design of the bus interchange and section of the road beyond the new car park is a reserved matter;
3. Planning permission should not be granted until the applicant has entered into a suitable legal agreement to fund the progression of traffic orders including those to re-determine sections of road, introduce waiting and loading restrictions at appropriate locations, introduce taxi ranks, disabled parking and stopping up orders at no cost to the Council. Note that any objections to the necessary traffic orders will require to be considered by the Transport Infrastructure and Environment Committee of this Council and therefore no guarantee can be given that orders can be successfully implemented;
4. A Sustainable Urban Drainage strategy to be submitted prior to or as part of any full application to construct the RSHC;
5. Details of motor vehicle, motor cycle and cycle parking, including location, design and access arrangements and details of access barriers to be submitted and approved prior to construction. Note that barriers and associated equipment must not be installed on any "road';
6. Details of the location and layout of any bus stop and layover space to be submitted to and approved by the Council prior to a detailed application. Real time information at bus stops and within the RIE and RHSC will be sought;
68 7. The development requires a section of Little France Crescent to be stopped up to permit the development. Formal approval to initiate the statutory process to stop up the road should be sought under Section 207 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as part of the planning consent. However, as there is no guarantee at this stage of the road ultimately being stopped up to allow the development to proceed, a suspensive condition may be required. The extent of stopping up of Little France Crescent will require to be agreed with the Council as part of any detailed application;
8. The proposed route for buses and general traffic on the unnamed access to the car parks and helipad to the north of the Royal Infirmary to be brought up to an adoptable standard of sufficient width and specification to accommodate 2 way bus traffic. As this access was not built under a Roads Construction Consent any proposed work (which may include coring of the surface to ascertain the current make up) to improve the route to be submitted to the Council for approval. Any such work must be completed and the route open to 2 way bus and general traffic before Little France Crescent is stopped up or closed to through traffic and it must be a "road" under the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, i.e. a public right of passage between Old Dalkeith Road, Little France Crescent and Little France Drive. The Council would expect this road to be put forward for adoption in due course (i.e. to be maintained by the Council);
9. The justification and details of the location, layout and design, including electrical specification, of signalised junctions or crossings, including zebra crossings, to be submitted to and approved by the Council prior to construction. This includes any such location within the RHSC and Royal Infirmary site. The applicant should note that the justification, design and installation of such facilities is governed by regulation and guidance;
10. Details of the siting and lighting of the proposed helipad on the RHSC to be submitted to and approved prior to construction;
11. The proposed cycle track linking from the existing cycle track adjacent to Craigmillar Castle Road to be subject to separate application for road construction consent and to be open as a "road" under the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 prior to first occupation of the RHSC. The applicant should note that Sustainable Urban Drainage will need to be addressed in consultation with SEPA and Scottish Water and safety audits will be required at appropriate stages;
12. Detailed design of (a) the proposed keep clear markings at the junction of Old Dalkeith Road and Craigmillar Castle Road; and (b) the right turn lane on Old Dalkeith Road at its junction with Little France Drive, to be submitted for the approval of the Head of Transport prior to construction of the RHSC. These works to be introduced prior to first occupation of the RHSC or as agreed;
69 13. A draft Travel Plan to be submitted to the Council prior to first occupation of the RHSC and a final Travel Plan to be submitted within one year of that date;
14. The Disabled Persons Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009 places a duty on the local authority to promote the proper use of parking places that are designated or provided for use only by disabled persons' vehicles. A traffic order will be required, at no cost to the Council, to permit disabled persons' parking places to be enforced under this legislation. On-street disabled bays must be marked out in accordance with the Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002. The applicant should therefore advise the Head of Transport if they wish the disabled persons' parking places to be enforced under this legislation;
15. The applicant should be aware that new road names may be required for this development and this should be discussed this with the Council's Street Naming and Numbering Team at an early opportunity. Street naming is likely to influence the progression of traffic regulation orders.
Transport Scotland comment 09/09/2011
We have been passed a copy of the Environmental Statement (ES) and the ES Addendum prepared by Arup on behalf of the NHS for the above development. Having fully reviewed these documents, we would make the following comments on behalf of Transport Scotland.
Development Proposals
We understand from the information provided that the location for the proposed re-provision of the Royal Hospital for Sick Children and associated expansion of the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh is at the existing Royal Infirmary site at Little France. The application site covers an area of 2.8 hectares of land within the south east of Edinburgh.
We note that the site is bound to the west and north by Little France Crescent while University buildings (Queen Medical Research Institute (QMRI) and the Chancellors building) are located to the west and hospital buildings and landscaped open space to the north east. The site is bound to the south by a petrol station and the Little France Mills residential area which can be accessed off the A 7 Old Dalkeith Road. The closest trunk road is the A 720 City Bypass which provides strategic access to the site.
70 Access Strategy and Traffic Impact
We note that currently, access to the application site is off Old Dalkeith Road via two junctions; Little France Crescent (north access) and Little France Drive (south access). As part of the development proposals, we understand that this existing access strategy will be maintained. With regard to the traffic impact, we note that the proposed development represents an intensification of use at the existing site with an additional 348 vehicles trips generated in the AM peak hour and 270 trips in the PM peak hour.
While the impact of these trips has been considered in detail for the local road network, we note that no consideration has been given to the potential impact on the A 720 / Old Dalkeith Road Junction (Sherrifhall Roundabout) despite our Scoping Response letter requesting that these impacts be considered in detail.
By interpolation of the data in the TA, it would appear that the proposed development could generate in the region of 100 two-way trips through this junction at peak times in a situation where the junction is already operating at capacity.
A full audit of the TA is being undertaken by my development control colleagues and a full response addressing the above issue will be issued under separate cover. Notwithstanding this, we have reviewed the related issues of Noise and Air Quality below.
Noise and Vibration
Noise modelling has been undertaken to assess potential noise impacts in the construction and operation of the proposed development. To establish the noise impacts of the scheme across the study area, calculations have been undertaken in accordance with the guidance contained in the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) and the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).
Having reviewed the information provided within the ES Chapter on Noise and ES Addendum, it is accepted that the traffic associated with the proposed development will have no significant impact on the trunk road network and its adjacent receptors in terms of Noise.
Air Quality
Based on the information provided within the ES Chapter on Air Quality and ES Addendum, we have compared the anticipated trip generation potential of the development against the air quality screening criteria and from this we are satisfied that there are no issues with regard to potential impacts on air quality associated with sensitive receptors adjacent to the trunk road network.
71 Transport Scotland further comment 21/09/2011
The Director advises the following conditions shown be attached to any permission the council may give:
No part of the development shall be occupied until a comprehensive Travel Plan that sets out proposals for reducing dependency on the private car has been submitted and approved in writing by the planning authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland (TRNM, TRBO). In particular this Travel Plan shall identify measures to be implemented, the system of management, monitoring, review, reporting and the duration of the plan. This is to be consistent with the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and PAN 75 Planning for Transport.
Transport Scotland further comment 26/10/2011
With reference to your correspondence to The Scottish Government dated 14th October 2011 on the above development we write in our capacity as Term Consultants to Transport Scotland - Trunk Road Network Management Directorate (TS-TRNMD) in relation to the provision of advice on issues affecting the trunk road network.
We have been passed a copy of the Environmental Statement Addendum (ES) prepared by Arup on behalf of the NHS for the above development. Having fully reviewed the additional transportation information contained within the Addendum report, we would make the following comments on behalf of Transport Scotland.
Addendum Information
We note that additional information and assessment has now been undertaken in relation to development traffic impacts on the trunk road network (specifically at Sherrifhall Roundabout). Having reviewed this information, we can also confirm that we are satisfied that there will be no significant traffic impacts on the trunk road network that would give rise to environmental impacts. I also understand that my JMP colleagues have confirmed to Transport Scotland that there are also no capacity issues in relation to the impact on the trunk road.
In these circumstances, we are satisfied that all matters have now been addressed in relation to the trunk road and can confirm that we do not require any further information.
72 Representations
Scheme 1 of the planning application and the Environmental Statement was advertised on 5 August 2011. A total of 6 representations were received from residents in the vicinity of the development. This included 5 objections and a single letter of comment. The material objections! comments are:
Issues of principle
Alternative sites within the RIE should be used for the development in order to acceptably reduce amenity impacts on existing residential properties. This is addressed in section (a)
The helipad would result unacceptable noise, amenity and safety risks for existing residential properties. Using the existing helipad or an alternative location for the helipad should be further explored. This is addressed in sections (a) and (h).
Part of an existing residential property is wrongly included within the red line boundary. This is addressed in section (a).
Residential amenity issues
The height and scale of the building is over dominant in terms of neighbouring residential properties and would have detrimental impacts in terms of daylight, outlook and privacy. The heights have increased since initial plans were produced for the development. This is addressed in section (b).
Construction noise and noise from the energy centre post construction would be unacceptable in term of the impact on adjacent properties. This is addressed in section (b).
Transport issues
The development would generate increased traffic and parking problems for properties on Old Dalkeith Road. This is addressed in section (c).
The other points raised are not material.
Scheme 2 of the planning application and an addendum to the Environmental Statement was advertised on 14 October 2011 and the neighbouring properties were re-notified. A single further objection was received reiterating the concern regarding the noise impacts of the helicopter based on the revised data. This is taken account in section (a) and (h) in the assessment.
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
73 Planning Policy
Scottish Planning Policy (Scottish Government 2010)
Scheduled Monuments
The document indicates that where works requiring planning permission affect a scheduled monument, the protection of the monument and its setting are important considerations. Development which will have an adverse effect on a scheduled monument or the integrity of its setting should not be permitted unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Flooding
Development which would have a significant probability of being affected by flooding or would increase the probability of flooding elsewhere should not be permitted. Hospital developments and other essential civil infrastructure are generally not suitable on sites with either a low - medium (1 :200 - 1 :1000, i.e. between 1 in 200yr and 1 in 1000yrs return period) or higher risk of flooding. For sites at little or no risk (1: 1000 or 1 in 1000yrs return period) there are considered to be no constraints for developments from flooding.
Transport
Planning permission should not be granted for significant travel generating uses in locations which would encourage reliance on the private car and where:
direct links to walking and cycling networks are not available or cannot be made available,
access to public transport networks would involve walking more than 400m,
it would have a detrimental effect on the capacity of the strategic road and/or rail network, or
the transport assessment does not identify satisfactory mechanisms for meeting sustainable transport requirements.
Planning Advice Note 1/2011: Planning and Noise (Scottish Government 2011)
The document sets out that issues which may be relevant when considering noise in relation to a development proposal include:
- Type of development and likelihood of significant noise impact,
- Sensitivity of location (e.g. existing land uses, NMA, Quiet Area),
74 - Existing noise level and likely change in noise levels,
- Character (tonal, impulsivity etc), duration, frequency of any repetition and time of day of noise that is likely to be generated, and
- Possible health impacts if robust data available.
For helicopters noise, planning conditions regarding flight paths are likely to be inappropriate in terms of the relevant tests for conditions set out in circular 4/1998. Voluntary agreements may be an effective way of limiting disturbance.
Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh and Lothian's Structure Plan Policy ECON3 supports the development of clusters of new technology, knowledge based industries of strategic importance to the Scottish economy.
Policy ENV1 F states that development proposals affecting any designated natural heritage site, protected priority habitat or species or other important non-statutory locations will require an appropriate level of environmental and biodiversity assessment.
Policy ENV12 states that development, individually andlor cumulatively, that may lead to a significant increase in the risk of flooding, or that may itself be at risk of flooding, should not be permitted. Development proposals for greenfield and brownfield sites should include sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS)
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
Policy Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) sets general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated.
Policy Des 3 (Development Design) sets criteria for assessing development design.
Policy Des 4 (Layout Design) sets criteria for assessing layout design.
Policy Des 5 (External Spaces) sets criteria for assessing landscape design and external space elements of development.
Policy Des 6 (Sustainable Design & Construction) sets criteria for assessing the sustainable design and construction elements of development.
Policy Des 9 (Waterside Development) sets criteria for assessing development on sites on the coastal edge or adjoining a watercourse.
Policy Des 10 (Tall Buildings) sets out criteria for assessing proposals for tall buildings.
75 Policy Env 8 (Protection of Important Remains) establishes a presumption against development that would adversely affect the site or setting of a Scheduled Ancient Monument or archaeological remains of national importance.
Policy Env 9 (Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance) sets out the circumstances in which development affecting sites of known or suspected archaeological significance will be permitted.
Policy Env 12 (Trees) sets out tree protection requirements for new development.
Policy Env 15 (Sites of Local Importance) identifies the circumstances in which development likely to affect Sites of Local Importance will be permitted.
Policy Env 16 (Species) sets out species protection requirements for new development.
Policy Env 17 (Flood Protection) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on flood protection.
Policy Env 18 (Air, Water and Soil Quality) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on air, water and soil quality.
Policy Os 3 (Open Space in New Development) sets out requirements for the provision of open space in new development.
Policy Hou 8 (Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas) establishes a presumption against development which would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of nearby residents.
Policy Emp 2 (Centre for Biomedical Research) supports development of a high quality centre for biomedical research and its commercial 'spin-off within land allocated at Little France where compliant with the approved master plan.
Policy Tra 1 (Major Travel Generating Development) supports major travel generating development in the Central Area, and sets criteria for assessing major travel generating development elsewhere.
Policy Tra 2 (Planning Conditions and Agreements) requires, where appropriate, transport related conditions and/or planning agreements for major development likely to give rise to additional journeys.
Policy Tra 4 (Private Car Parking) requires private car parking provision to comply with the parking levels set out in supplementary planning guidance, and sets criteria for assessing lower provision.
Policy Tra 6 (Design of Off-Street Car and Cycle Parking) sets criteria for assessing design of off-street car and cycle parking.
76 Policy Inf 4 (Renewable Energy) sets criteria for assessing proposals for environmentally sustainable forms of energy generation.
Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines
Non-statutory guidelines 'DAYLlGHTING, PRIVACY AND SUNLIGHT' set criteria for assessing proposals in relation to these issues.
Non-statutory guidelines 'The Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Building' sets principles to assess the sustainability of major planning applications in Edinburgh.
Non-statutory guidelines The Protection of Key Views guideline aims to safeguard public views to those features which define Edinburgh's character. In order to achieve this, a number of key views have been specifically identified for protection. View cones for each key view have been separately defined. The impact of any proposed development on a key view will be assessed in terms of its effect on the view. While there will be a presumption in favour of protecting the views, it is recognised that the Edinburgh skyline has been formed by generations adding to and evolving the skyline. Positive additions to the skyline tend to be elegant and slender - spires and towers.
Non-statutory guidelines 'The Edinburgh Standards for Streets' sets out principles and guidance whose aim is to achieve a coherent and enhanced public realm.
Non-statutory guidelines on 'MOVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT' establish design criteria for road and parking layouts.
Non-statutory guidelines on "Trees and Development" provides guidance on the information required to support planning applications in respect of tree protection, the retention of trees of landscape, biodiversity or amenity significance, and encourages new tree planting where appropriate. Non-statutory guidelines on 'PARKING STANDARDS' set the requirements for parking provision in developments.
Non-statutory guidelines on Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing gives guidance on the situations where developers will be required to provide affordable housing and/or will be required to make financial or other contributions towards the cost of, providing new facilities for schools, transport improvements, the tram project, public realm improvements and open space.
77 Appendix B ·EDINBVRGH· THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL
CITY DEVELOPMENT Application Type Planning Permission in Principle Application Address: Edinburgh Royal Infirmary 51 Little France Crescent Edinburgh EH164SA
Proposal: Planning permission in principle for erection of Children's Hospital including department for clinical neurosciences + ancillary facilities, helipad, associated enabling development including energy centre, VIE, car parking, revised access + public transport arrangements, public realm works + landscaping (car parking, access + public transport arrangements in detail). Reference No: 11/02454/PPP
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be GRANTED
Conditions
1. Prior to the commencement of works on site and excluding the enabling road works detailed in condition 2 below, details of the following under-noted matters, shall be submitted and approved by the planning authority in the form of a detailed layout of the site (including landscaping and car parking), and detailed plans, sections and elevations of the building(s) and all other structures:
(a) The precise location and extent of the various hospital and ancillary uses;
(b) Siting, design and height of individual developments, including design of all external features and glazing specifications (including acoustic capabilities), all external materials and finishes, including their colour;
(c) The design and configuration of all external spaces including internal courtyard and roof areas, demonstrating the extent and means of public access, details and extent of green roofs, and details of subsequent maintenance;
(d) Details of car, cycle and motor cycle parking including location, design and access arrangements including details of ticket machines and access barriers, details of intended use and car park management;
78 (e) Details of road layouts, footpaths and cycle routes including existing and finished ground levels in relation to Ordnance Datum; and details of the location and design of pedestrian crossing facilities;
(f) Hard and soft landscaping details which shall include:
(i) Existing and finished ground levels in relation to Ordnance Datum;
(ii) Layout and design, including walls, fences, gates and any other boundary treatments;
(iii) The location of new trees, shrubs and hedges;
(iv) An assessment of existing trees and potential for retention
(v) A schedule of plants to comprise species, plant size and proposed number/density;
(vi) The programme for completion and subsequent maintenance;
(vii) Existing and proposed services such as cables, pipelines, SUbstations;
viii) Other artefacts and structures such as street furniture, lighting columns and fittings, shelters and covered walkways, play equipment; details of public art;
(g) A full site specific environmental management plan (EMP) detailing measures to be employed during the construction to prevent pollution to air land and water;
(h) Details of the flood prevention works and SUDS
(i) Sustainability details in the form of an overall strategy and site specific details demonstrating how the hospital and associated developments shall meet or exceed the Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Building (2010) or the equivalent standard at the time of submission;
(j) A detailed lighting strategy for the development including details demonstrating that light pollution and associated impacts on ecology have been minimised in line with the Environmental Statement and have been designed along of Secure by Design principles;
(k) Further details of noise attenuation and air quality measures in relation to the various uses;
(I) The detailed siting and design of the rooftop helipad including details of night time lighting.
79 2. In terms of the enabling road works itemised A - E shown on the road layout reference drawing AT/209592/x(90)X/02 and the accompanying cycle track drawing SK 070 Issue 12 the following further revisions and further submission requirements shall apply:
(i) Items A and 8 relating to the cycle track and the initial section of the enabling road work from the northern entrance to the site on Old Dalkeith Road are approved subject to the prior written agreement by the Head of Planning of details of lighting, pedestrian crossings, bus stop and any associated layover facilities, detailed junction arrangements, vehicular access and egress arrangements for the adjacent MS Centre from the access loop road, SUDS and associated detailed construction details.
(ii) Item C is not approved and further consultation shall be undertaken with the planning authority and relevant consultees to consider the various pedestrian and vehicular movements including servicing and emergency movements and matters relating to landscaping and public realm. These shall be considered in a comprehensive manner and the potential for more direct vehicular connections to the public car parks thereby avoiding the bus terminus shall be explored and where practicable incorporated into the finalised design proposals. A revised plan shall be prepared for the prior written agreement of the Head of Planning including details of lighting, pedestrian crossings, bus stop and any associated layover facilities, detailed junction arrangements, landscaping, SUDS and associated construction details.
(iii) Items D and E shall form part of a further application for Approval of Matters (AMC) as detailed in condition 1 parts (d) and (e) above.
Following detailed approval in accordance with the requirements specified above, the enabling road works items A-E shall be implemented in accordance with the timescales specified in condition 3 below and with the details shown on the accompanying phasing drawing AT/209592/x(90)X/01.
3. The items referred to on the approved phasing drawing AT/209592/x(90)X/01 relate to the further approval of matters specified in conditions 1 and 2 and matters contained in the legal agreement for the development. Following approval, the individual parts of the development shall be implemented solely in accordance with the approved phasing drawing or such other drawing which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning.
80 For the avoidance of doubt, no works involving the stopping up of Little France Crescent shall take place until the enabling road works specified in items A and C on the road layout reference drawing AT/209592/x(90)X/02 have first been agreed in terms of condition 2 and those works having first been constructed and certified in writing by the Head of Planning as being completed and open for use by two way bus and general traffic.
4. For the site wide road works referred to and itemised A - C in condition 2 a fully detailed landscape plan, including details of all hard and soft surface and boundary treatments and all planting, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning before work is commenced on site. The total amount of replacement planting shall as far as practicable reflect the overall loss of existing tree cover to be generated by the road enabling works, currently estimated at approximately 458 trees or thereby. The approved landscaping scheme shall be fully implemented within six months of the completion of the road works, and thereafter shall be maintained by the applicants and/or their successors to the entire satisfaction of the planning authority; maintenance shall include the replacement of plant stock which fails to survive, for whatever reason, as often as is required to ensure the establishment of the approved landscaping scheme.
5. The finished building heights for the development to be submitted and agreed as matters in condition 1(b) shall be substantively in accordance with the massing drawing NAl10727/L(100)G/06.
6. The height and position of the rooftop helipad to be submitted and agreed as matters 1 (a) - (c) shall be substantively in accordance with the massing drawing NAl1 0727/L(1 00)G/06 which demonstrates the proximity of the helipad to residential properties on Old Dalkeith Road.
7. The maximum Gross Internal Area of the new hospital including basement accommodation and enclosed plant rooms at roof level but excluding the separate energy centre, shall be limited to a maximum of 48,500 square metres.
8. The development shall be constructed and thereafter operated in accordance with the details set out in the Environmental Statement dated July 2011 and in the accompanying Addendums dated August and October 2011.
81 9. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning dealing with the mitigation of construction impacts as detailed in the Environmental Statement dated July 2011 including but not limited to the air quality mitigation detailed in section 6.9 of the Environmental Statement. Thereafter the construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
10. No development shall take place on the site identified in blue on the site plan drawing NA 1107271 L(100)G/02 Rev P2 for the new hospital or any amended site boundary plan agreed either in writing by the Head of Planning or as part of a future approval of matters submission until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (excavation, analysis & reporting, publication) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority
11. i) Prior to the commencement of construction works on site: a) A site survey (including intrusive investigation where necessary) must be carried out to establish to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning and Strategy, either that the level of risk posed to human health and the wider environment by contaminants in, on or under the land is acceptable, or that remedial and/or protective measures could be undertaken to bring the risks to an acceptable level in relation to the development; and
b) Where necessary, a detailed schedule of any required remedial and lor protective measures, including their programming, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Strategy.
ii) Any required remedial and/or protective measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved schedule and documentary evidence to certify those works shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning and Strategy.
12. The design and installation of any plant, machinery or equipment shall be such that any associated noise complies with NR25 when measured within any nearby living apartment, and no structure borne vibration is perceptible within any nearby living apartment.
82 Reasons
1. In order to accord with the statutory requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts.
2. In order for the details to be submitted to and approved for the development
3. To ensure that the works required to accommodate the new hospital on the existing RIE site are completed in a timely manner as part of the development
4. In order to ensure that a high standard of landscaping is achieved, appropriate to the location of the site.
5. In order to ensure that the impact of the development accords with the details shown in the Environmental Statement
6. In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and other occupiers.
7. In order to ensure that the impact of the development accords with the details shown in the Environmental Statement
8. In order to ensure that the impact of the development accords with the details shown in the Environmental Statement
9. In order to enable the Head of Planning & Strategy to consider this/these matter/s in detail.
10. In order to enable the Head of Planning & Strategy to consider this/these matter/s in detail.
11. In order to ensure that the site is suitable for redevelopment, given the nature of previous uses/processes on the site.
12. In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and other occupiers.
83 INFORMATIVES
It should be noted that:
1. a) Application for the approval of matters specified in conditions shall be made before the expiration of 5 years from the date of the grant of planning permission in principle, unless an earlier application for such approval has been refused or an appeal against such refusal has been dismissed, in which case application for the approval of all outstanding matters specified in conditions must be made within 6 months of the date of such refusal or dismissal. b) The approved development shall be commenced not later than the expiration of 5 years from the date of grant of planning permission in principle or 2 years from the final approval of matters specified in conditions, whichever is later.
2. No development shall take place on the site until a 'Notice of Initiation of Development' has been submitted to the Council stating the intended date on which the development is to commence. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of planning control, under Section 123( 1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
3. As soon as practicable upon the completion of the development of the site, as authorised in the associated grant of permission, a 'Notice of Completion of Development' must be given, in writing to the Council.
4. Please refer to the final response from the Head of Transport dated 16 November 2011 for detailed requirements for the design and construction and subsequent operation of roads, footpaths and cycle tracks to be formed as part of the development including requirements for separate approval under Road Construction Consent. In terms of that response please note that the extent of adoptable roads and the justification for the placement and design of individual pedestrian crossings requires to be submitted for the prior agreement of the Head of Transport in line with the timescales set out in the response.
In terms of traffic orders, no development shall commence on site until relevant traffic orders have been promoted and concluded for the roads and footpaths affected by the development, including but not exclusively for the permanent stopping up of Little France Crescent to allow for the construction of the new hospital on Car Park S, linking with the existing Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh Accident and Emergency Department. These shall be progressed under Sections 207 and 208 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 or the appropriate amended legislation at the time of application.
84 5. Vehicles
The developer shall investigate the installation of electric vehicle charging points for service vehicles associated with the development with reference to Making the Connection - The Plug-in Vehicle Infrastructure Strategy, Office for Low Emission Vehicles (June 2011)
Energy Centre
Any chimney serving the emergency generators for the energy centre should terminate at the same point as the Gas CHP chimney. A note should be made in the log book of the periods during which any standby boiler or furnace is fired or any alternative fuel is used.
6. The applicant has indicated a willingness to enter into a Good Neighbour Agreement for the development.
7. For the avoidance of doubt, although the reference design presented for Planning Permission in Principle (PPP) demonstrates that the proposals can in principle be accommodated on the site, the various design and critical adjacency issues require to be further analysed in a comprehensive manner in advance of a future submission for Approval of Matters (AMC). To assist this process, it is recommended that a further design exercise is undertaken involving the applicant, the final appointed design team, Architecture and Design Scotland who commented on previous iterations of the reference design and representatives of CEe planning.
8. A suitable legal agreement is required in terms of:
Flood prevention works
The developer shall design, procure and construct a scheme of flood prevention works detailing location, design, extent, and phasing all at no cost to the Council. The precise details of the of the flood prevention works shall be submitted to the planning authority prior to the submission of the first application for the approval of matters specified in conditions 1 (a) - (g). The proposed flood prevention works shall be supported by the following details:
(i) An updated flood risk assessment including further site level analysis both within and adjoining the application site, including adjoining land within the Niddrie Burn corridor to the west of Old Dalkeith Road and
(ii) A surface water management plan incorporating further level analysis in the wider RIE site and including flood risk to the development from surface water, the avoidance of any increase in flood risk elsewhere, and the provision of SUDS. The SUDS details shall demonstrate that peak discharge from surface water drainage is a maximum of 4.5l/s/ha or the 2yr green field runoff (where this can be reasonably estimated) whichever is the lower.
85 The final design of the flood prevention works shall demonstrate no increased risk to existing land and properties either within or outwith the site boundary and shall demonstrate that the risk of flooding to the new hospital including any basement areas would meet relevant requirements for a hospital as stated in Scottish Planning Policy (Scottish Government) 2010.
Following approval, the flood prevention works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and be certified by the developer and agreed in writing by the Head of Planning as being complete prior to the new hospital becoming operational.
Transport
The detailed design and implementation of the off site road works specified in the submitted Transport Assessment dated July 2011 p58 and on the accompanying road layout plan AT/209592/x(90)X/02.
The formulation and agreement of a staff travel plan.
Fund the progression of traffic orders including those to re-determine sections of road, introduce waiting and loading restrictions at appropriate locations, introduce taxi ranks, disabled parking and stopping up orders at no cost to the Council.
The cost of providing real time bus infrastructure to serve the development.
End
86 Appendix C
·EDINBVRGH· THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL
CITY DEVELOPMENT Application Type Planning Permission in Principle Proposal: Planning permission in principle for erection of Children's Hospital including department for clinical neurosciences + ancillary facilities, helipad, associated enabling development including energy centre, VIE, car parking, revised access + public transport arrangements, public realm works + landscaping (car parking, access + public transport arrangements in detail). Reference No: 11/02454/PPP
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
87