Section 1 – Site Location Map
Site address Kings College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS
Ward Herne Hill
Proposal Removal of existing temporary buildings and the erection of a 4 storey modular building with roof top plant to provide ward spaces, consulting rooms and ancillary functions.
Application type All Other Smallscale Major Developments
Application ref(s) 12/03990/FUL
Validation date 26 th October 2012
Case officer details Name: Rebecca Saville Tel: 020 7926 1271 Email: rsaville@lambeth .gov.uk
Applicant Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.
Agent Mr Paul O'Neil Metropolis PD 4 Underwood Row London
Considerations/constraints .Key Industrial and Business Area London Distributor Roads
Approved plans SK095 (site location plan), SK045, SK091 rev C, SK092 rev C, SK093 rev C, SK094 rev C, SK097, SK098, 72/9002443-107 rev A, 72/9002443-301 rev F,
Recommendation(s) Grant planning permission subject to conditions.
Report Review
Department(s) or Organisation(s) Date Date Comments consulted response summarised received in para Governance & Democracy (legal) 4/12/2012 5/12/2012 No comments
Consultation
Department(s) or Organisation(s) Consulted? Date Comments (y/n) response summarised received in report? (y/n) Internal Highways & Transport Y 28 Nov 2012 Y Urban Design Y 4 Dec 2012 Y Noise & Pollution Y 2 Nov 2012 Y Food Safety N n/a Planning Policy N n/a Streetcare Y No response n/a Policy, Equalities & Performance N n/a
External Transport for London Y No response Network Rail Y No response GOL N GLA N Households N
Background Documents Case File (this can be accessed via the Planning Advice Desk, Telephone 020 7926 1180)
For advice on how to make further written submissions or to register to speak on this item, please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing [email protected] or telephoning 020 7926 2170. Information is also available on the Lambeth website www.lambeth.gov.uk/democracy
1 Summa ry of Main Issues
1.1 The main issues involved in this application are:
• Operational requirements of Kings College Hospital • Visual impact on Ruskin Park • Transport
2 Site Description
2.1 Kings College Hospital campus lies south of Coldharbou r Lane and w est of Denmark Hill, the campus is partly owned by Kings College Hospital and partly by Kings College. The campus fronts Denmark Hill to the east but there is residential property to the north, between the campus and Coldharbour Lane. To the west is a KIBA and to the south the campus is divided from Ruskin Park by a cutting containing a railway line. The campus has accumulated buildings over the years and is now intensively developed.
2.2 The building proposed in this application would lie in the south western corner of the campus, The new building would be visible from Ruskin Park to the south but otherwise would be barely visible from the public realm. Existing hospital buildings would lie to the north and east. To the west is a disused building formerly used by EDF which forms part of a KIBA.
2.3 The application site does not lie in a conservation area and the existing buildings are not listed. Ruskin Park is a Listed Park, grade II.
3 Planning History
3.1 There is a long planning history on the campus as a whole. Of particular relevance to the consideration of this application is 12/00737/FUL, an application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission (08/04822/FUL) in order to extend the time limit for implementation with respect to the partial removal of the existing hospital wing in the south west corner of the site and the erection of a four storey building to be used as a Haematology Centre granted on 01.04.2009 which was permitted by the Planning Applications Committee on 15 th May 2012.
3.2 The current application is for a development on the same site as the building approved by applications 12/00737/FUL and 08/04822/FUL; the construction of the building proposed in this application would prevent the implementation of permission 12/00737/FUL.
3.3 There is a concurrent application for development on another part of the campus. The application is for a three storey building to be located above the existing two storey operating theatre block to provide critical care unit, including additional plant, re-cladding of all external facades and re-provision of a clinical waste store (12/03858/FUL). It is anticipated that this application will be brought to PAC in January 2013.
3. 4 On neighbouring site - 54 Bengeworth Ro ad
On 10 th December 2010 an application for Outline Planning Permission (with appearance and landscaping as reserved matters) to determine the principle of the site redevelopment through the erection of a mixed used scheme provided within a range of two to three-storey dwelling houses and four to five-storey blocks comprising:
71 residential units (16 x one-bedroom, 22 x two-bedroom, 8 x three- bedroom and 25 x four-bedroom) of which 24 units would be affordable; approx. 108 sq.m of retail (Class A1) and approx. 7340 sq.m of office/employment (Class B1) with 33 associated car parking spaces at street level and the provision of communal amenity space (10/02586/OUT) was refused for nine reasons including the introduction of a mixed use development into a KIBA.
This site is identified in the Kings College Hospital Masterplan as a possible site for future hospital development.
4 Proposal
4.1 Planning permission is sought for the r emoval of existing temporary buildings and the erection of a 4 storey modular building with roof top plant to provide ward spaces, consulting rooms and ancillary functions.
4.2 This application is made in the light of pressures on the National Health Service in south London. The applicant has stated that Kings College Hospital has been requested to expand services by May 2013 by national government. The intention is that the building proposed in this application should be temporary (around 10 years) but in the light of uncertainties the application is for full (permanent) planning permission.
4.3 The building would occupy a similar space to the building permitted by applications12/00737/FUL and 08/04822/FUL however, unlike the previous permissions, the current application does not involve the demolition of part of the existing block.
4.4 The four storey modular building would have a total floor area of 3,100m² where the previously approved scheme proposed a net increase in floor area of 3,780m². The approved scheme included three storeys and an additional half basement level. The current proposal is for a temporary building which would be constructed at ground level with the full four storeys visible and it would appear taller and bulkier than the approved scheme.
4.5 The ground floor of the building would contain two operating t heatres and associated services including recovery rooms. There would be wards on the first, second and third floors and corridors would link to the main hospital building to the north at ground and first floor levels. Mechanical and electrical plant would be located in a screened area at roof level. The Sustainability Appraisal states that photovoltaic panels would be sited on the roof over the stair and lift cores bit these are not shown on the submitted drawings.
4.6 The existing modular building on the site was being demolished at the time of the site visit.
5 Consultations and Responses
5.1 The application site is set well away from any residential properties so no letters of consultation were sent.
5.2 Four site notice s were displayed on 31st Oc tober 20 12 and a press notice was published on 16 th November 2012.
5.3 The following societies and associations were consulted – • Brixton Business Forum • Herne Hill Society
Internal consultation
5. 4 The Council’s Urban Design Officer has concerns regardi ng the quality of the design.
5. 5 The Council’s Highw ays and Transportation officer raised no objection in principle but requested the imposition of conditions regarding a Method of Construction Statement, a Travel Plan and cycle parking.
5.6 The Council ’s N oise and Pollution officer raised no objection in principle.
5.7 The Council’s Streetcare Team did not respond.
5.8 The Councils Design out crime officer recommended measures to improve security.
5.9 The Council’s Regulatory Services team ra ised no objections in principle .
5.10 The Council’s Implementation team advised on s106 and CIL
External consultation
5.8 Transport for London had not responded at the time of writing this report.
5.9 Network Rail had not responded at the time of writing this report.
5.11 No letters of objection have been received following the consultation process. No letters of support have been received. .
No. of Letters No. of Objections No. in support Comments sent 0 0 0 0
5.12 The application has been referred t o Committee because the proposed development is classed as major development and the new building would have a floor area of 3,100m², greater than 1000m²
6 Planning Policy Considerations
National Guidance
6.1 The NPPF sets out the Government’s plannin g policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It reinforces the Development Plan led system and does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. The NPPF states that the National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and is a material consideration in planning decisions.
Moreover, it sets out that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
The London Plan 2011
6.2 The London Plan was published in July 2011 and replaces the previous versions which were adopted in February 2004 and updated in February 2008. The London Plan is the Mayor’s development strategy for Greater London and provides strategic planning guidance for development and use of land and buildings within the London region.
6. 3 The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital over the next 20-25 years. It forms part of the development plan for Greater London. All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.
6. 4 The key polic ies of the plan considered relevant in this case are:
• 3.17 Health and social care facilities • 5.1 Climate change mitigation • 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions • 5.3 Sustainable design and construction • 5.6 Decentralised energy in development proposals • 5.7 Renewable energy • 6.1 Strategic approach to transport
Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)
6.5 The following policies are considered to be of relevance to the assessment of this application:
• S4 Transport • S7 Sustainable design and construction • S9 Quality of the built environment • S10 Planning obligations
London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): ‘Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’
6. 6 The key policies of the plan considered relevant in this case are:
• Policy 7 Residential amenity • Policy 9 Transport impact • Policy 26 Community facilities • Policy 32 Community safety/designing out crime • Policy 33 Building scale and design • Policy 36 Alterations and extensions • Policy 41 Views • Policy 35 Sustainable design and construction • Policy 50 Open space and sports facilities
7 Land Use
7.1 UDP Policy 2 6(f) supports the further development of the major teaching hospitals.
7.2 The applicant has stressed the urgency of this application, stating that
“The Trust has advised that there is an urgent need to deliver additional bedspaces in wards and capacity in operating theatres by the middle of 2013. This requirement for additional capacity is directed by Central Government through their appointed regulator, MONITOR, who are commissioned with ensuring a continued level of care within the NHS. MONITOR have identified an immediate requirement for an additional 100 bedspaces at Kings, which can be accommodated between a reorganisation of existing ward spaces and the proposed development which will deliver an additional 48 ward beds. The acute nature of this need has been compounded by The South London NHS Foundation Trust, which provides care for Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich and Lewisham became the first NHS Trust to be placed into administration in July 2012. As a neighbouring Trust, Kings is expected to play a role in ensuring continued provision of service in South East London.
This requirement comes at a time when general, elective and emergency referrals to Kings are all noticeably increased during 2011-2012 – up 30% in terms of ‘blue light’ referrals to the Emergency Department, 11% in terms of general admissions and 14% for elective admissions – Kings is a specialist centre for Liver surgery referrals and the two theatres proposed will meet current theatre needs and associated recovery spaces. The capacity issues created by these contributing factors result in an immediate requirement for additional ward spaces and operating theatres that will be met by the proposed development. For this reason, the modular construction route has been selected, with the bulk of fabrication taking place off site. This will allow for the wards to be delivered in a significantly shorter timescale than would be typically required for a building of the scale proposed. The site selected was previously identified in the Trust’s Masterplan as a location for substantial development and the provisions of that Masterplan allow for such a contingency where the specific needs of the Trust may change over time but the general location
of development has been identified.”
7.3 The application site forms part of the Kings College Hospit al campus and therefore the proposed development would not represent a change of use. Additional hospital buildings are an acceptable use of the site in principle.
7.4 In addition the approval of applications 08/04822/FUL and 12/00737/FUL has established the acceptability of an additional hospital building on this site.
7.5 There is no objection to the removal of the existing modular buildings on the site.
8 Amenity
8.1 UDP policies 7 and 33 seek to protect residential amenity.
8.2 The proposed build ing would not be close to any residential properties and therefore the building itself would not have any effect on residential amenity. The proposed development would be surrounded on two sides by existing hospital buildings and on a third side by the disused EDF buildings in the KIBA. There would be a loss of daylight, sunlight and outlook to the lower floors of these buildings but as they are not residential buildings any loss of amenity is not a planning matter.
8.3 An additional building can be expe cted to generate a degree of disturbance from additional comings and goings. In the context of the hospital campus, Coldharbour Lane and Denmark Hill it is considered that any additional disturbance would be within acceptable levels.
8.4 The proposed dev elopment would not have an unacceptable detrimental effect on local residents and therefore would be in accordance with UDP policies 7 and 33.
9 Design and heritage
9.1 Core strategy policy S9 seeks to improve the quality of the built environment. UDP Policy 33 states that “all development should be of a high quality design and contribute positively to its surrounding area.”
9.2 The Urban Design officer considered that the proposed building would be particularly bland and uninspiring. In other circumstances this building would be unacceptable however it would be a temporary building responding to an urgent need. In these circumstances it is considered that the poor design is not sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.
9.3 UDP Policy 36 advis es that building services equipment should be designed into the development so that it is physically integrated into the envelope of the building.
9.4 The application proposes to mount plant on the roof behind screens. The plant would not be visible from the public realm and as such would be in accordance with UDP Policy 36.
9.5 UDP Policy 50(e) seeks to safeguard the character, appearance and setting of historic parks. UDP Policy 41 seeks to prohibit development that would detract from the backdrop or setting of historic parks.
9.6 The proposed building would be visible from Ruskin Park, a grade II listed park. Viewed from the park the existing hospital buildings are not a visual asset, having a rather industrial appearance. The hospital campus is distanced from the park by the railway cutting and the relevant part of the hospital campus is well screened by the vegetation along the boundary of the park. Given the temporary nature of the building, the distancing and the screening it is considered that the proposed building would not unreasonably detract from the setting of the park.
10 Traffic and Parking
10.1 Core Stragegy Policy S4 promotes sustainable transport and UDP Policy 9 states that development that would have an unacceptable transport impact will be refused.
10.2 Denmark Hill station lies to the east of the site and the hospital has a PTAL score of 4 to 5, which is ‘good’ to ‘very good’.
10.3 The Council’s Transportation and Highway officer noted that the plans submitted with applications 08/04822/FUL and 12/00737/FUL indicate that 13 car parking spaces would be lost. The loss of these spaces was agreed in the approval of the earlier applications and is therefore accepted for this application.
10.4 Given the lack of on -site parking and the CPZ restrictions on neighbouring streets the Council’s Transportation and Highway officer considered it unlikely that significant numbers of additional staff would choose to drive to the site and therefore considered that the traffic and parking impacts would be negligible.
10.5 The Council’s Transportation and Highway officer noted that the most recent campus-wide Travel Plan is dated February 2009 and requested the imposition of a condition requiring the Council’s approval of an up to date plan to include the building proposed in this application. If the Committee is minded to approve the application it is recommended that such a condition should be imposed.
10.6 Cycle parking is provided on a campus wide basis but the Council’s Transportation and Highway officer was concerned that no cycle facilities are shown on the drawings submitted with this application. The lack of information means that the application fails to demonstrate that the development would meet TfL standards for cycle parking. The London Plan (2011) raised the required standards for facilities for cycling and the current proposal should meet the current standards rather than the standards considered acceptable in the assessment of application 08/04822/FUL. If the Committee is minded to approve the application it is recommended that a condition should be imposed requiring the Council’s approval of cycle parking to ensure that there is adequate provision on the campus to accommodate the additional trips generated by the proposed building in accordance with current guidance.
10.7 The Council’s Transportation and Highway officer requested the imposition of a condition requiring the Council’s approval of a Method of Construction Statement to ensure that construction vehicles would not cre ate a traffic hazard.
If the Committee is minded to approve the application it is recommended that such a condition should be imposed.
10.8 The principle of an additional hospital building was established by the approval of applications 08/04822/FUL and 12/00737/FUL. The transport impact of the building proposed in this application would not be significantly different to the building previously permitted. The previous permissions included conditions requiring the Council’s approval of a Method of Construction Statement and a Green Travel Plan. It is therefore considered that, with the imposition of the conditions recommended above, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable transport impact and would be in accordance with UDP Policy 9 and Core Strategy Policy S4.
11 Sustainability
11.1 Core Strategy Policy S7 and UDP Policy 35 promote sustainable development.
11.2 The modular building would be constructed to a high standard of insulation and air tightness. Photo-voltaic panels would be installed on part of the roof but these would generate only a 2.3% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions however the building would be connected to the existing combined heat and power generator on the site. Overall the Building Emission Rate (BER) is expected to achieve a 64% improvement over the Target Emission Rate (TER).
11.3 A BREEAM (2011) assessment of the proposed building demonstrates that the building should achieve a ‘Very Good’ level of sustainability and this is welcomed. If the Committee is minded to approve the application it is recommended that a condition should be imposed to ensure that this standard is achieved in practice.
12 Refuse and Recycling Considerations
12.1 UDP Policy 35 requires adequate, integrally -designed provision for th e storage and recycling of waste.
12.2 Waste management is managed on a campus wide basis with daily collections of both clinical waste and general refuse. Collections from wards, theatres and ancillary spaces within the proposed building will be undertaken by Trust maintenance staff on a regular basis during the day with clinical waste stored prior to collection in the existing clinical waste store to the south of the principal Operating Theatre Block. The hospital is implementing an Environmental Management Plan that includes a waste management plan with the aim of eliminating waste sent to landfill.
12.3 Although the current application does not include information regarding the management of waste and recycling it is considered that the campus wide waste management plan is sufficient to demonstrate a commitment to the management of waste.
13 Noise
13.1 The Council’s Regulatory Services (noise pollution) team raised no objection in principle. The Sustainable Design and Construction Statement states that an acoustic consultant would be appointed at the detailed design stage to ensure
that the adverse impacts of noise will be minimised and mitigation measures will be provided. As the building will not be located near residential accommodation it is not considered necessary to recommend the imposition of a condition to limit any noise impact.
14 Crime prevention
14.1 UDP Policy 32 states that development should enhance community safety.
14.2 The Council’s Design out crime officer recommended that the building should be constructed to Secured by Design standards. The applicant will be informed of this recommendation.
14.3 The Council’s Design out crime officer also recommended that details of the boundary treatments and landscaping should be submitted for the Council’s approval however the application site has been defined as the building and it is considered that the boundaries of the campus are not sufficiently related to the current application as to justify such a requirement.
15 S106 and CIL
15.1 The development would not generate any additional residents for the London Borough of Lambeth and therefore is not liable for s106 agreements to provide community facilities. It has been assessed as being potentially liable for a contribution to public art and for a local labour requirement. It is considered unduly onerous to require public art at a time when Health Service budgets are under considerable pressure. The building would be a modular construction with a relatively limited amount of work carried out on the application site. Given the demand to implement the works with all possible speed it is considered that the benefit of a limited amount of local labour is not sufficient to warrant complications in the development process.
15.2 As a hospital building the development would be nil rated for the Mayor of London’s CIL.
16 Conclusion
16.1 In conclusion the proposed development would be constructed in place of the development approved by applications 12/00737/FUL and 08/04822/FUL. The approval of the previous applications demonstrates the acceptability of this location for an additional hospital building. It is considered that with the imposition of the conditions recommended above the proposed development would be acceptable
17 Recomme ndation
17.1 Grant conditional planning permission
18 Summary of the Reasons
18.1 In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted
subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following policies were relevant:
18.2 London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): ‘Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’):
Core Strategy Policies :
Policy S1 Delivering the vision and objectives Policy S4 Transport Policy S7 Sustainable design and construction Policy S9 Quality of the built environment Policy S10 Planning obligations
Unitary Development Plan Policies:
Policy 7 Protection of residential amenity Policy 9 Transport impact Policy 26 Community facilities Policy 32 Community safety/designing out crime Policy 33 Building scale and design Policy 35 Sustainable design and construction Policy 36 Alterations and extensions Policy 41 Views Policy 50 Open spaces and sports facilities
19 Conditions
19.1 The development to whi ch this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.)
19.2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
19.3 No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and construction works, including parking, deliveries and storage, shall take place solely in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public
highway and in the interest of public safety in accordance with Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011.
19.4 Prior to the first occupation of the building, a Green Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures approved in the Travel Plan shall be implemented as soon as practicable and shall be maintained for the duration of the use, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained to any variation.
Reason: To promote sustainable travel in accordance with Policy S4 of the Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011).
19.5 Prior to the first occupation of the building, plans showing the provision of facilities for cyclists shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall be implemented as soon as practicable and shall be maintained for the duration of the use, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained to any variation.
Reason: To promote sustainable travel in accordance with Policy S4 of the Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011).
19.6 The building shall be constructed to a BREEAM (2011) ‘Very Good’ standard.
Reason: To ensure that the development achieves the highest standards of sustainable design and construction and subsequent operation in accordance with Policy S7 of the Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011).
20 Informatives
20.1 This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent whic h may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
20.2 Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and related legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer.
20.3 Cycle parking should be provided to meet TfL guidance on cycle parking which requires 1 space for every 5 members of staff and 1 space for 10 visitors.
20.4 It is recommended that the building should be constructed to the standards required by Secured by Design/Hospitals.
______