Planning Brief

SPD Supplementary Planning Document London Borough of Merton

Planning Brief

Nelson Hospital

Adopted | January 2007

You can also get this information in large print, in Braille and on tape.

Paul McGarry 020 8545 3003 Contents |

Adoption Statement i

Conformity with Statement of Community Involvement ii

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 The Site History 2 Evolution of the Area 4

3.0 Issues for the Site Retention and Demolition 5 Tree Preservation 7 Blakesley Walk 9 The Rush 10

4.0 The Nelson Brief Vision, Aims and Objectives 12 Aspirations 13 Requirements 14 Principles for the Development 15 Principles of Good Design 16 Public Art 17

5.0 Wider Thinking Healthy Living and the Community 18

6.0 CABE Designed with Care 19

7.0 Planning Policy Framework 21

8.0 Sustainable Design 23

9.0 Transport Public Transport 24 Parking and Servicing 25

10.0 Planning Application Requirements 26

11.0 Design and Access Statement Guidance 27 Design Champions 28

12.0 Further Information Background Documents 29 Contacts 31

13.0 Aerial Image 32 33 14.0 Proposals Map

A Appendices Planning Policy Framework Appendix A Sustainability Appraisal Appendix B Statement of Community Involvement Appendix C

Adoption Statement |

Adoption Statement Produced by: i This document has been produced in London Borough of Merton accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Plans and Projects Purchase Act 2004 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Merton Civic Centre Regulations 2004 regarding the preparation of London Road Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD). The Morden Council’s Unitary Development Plan Policy LD.3: Surrey SM4 5DX Planning Briefs, states that the Council will prepare planning frameworks for sites proposed for development, either in response to developer Contact: interest or to promote appropriate development. Any enquiries relating to this SPD can be ii In accordance with the above, this Brief directed to; is a Supplementary Planning Document to the Merton Unitary Development Plan (UDP), Adopted October 2003. This brief was adopted nd Paul McGarry as such by the Council’s Cabinet on 22 Planner: Sites and Projects January 2007. The purpose of this brief is to provide a framework to guide the redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital as a new local care Tel: 020 8545 3003 hospital. Fax: 020 8545 3326 iii The UDP is currently being replaced by the new Local Development Framework (LDF) as part of the new planning system created by E-mail: [email protected] the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. When Merton’s LDF is adopted, this SPD will be reviewed to ensure consistency with the policies of the LDF. iv Any person or organisation aggrieved by this SPD may apply to the High Court for permission to apply for judicial review of the decision to adopt the SPD. It should be noted that any such application must be made no later than three months after the date on which this SPD was adopted.

Conformity with Statement of Community Involvement |

Conformity with Statement of Community Involvement i Consultation on this SPD was undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 and Planning Policy Statement 12 – Local Development Frameworks. It also adheres to Merton’s Statement of Community Involvement, submitted in September 2005 as part of Merton’s emerging Local Development Framework (LDF) ii The consultation primarily consisted of a 6 week consultation period, formal press notification and the SPD being made available on the Council’s website and at the Civic Centre and local libraries. iii This SPD’s Statement of Community Involvement outlines the details of the consultation undertaken and can be found in Appendix C of this SPD. 1.0 | Introduction

Background 1.5 Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust have been working closely with the Council to 1.1 This planning brief provides guidance find suitable sites in the borough and have for the redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital in confirmed that two of the new local care Merton Park. The Nelson Hospital is a hospitals will be located in Merton, the rest community hospital currently consisting of a being in Sutton. The Merton local care day hospital for the elderly, a day surgery unit hospitals are to be built on the site of existing of 10 beds and an outpatient department NHS facilities at the Wilson Hospital in providing a range of clinics, radiology and Mitcham and the Nelson Hospital in Merton neurology services. Sutton and Merton NHS Park. Primary Care Trust are seeking to redevelop the site as a new local care hospital as part of 1.6 The purpose of this planning brief is to their ‘Better Healthcare Closer to Home’ provide a planning and design framework to initiative. guide the redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital site. The brief will assist the designers 1.2 Better Healthcare Closer to Home is a of the new hospital as well as assisting the joint project by Sutton & Merton Primary Care Council’s Development Control team and Trust, East Elmbridge & Mid Surrey Primary Planning Committee members when a Care Trust and the Epsom & St Helier planning application is being is received for University Hospitals Trust, with a vision “to consideration. The brief seeks to ensure that provide more healthcare in the community” and the redevelopment scheme responds positively a network of local care hospitals supported by to the character of the local area. a critical care hospital. The NHS is undergoing major change; better drugs, advances in medical technologies and surgical techniques provide the opportunity to improve quality of life and life expectancy. These changes will also reduce the amount of time people spend in hospital for routine treatments. As a result, the number of people treated as outpatients and day surgery patients is growing.

1.3 Following a public consultation between September and November 2004, Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust have decided on a new model of healthcare for the boroughs of Sutton and Merton, part of which proposes developing a network local care hospitals that will provide diagnostic services (such as x-ray and ultrasound), minor injuries clinics, day surgery, mental health services and outpatient clinics. This network of local hospitals will be supported by a critical care hospital for emergency care, intensive care, complex operations and specialist care for sick children.

1.4 There has been some debate over the location of the critical care hospital. On the 19th of December 2005, in response to a referral by Merton Council, Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Health announced her decision that the new critical care hospital should be built at St Helier. At present the Local Health Economy is awaiting a decision from the Department of Health regarding the site of the Critical Care Hospital.

1 Nelson Hospital Planning Brief 2.0 | The site | history

History of the Nelson Site and Surrounding Area

2.1 The original Nelson Hospital was a 2.5 The site of the present day Nelson converted Victorian villa located at 173 Merton Hospital is located in what was the original Road, South Wimbledon. It opened in 1900 village of Merton. Historic maps of the area and was known as the South Wimbledon, (shown on page 4) clearly show the layout of Merton and District Cottage Hospital. what is now Kingston Road, Watery Lane, Blakesley Walk and The Rush - all of which 2.2 Merton’s population increased with the form the boundary of the site today. advent on the railways at the turn of the century creating further demand for a local 2.6 The site boundary is shown below and hospital. 1905 was the centenary of Admiral includes the main hospital buildings, mortuary, Nelson’s final victory, which was an opportune former nurses home and car parking area. The time for fundraising events to provide for a car park also has a number of significant trees, Nelson memorial hospital, to replace the small adding to the character of the area. and increasingly inadequate facilities on Merton Road. In 1909 a deal was struck,

purchasing land adjacent to The Rush, on © Ordnance Survey 2006. Kingston Road, Merton Park to construct the London Borough of Merton. Licence Number 100019259 new hospital.

2.3 The first phase of the Nelson Hospital opened in 1911 and consisted of three pavilion blocks fronting Kingston Road, with wards located to the rear. The symmetrical blocks consisted of two two-storey blocks and a central single storey block.

Nelson Hospital Site boundary

2.7 South and west of the site is generally suburban residential development mostly dating from 1912 and into the 1920s. To the Merton Heritage Service north and east of the site, there are very Original pavilion blocks, distinctive architectural qualities to the area Kingston Road 1912 including the Old Leather Bottle pub and Merton Park Parade. The streets of Quintin 2.4 In 1922, the Merton Urban District Avenue, Richmond Avenue and Merton Hall Council added a new wing to the east of the Road have distinct residential characters and original blocks, commemorating the men of are within conservation areas. Merton who lost their lives during the First World War. Of the original three blocks, the 2.8 The arrangement of buildings and middle block later gained an upper floor street patterns surrounding The Rush date extension, possibly in the mid 1940s, to back to the original settlement of Merton and coincide with the opening of the Maternity appears clearly on maps as far back as the Wing in 1942. There have also since been John Rocques map of 1741. numerous extensions and modifications to blocks at the rear of the site, however the Kingston Road frontage has largely remained in its original form.

Adopted January 2007 2 2.0 | The site | planning history

Merton Heritage Service

Nelson Hospital in 1942 Planning History Opening of the Maternity wing

2.9 Planning permission was granted in Interestingly, the photo shows the maternity wing with its original hipped roof, which has now become entirely flat 1995 for a proposed redevelopment of the roofed. Nelson Hospital. This permission has not been implemented and the planning permission has therefore lapsed. There are no extant planning permissions for the site.

2.10 The future of health services is under review by the Primary Care Trust and is bound to have some implications for the redevelopment of Nelson Hospital in terms of the range of services provided at the Nelson and the relationship with services in nearby facilities such as Wilson Hospital, Mitcham, St Georges Hospital, Tooting and St Helier Hospital, Sutton.

3 Nelson Hospital Planning Brief 2.0 | The site | evolution of the area

(Roques Map) Merton 1741 Kingston Road, Merton 1896-1899

Kingston Road, Merton 1916-1920 Kingston Road, Merton 1934-1938

Kingston Road, Merton 1953 Kingston Road, Merton 2007 Hospital site boundary shown

Adopted January 2007 4 3.0 | Issues for the site | retention + demolition

3.1 The Nelson Hospital site is tightly constrained by the surrounding urban environment and the design of any new buildings will be expected to contribute to the character of the surrounding townscape.

Retention & Demolition

3.2 The Council wishes to protect the positive aspects of the building, particularly those that contribute to the character of the Merton Heritage Service conservation area. The Council’s Design & Kingston Road frontage, 1912 Conservation Team have produced character appraisals for a number of Conservation Areas in the borough. The redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital would impact upon three 3.6 Taking forward the assessment of the adjacent Conservation Areas; Merton Hall hospital building in the Conservation Area Road, John Innes Merton Park and Wimbledon character appraisal, the Council will require Chase. The hospital forms part of the Merton that the four original pavilion blocks are Hall Road Conservation Area and the retained and reused as part of the new character appraisal provides the basis for the hospital. In principle, The Council will allow the Council’s views on retention and demolition of demolition of the remainder of the site for the parts of the hospital building. provision of the new hospital.

3.3 The hospital building is generally described as providing only a ‘neutral’ contribution to the character of Merton Hall Road Conservation Area. However the four pavilion blocks which form part of the Kingston Road frontage are noted as providing a ‘positive’ contribution to the area. As such, the Council will seek the retention of the four pavilion blocks.

The Pavilion Blocks Kingston Road frontage, March 2006

3.4 The first phase of the Nelson Hospital opened in 1912 consisting of three main blocks fronting Kingston Road, The blocks were originally symmetrical with two two-storey 3.7 Retaining the four pavilion blocks blocks and a single storey block in the middle. forms a basis for the design of the new (as shown on page 2) hospital. This would ensure that new build sections are complimentary to the pavilion 3.5 The symmetry has since been lost with blocks and the surrounding area, particularly the addition of the Memorial Wing in 1922 and on the Kingston Road frontage. addition of an upper floor to the single storey block in the 1940s. Despite these 3.8 This does not mean that the design of modifications, the Kingston Road frontage is the new hospital should simply replicate the relatively unchanged, as the adjacent images retained blocks, it is intended that the pavilion demonstrate. blocks will provide a context for the scale, height and massing of the rest of the hospital development.

5 Nelson Hospital Planning Brief 3.0 | Issues for the site | retention + demolition

The Lodge

3.9 At a public consultation exhibition held in March 2006 to invite comment on options for retention and demolition, the majority of attendees and respondents supported the principle of retaining the four pavilion blocks.

3.10 There was public feeling that The Lodge adjacent to Blakesley Walk should also be retained. However, in comparison, The Lodge’s scale and presence on the Kingston Road frontage is not as substantial as the four main pavilion blocks. The Lodge is not specifically noted in the Conservation Area Masonry Plaque, Maternity Wing Character appraisal, therefore the Council will promote the retention of the Lodge, but it will not be an absolute requirement of the Kingston Road Boundary Wall development. 3.13 The hospital has a perimeter wall on the Kingston Road and Rush boundaries. The wall is not specifically mentioned as providing any contribution to the character of the Conservation Area, however it is an original feature of the hospital.

3.14 There are positive and negative aspects of the wall presenting different challenges for how the boundary of the site may be treated. Following public consultation on options for the retention and removal of the wall, the Council proposes a compromise that retains the parts of the wall, maintaining the character of the area, but supports modification of the wall to increase access to the hospital The Lodge, and provide a better quality public realm. Corner of Kingston Road + Blakesley Walk 3.15 This means that the wall will be retained in front of the four pavilion blocks, and removed from the area adjacent to The Rush. Masonry Plaques This is intended to encourage a more visible, and accessible link between the new hospital 3.11 The Nelson Hospital has a number of buildings and the public realm. masonry plaques built into its façade. These are predominantly on the War Memorial block which will be retained in its present form. However there is also a plaque on the eastern wing of the hospital marking the start of construction of the maternity wing in 1930. The plaque, along with the war memorials are important markers of the area’s local heritage and the evolution of the Nelson Hospital.

3.12 The Council will expect the plaque to be retained and reinstated as part of the redevelopment scheme, ensuring that it is visible by the public and is in a prominent location. Kinston Road Boundary Wall Section to be retained

Adopted January 2007 6 3.0 | Issues for the site | tree preservation

Tree Preservation

3.16 There are 19 individual trees and one group of trees on the Nelson Hospital site, which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) The TPO, was registered in 1995 to protect and safeguard the trees for their important amenity value. The trees have a substantial presence on the site, but also enclose views south from Richmond Avenue.

3.17 Trees located on The Rush are not protected by TPOs as they are on Council owned land. However as part of any improvements to The Rush, the Council will Left to right, Trees T7,T6 + T2 expect the mature species on The Rush to be retained. The protected trees are all located in the western part of the Nelson Hospital site; a schedule of the trees is provided below and a location plan is attached overleaf.

3.18 The site’s boundary has a number of trees and shrubs which, whilst not all are protected, they do provide a landscaped buffer between the hospital site and the adjacent residential areas. The Council will expect that any landscaping on the site boundaries be retained and enhanced to protect privacy and amenity of the residential gardens. Left to right, T7,T6, T5, T4,T2,T1, T17+T18

Reference on Plan Description T1 Yew T2 Horse Chestnut T1 Sycamore T4 London Plane T5 Sycamore T6 Lime T7 Sycamore T8 Holly T9 Sycamore T10 Yew T11 Sycamore T12 Sycamore T13 Yew T14 Yew T15 Holly T16 Cherry T17 Cherry T18 Pine T19 Horse Chestnut G1: Group consisting of 11 Sycamore Trees

7 Nelson Hospital Planning Brief 3.0 | Issues for the site | tree preservation, locations

Aerial Image of TPO’s

Location Plan of TPO’s

Adopted January 2007 8 3.0 | Issues for the site | blakesley walk

Blakesley Walk Splitting the Site

3.19 Early maps of the Nelson Hospital site 3.23 Blakesley Walk cuts through the not only show The Rush a historic space, but hospital site and is essentially a marker also highlight Blakesley Walk as a historic between the old and what may be a new part route. The route was originally a rural lane, and of the hospital. As it is still unclear how much is now a suburban footpath, linking Watery floor-space is required, the brief sets out Lane and Manor Gardens with Kingston Road. maximum parameters for development; therefore supporting in principle that a new 3.20 The current crooked configuration of block can be built to the west of Blakesley the footpath makes it feel unsafe, with no clear Walk, at the front of the current car park. It is line of sight from one end to the other. Which conceivable that if this block is needed then in turn can provide an environment for anti the NHS may wish to physically link the old social behaviour. and new parts of the hospital to aid internal circulation.

3.24 The idea of a bridging structure across Blakesley Walk was presented to the public during the issues and options consultation event. The public response was generally supportive of the idea, but dependant on the design and impact on Blakesley Walk.

3.25 Should a physical link be needed in the form of a bridging structure, the Council will Blakesley Walk, expect the link to be well designed and a viewed from Kingston Road, towards Manor Gardens considered part of the overall development – rather than a purely functional add-on. The 3.21 The Council will expect Blakesley Walk principle of bridging over the footpath (should it to be retained as a public footpath in its current be needed) offers scope for a unique design location. Improvements which would increase solution. the legibility and feeling of safety when using the path can be achieved by providing better lighting and simply straightening the alignment 3.26 For example the footbridge above of the path, providing a clear line of sight Floral Street in Covent Garden is visually between Kingston Road and Manor Gardens. striking, yet functional contemporary design. The new hospital buildings should encourage This is a more urban location than Blakesley activity and provide natural surveillance. walk, however the Council would expect such proposals to follow the same principles of being a well designed, visually interesting solution.

Blakesley Walk, viewed from Manor Gardens towards Kingston Road

3.22 The Council will expect that adequate Royal Opera House footbridge boundary treatments will be provided as part of Floral Street, Covent Garden the improvements to Blakesley Walk, including, landscaping and appropriate walls and fencing to maintain the privacy of the surrounding residential area and ensure that the hospital site is secure.

9 Nelson Hospital Planning Brief 3.0 | Issues for the site | the rush

The Rush, from Watery Lane, looking towards the Old Leather Bottle pub. The Rush

3.27 The Rush does not form part of the 3.32 The Council will expect the Rush to be hospital development site, however as a public improved by: benefit to the redevelopment, the Council will require that environmental improvements be Removing the car dominance of the street carried out on the Rush. scene by removal of the one-way system – providing a single access/egress to Kingston 3.28 The rush dates back to the original Road and simplifying the car parking settlement of Merton. It was once a small dairy arrangement creating more room for public and village green, then a row of houses, but it space. was returned to open space in the 1940s as the Nelson maternity wing was constructed. Removing the raised grass areas and Nowadays it tends to be used as a space to replacing it with a level, more open and park cars and has little function as useable accessible green space. Larger trees in The public space. Rush must me retained, with root analysis taken into account at the detailed design 3.29 There is potential for The Rush to form stage, an attractive approach to the Hospital from the east. The Council supports this principle, Enhancing the general streetscape including strengthened by the proposed relocation of the shared-surface road treatments to provide a bus stop to The Rush which would generate more pedestrian friendly, useable public pedestrian activity in and give more of a space. purpose to the space as a local amenity. Improvements to the rush will provide a more 3.30 The hospital building must provide an attractive setting for the local businesses, active frontage to The Rush, which gives and will retain the same number of parking scope for a community facilities or a café in spaces to support the local businesses. this locations, which could spill out onto the public space. Widening the pavement on the eastern side of the rush to provide space for businesses 3.31 Service access from Watery Lane will to spill out onto the public space; adding be closed, and replaced with an access from activity and vibrancy to the street scene. The Rush, as shown in the proposals map. This avoids isolating number 10 The Rush Planting and soft landscaping, which from the rest of Watery Lane. The Council also provides seasonal interest and is robust supports the principle of providing up to two enough for its roadside location, such as dwellings on the site of the Watery Lane holly hedges. access. A sensitive infill development will add to the character and street scene on Watery Westbound bus stop will be relocated to The Lane and deals with the current ‘rear end’ view Rush, providing more convenient pedestrian of the Hospital. access for the hospital and nearby Rutlish School.

Adopted January 2007 10 3.0 | The Rush | vision

3.33 These images are intended to give an idea as to the possible layout and quality of materials and landscaping that will be expected in the re-design of The Rush.

3.34 Removal of the raised planter areas will create a level green space consisting of grass with small holly hedge borders, a distinctive feature of Merton Park. At the centre of The Rush will be a seating area, with a focal point could perhaps be some form of public art or informal water feature.

Exact details of the design of the rush will be expected at the planning application stage. Aerial image of The Rush

6 32

4 5

Hospital Entrance © Ordnance Survey 2006. London Borough of Merton. Licence Number 100019259

Plan of how The Rush could be re-designed

1. Pavement widened 2. Car parking (parallel and right angled parking) 3. Seating area 4. Grass area 5. Pedestrian approach / drop off area 6. Bus stop

11 Nelson Hospital Planning Brief 4.0 | The Nelson Brief | vision, aims + objectives

4.1 This planning brief provides a planning 4.2 The redevelopment of the Nelson and design framework to guide the provides an opportunity where those parts of redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital site. the building with distinct quality can be retained The brief will guide the architects of the new and incorporated into a high quality hospital as well as assisting the Council in contemporary design that that integrates well processing a planning application. The brief with the surrounding townscape. seeks to ensure that the redevelopment scheme responds positively to the character of 4.3 The redevelopment of the Nelson the local area and responds to the views of the should enhance the neighbourhood’s character community who have contributed to the brief and appearance, whilst providing a local care through consultation exercises. facility fit for the 21st century.

4.4 Improvements to healthcare provision embrace issues that go beyond nursing and Vision medical care, including access to transport and sustainable development and healthy living. The Council’s vision for the Nelson Hospital redevelopment is: 4.5 Local healthcare facilities are an important asset to the community. The new To develop an outstanding example of Nelson Hospital should be a cornerstone of community healthcare for the 21st Century – community health and has the potential to be a focal point for the local community. an example to draw upon for the future provision of local healthcare.

Aim

The Key Aim is:

To achieve a sustainable redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital which respects the hospital’s heritage, and responds positively to the site’s local setting within a Conservation Area.

Objectives

Key objectives for achieving the vision are:

Achieve high quality urban design, architecture and public realm

Create a vibrant and attractive public space on The Rush

Enhance accessibility to the site whilst promoting sustainable transport initiatives

Adopted January 2007 12 4.0 | The Nelson Brief | aspirations

Aspirations:

4.6 As part of the redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital, the Council would wish to see;

The site redeveloped as an example of good urban and architectural design, maintaining a civic presence that the original hospital blocks possess.

A robust building that meets the needs of the Primary Care Trust and patients whilst retaining the humane character and atmosphere which is cherished by users of the present day hospital.

Good urban design as a vital component in connecting the new hospital with the existing townscape, and local community.

The provision of informal open spaces. There is great value in providing gardens and courtyards in healthcare facilities, particularly in urban settings. The current building has a number of courtyard spaces that respondents of the consultation exercises would generally like to see replicated as part of the new hospital.

Space and facilities should be made available for the community and local volunteer organisations to make use of. Details of such requirements will be © Ordnance Survey 2006. presented to the PCT through the Nelson London Borough of Merton. Licence Number 100019259 Community Reference Group. Suggestion of scale, massing and 3D form of the new Nelson Hospital

13 Nelson Hospital Planning Brief 4.0 | The Nelson Brief | requirements

Requirements

4.7 As part of the redevelopment of the Junction improvements and provision of a Nelson Hospital, the Council will require; bus stop at Kinston Road and Merton Parade with re-alignment of the Rush as set out in Four pavilion blocks fronting Kingston Road the proposals map. to be retained and renovated as part of the hospital redevelopment, including cleaning The boundary wall on the Kingston Road and restoration of the building’s external frontage should be retained in front of the fabric and removal of any unsympathetic pavilion blocks and restored, with additions. Internally, the PCT can alter the unsympathetic additions removed. However blocks to suit. It is not a requirement to retain the wall is to be removed adjacent to The The Lodge, however if the PCT intend to Rush, in order to open up the public space demolish The Lodge, the Council will expect and create a pedestrian approach to the a clear and convincing argument to justify hospital. the demolition. The area between the Kingston Road Maximum height for the hospital should be boundary wall and the pavilion blocks should no higher than the ridgeline of the present be re-landscaped to provide an attractive pavilion blocks. This is approximately 12.5m, drop off zone for users of the hospital, and which would allow for up to three storeys of should also be a pedestrian friendly space. development. (Assuming an average floor to Car Parking will not be permitted in this area ceiling height of 3.5m - 4m) However, three as the parking presently detracts from the storeys will not be permissible across the quality of the buildings and public realm. entire site. It is a requirement that the building steps down to a maximum of 2 New structured tree planting along the entire storeys to the rear, protecting the aspect Kingston Road frontage, providing rhythm, from neighbouring residential properties. defining and unifying the edge of the site.

A new block should be constructed to Vistas south from Quintin Avenue and terminate views south from Merton Hall Richmond Avenue to be protected through Road and maintain the building line and sensitive design solutions rhythm on Kingston Road. This block will also be a focal point for The Rush and the The hospital’s car parking requirements to be eastern approach to the site. met entirely within the site. The design of which will depend on the level of parking Landscaped boundaries of the site should be needed to support the hospital. This is not retained and enhanced where necessary to yet known, however in principle, the Council protect privacy of neighbouring residential supports the use of either a single storey properties. Large trees in the current car deck car park, or basement car parking parking area protected by TPO must be which could also accommodate building retained, and protected during the plant and servicing requirements. construction period. Main vehicular access to the site to be taken Public realm and streetscape improvements from Kingston Road, opposite Richmond will be applied to Kingston Road and Avenue. This will provide access to car Blakesley Walk and the Rush, as set out in parking and servicing. Patient drop off areas the relevant sections of the brief. will be located on the Kingston Road and The Rush frontages, as illustrated on the Hospital buildings are to provide natural proposals map. surveillance and overlooking of the public realm, particularly at The Rush and At least 10% of the hospital’s energy Blakesley Walk. requirements must be generated on site using renewable energy technologies. Service access from Watery Lane will be closed, with access to be taken from The Rush instead. This provides and opportunity to improve the character of Watery Lane.

Adopted January 2007 14 4.0 | The Nelson Brief | principles for the development

The New-Build Sections 4.13 The development area of the proposed Principles and Rationale: western block is dictated by the form of the adjacent buildings, Blakesley Walk and the protected trees. Again, the height of the 4.8 The hospital should present a curved western block should be a maximum of form fronting onto The Rush. Replicating the 12.5m / three storeys high to relate to the form of Merton Park Parade with the rest of the Kingston Road frontage. The intention of framing The Rush and creating western bock should terminate views south some enclosure to public space. The from Richmond Avenue by providing a building line of the hospital, facing onto the landmark entrance to the hospital. rush should be set with reference to the cottage located at 10 Watery Lane. This is 4.14 Access points to the building should be indicated on the proposals map. located giving priority to pedestrians, public transport users and cycles rather than the 4.9 The hospital should provide an active car. frontage to The Rush. Replicating the curved form of Merton Park Parade and provision of a pedestrian friendly drop off zone, creates a more subtle transition between public and private spaces. Civic Pride 4.15 Public buildings should stimulate civic 4.10 The height of the development should be no more than 12.5m (which allows for pride. A healthcare building is often a focal ground floor plus two above) This relates to point of the community and should respect and the retained pavilion blocks and is based on enhance the locality as well as giving the presumption that a modern 3 storey confidence to those who require its services. building is similar in overall height to the historic 2 storey blocks, which have a much 4.16 The visible face of a building and its higher internal floor to ceiling height setting creates a first impression of the service distribution than what would normally be offered inside and the value placed on the found in a contemporary development. patient experience. Therefore a welcoming environment should be projected. 4.11 The section diagram below demonstrates how 3 storeys would fit with 4.17 The institutional feel of older hospital the existing blocks. In addition, the height of wards should be eliminated as far as possible, the building should step down towards the to reflect the greater focus on a better, more rear (south) of the site, reducing the visual comforting environment. impact on properties to the rear of the site. 4.18 The hospital should integrate with and contribute positively to the urban fabric of 4.12 To the western side of the site, the building line on Kingston Road is established Kingston Road and The Rush, rather than by the retained pavilion blocks and allows for being insular and self contained. a landscaped edge to Kingston Road.

Section through the site: Demonstrating height and mass in relation to surrounding development

15 Nelson Hospital Planning Brief 4.0 | The Nelson Brief | principles of good design

Principles of Good Design 4.27 Inclusivity: the hospital buildings and public realm should be designed for everyone, 4.19 Character: The Nelson Hospital without special treatment. redevelopment should have its own identity, drawing cues from the local area and those elements of the original hospital, which are to Good design should be retained. The hospital should integrate with and contribute positively to the urban fabric of Address the connections between people, Kingston Road and The Rush. places and access to services 4.20 Continuity and Enclosure: The public and ‘private’ spaces of the hospital Integrate the development into the existing should be clearly distinguished, with Kingston built environment. Road and Rush being the ‘public face’ of the building and the rear of the site providing Reinforce (not replicate) local private courtyard space for users of the distinctiveness. Style does not equal hospital. quality, but rather; quality transcends style, therefore a contemporary design solution 4.21 Quality of the Public Realm: This will be sought for the Nelson Hospital brief promotes public spaces and routes, which which respects and compliments it’s are attractive, safe, uncluttered and work surroundings. effectively for all. Be an important part of providing 4.22 Permeability and Ease of successful, safe and inclusive places Movement: A desirable characteristic of place is the ease in which one can move Create places that everyone can use and through the building / site. Such places are enjoy integrated physically or connected with their local surroundings. The building and the site in Consider the impacts on the natural general should be easy for everyone to get to environment. and move through.

4.23 Legibility: a successful and legible development is a place that has a clear image or layout, which is easy to understand. The design of the hospital should help reduce stress and unease by providing a clear layout that is easy to navigate and an attractive environment that is calming, yet offers positive stimulation of the senses.

4.24 Robustness: The internal arrangements of the building must be able to change and adapt easily through time as demands on internal space functions change.

4.25 Variety: A successful place offers a mix of activities to the widest range of possible users. The Nelson should not simply become a place to treat people, it should be a focus for the local community, providing a range of community uses, spaces and pro-active healthcare as well as conventional treatment.

4.26 Vitality: The Nelson Hospital will be a place primarily for healthcare, however it should also be a safe, comfortable, varied and fun.

Adopted January 2007 16 4.0 | The Nelson Brief | public art

Public Art and the NHS

4.28 Healthcare buildings can add value to the community through commissioned artwork. Artists, craftspeople, schools and colleges can help create a non-institutional atmosphere, providing patients with reminders of their locality and endowing the building with cultural landmarks. Various forms of artistic expression can be incorporated either inside or outside the building.

4.29 Many NHS Trusts have already embraced the arts in both new and existing buildings. Most notably at Chelsea & Westminster Hospital and University College Hospitals in central London.

4.30 Art can make a major contribution to the character and identity of a place. The use of arts in public buildings is encouraged and needs to be considered early on in the design process. This extra layer of quality can be obtained for a small proportion of the hospital’s redevelopment budget.

4.31 The Council will encourage the PCT to include a percent for art as part of the Nelson redevelopment, in partnership with the Council’s Arts Development Officer. Please refer to www.merton.gov.uk/arts for further details.

4.32 In addition, the PCT will also be encouraged to forge links to local institutions such as schools, community groups and the Wimbledon College of Art in commissioning artwork for the hospital and surrounding public spaces.

17 Nelson Hospital Planning Brief 5.0 | Wider Thinking | healthy living + the community

Wider health initiatives: Healthy Living Community Uses

5.1 The quality of the built environment 5.7 At the issues and options consultation can make a positive contribution to good for this SPD, local residents groups complied health, and its role is particularly obvious when their own vision for the Nelson Hospital which we are thinking of how we can prevent, rather the PCT and designers should be mindful of. than simply cure, health problems. 5.8 They want a place where they can 5.2 Design is about how a building or a have their ailments diagnosed and treated, but place works, not just how it looks. The design perhaps more importantly, to get fit and stay fit team involved in creating the new Nelson and to learn about diet and exercise in Hospital should be as concerned with its delightful surroundings. contribution to its neighbourhood as the way the building’s internal spaces are organised. “The Nelson should be a model community hospital for the future – Key Principle: a beacon”

5.3 The new Nelson should contribute positively to the health and well-being of the local community.

5.4 The Council is also committed to creating healthier communities through Merton’s Community Plan 2006-2015. As well as increasing access to care and supporting the development of local care hospitals, the Council and Sutton & Merton PCT will focus on promoting good health and reducing health inequalities by:

Supporting lifestyle changes with an emphasis on stopping smoking, healthy eating, sensible drinking and increased exercise. Improving health services and advice Hove Polyclinic given in schools through the healthy Image from CABE, designed with care. schools initiatives.

5.5 The Council will be looking at ways in which it can deliver its social services to the community at a more local level, which may include having a base or a ‘community hub’ as part of the Nelson Hospital.

5.6 The concept of a ‘community hub’ means that there is potential for the PCT, Council and local voluntary sector organisations to provide support services at the hospital, ensuring that the Nelson has a real community focus, rather than simply being a place for healthcare.

Maggie’s Centre, Inverness Warm and welcoming environment Image from CABE, designed with care.

Adopted January 2007 18 6.0 | CABE | designed with care

6.1 Commission for Architecture and the CABE’S Key elements of good Built Environment (CABE) believe the quality of healthcare buildings the local environment can contribute to each phase of healthcare through; Good integrated design

Prevention: Providing opportunity for exercise, 6.4 Design excellence is not just about promoting personal safety and reducing stress. attractive buildings. Good integrated design must also consider how a building can Intervention: By ensuring all health buildings contribute positively to its environment. are designed around the needs of the patients and staff as an integral part of the therapeutic In the case of the Nelson Hospital, this should effort. include ease of access and straightforward integration with public transport. It is proposed Recovery: By producing high quality that the westbound bus stop on Kingston road environments that assist and accelerate be relocated to The Rush where the main healing. pedestrian entrance to the hospital will be located. This will also generate activity and give a function to The Rush as a public space. 6.2 The publication, Designed With Care (CABE 2006) has a number of case studies and is a useful read for the designers of the Public Open Space new Nelson Hospital. 6.5 A patient centred healthcare building 6.3 The Hove Polyclinic is perhaps the should extend its concern for patients beyond most relevant example from which the Nelson its walls by trying to provide well managed can learn from. It is similar in scale and in public space in which pedestrians are given terms of the types of services that will be on priority over cars. offer from the Nelson Hospital. Space and light were the key elements of the design of the 6.6 There is an increasing body of Polyclinic with natural lit corridors and atrium evidence that nature can offer more than spaces. simply a pleasant setting for healthcare; it can also contribute directly to reducing stress and pain, and speeding recovery. Gardens and courtyard spaces not only provide an attractive view, they foster access to social support and provide an opportunity for escape and sense of control with respect to clinical settings.

6.7 In the case of the Nelson, the Council will require through planning obligations, the improvement of The Rush as a quality, useable, pedestrian friendly public space that will also be a gateway for the hospital and Merton Park.

6.8 Also, the council will also encourage the development of courtyards and small garden spaces to the rear of the hospital. Creating private enclosures for users of the hospital, as well as providing a natural buffer between the hospital building and the residential properties of Manor Gardens.

Idle medical centre, Bradford. Image from CABE, designed with care

19 Nelson Hospital Planning Brief 6.0 | CABE | designed with care

A Clear Plan Storage

6.9 For many patients, the experience of 6.15 A recurrent problem in many hospitals going to hospital induces anxiety. Good design is the lack of adequate and effectively planned in this context must seek to lower or even storage. Inevitably, the ambition of a paperless remove this psychological barrier. A number of NHS will take time to filter through the system. factors can contribute to this; Meanwhile there are patient records to be stored, together with publications and leaflets, 6.10 Clear and logically placed entrances, equipment and supplies, even surplus chairs with easy access for all visitors, including ect. wheelchair users, those whose sight is impaired and parents with small children. 6.16 The Nelson Hospital has also suffered There should be a cheerful and welcoming from an uncontrolled rash of notices, posters atmosphere and an air of tranquillity. and leaflets pinned or blue-tacked to any Throughout their visit, patients have every right available flat space. The principal result is an to expect to be treated in privacy and with accumulation of clutter on the walls. Quite dignity. often in hospitals there is no organization or logic to notice boards, making it difficult for Reception point patients to find relevant information.

6.11 Reception areas and information 6.17 In the design of the new Nelson points are key to orientation. In many new Hospital, it is key to design spaces which are healthcare facilities, the tone is set by the not only clutter free and efficient, but reception, and importantly, its staff. The adequately accommodate storage needs as reception area(s) for the Nelson should skilfully well as providing sufficient space for leaflets, combine the friendly welcome with a low-key posters and notice boards without dominating oversight of public areas. the entire space.

Circulation and Waiting Areas Adapting to future changes

6.12 These areas should be pleasant in 6.18 The rapid demand for change and for their own right. Well planned waiting rooms a fresh approach to the delivery of healthcare can help to relax patients, thereby reducing at neighborhood level shows that buildings fear and increasing confidence. Where space today need to have the capacity to adapt to allows, the most successful waiting areas are future changes. It is CABE’s strongly held set out in the style of a hotel foyer. This is view that space should be viewed as a valuable where patients are accompanied by resource, not a territory, allowing patterns of family or friends. use to evolve over time.

Materials, Finishes and Furnishings Out of hours community use

6.13 Hospitals are busy places, in terms of 6.19 The new Nelson Hospital should footfall and hours of operation. Materials, provide a layout that encourages community finishes and furnishings therefore need to be use out of hours. In the examples examined in robust as well as attractive. Well selected, fit CABE’s Designed with Care, the best for purpose furnishings will compliment a clear intentions have frequently gone awry because approach to design and have ongoing benefit of demands of space and time. Nevertheless, in terms of life costs. there is widespread recognition of the benefits of encouraging use of some of the easily Natural light and ventilation accessible space.

6.14 Generous amounts of light and 6.20 In designing the Nelson, any space ventilation help to contribute to good and dedicated for community use should be easily energy efficient environmental conditions accessible without relying on access through throughout. This planning brief allows for a the entire hospital. The pavilion blocks fronting series of linked atrium spaces to act as Kingston Road would perhaps be suitable for ‘internal streets’ for the hospital, providing community meeting rooms or office space, as natural lighting and ventilation of the internal they could be accessible separately from the spaces. main hospital.

Adopted January 2007 20 7.0 | Planning Policy Framework |

7.1 The policy context to the guidance in Merton’s Unitary Development Plan this planning brief is summarised in this section, which covers the various policy areas 7.7 The Merton Unitary Development Plan refers to the relevant policies. A detailed (UDP) is the statutory planning document for analysis of the most relevant policies is given the borough as a whole. It is part of the in Appendix A to this SPD. development plan for the borough. It was adopted in October 2003 and contains policies Government Planning Guidance for the development of land in the borough. Its purpose is to guide development in the 7.2 Planning Policy Guidance and borough by setting out policies and proposals Statements set out the Government’s national against which planning applications and policies on various aspects of land use and development proposals will be assessed. spatial planning. 7.8 A number of policies in the UDP are 7.3 Government Guidance most relevant relevant to the redevelopment of the Nelson to the redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital Hospital. are referred to below: These polices are; PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (January 2005) Strategic Policies: PPS 12: Local Development Frameworks (September 2004) ST.1*: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PPS 22: Renewable Energy ST.17*: BUILT ENVIRONMENT (August 2004) ST.18*: HERITAGE PPG 13: Transport ST.22*: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (October 2002) C.8* : HEALTH FACILITY SITES PPG 15: Planning & the Historic Environment C.9*: PROVISION OF HEALTH FACILITIES (September 1994) PPG 16: Archaeology & Planning Built Environment Policies: (November 1990) POLICY BE.1*: CONSERVATION AREAS, The London Plan NEW DEVELOPMENT, CHANGE OF USE, ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS. 7.4 The London Plan is produced by the POLICY BE.2*: CONSERVATION AREAS, Greater London Authority and is the statutory DEMOLITION. planning document for London as a whole and POLICY BE.3*: DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT forms part of the development plan for the TO A CONSERVATION AREA borough. The plan was adopted in February POLICY BE.14*: ARCHAEOLOGICAL 2004 and consists of policies for the spatial EVALUATION development of the city. A number of policies POLICY BE.15*: NEW BUILDINGS AND in the plan are relevant to the redevelopment EXTENSIONS; DAYLIGHT, SUNLIGHT, of the Nelson Hospital. PRIVACY, VISUAL INTRUSION AND NOISE. POLICY BE.16*: URBAN DESIGN 7.5 These policies are; Introduction Policy POLICY BE.22*: DESIGN OF NEW I1; Broad Development Strategy Thematic DEVELOPMENT Policies 3A.15, 3A.16, 3A.18*, 3C.1, 3C.2*, POLICY BE.23: ALTERATIONS AND 3C.3, 3C.17, 3C.18, 3C.19, 3C.20, 3C.21, EXTENSIONS TO BUILDINGS 3C.22; Crosscutting Policies 4A.1, 4A.2, 4A.7, POLICY BE.25: SUSTAINABLE 4A.8, 4A.9, 4A.10, 4A.11,, 4B.1*, 4B.2*, DEVELOPMENT 4B.3*, 4B.4, 4B.5, 4B.6*, 4B.7, 4B.9, 4B.10, POLICY PE.9*: WASTE MINIMISATION AND 4B.11, 4B.14; Sub-regional Policy 5F.1; and WASTE DISPOSAL. Implementation Policy 6A.4. POLICY PE.13*: ENERGY EFFICIENT DESIGN AND USE OF MATERIALS 7.6 Policies marked with an asterisk are particularly relevant to the successful redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital and are expanded upon in Appendix A of this SPD.

21 Nelson Hospital Planning Brief 7.0 | Planning Policy Framework |

Transport Policies: Statement of Conformity of Proposals with Planning Policy and Guidance POLICY PT.1*: LOCAL AND REGIONAL NEEDS 7.12 It is considered that this SPD is in POLICY RN.3: VEHICULAR ACCESS conformity with the national planning guidance POLICY PK2*: CAR PARKING STANDARDS as set out in Appendix A. It is considered so in POLICY PK.3*: CAR PARKING AND relation to a number of relevant subjects DEVELOPMENT including sustainable development, urban POLICY LU.3: TRANSPORT IMPACT OF design, local distinctiveness, location of NEW DEVELOPMENT development and provision of community POLICY LU.5: DEVELOPER services, accessibility, community safety and CONTRIBUTIONS pro-active planning.

POLICY LD.3: PLANNING BRIEFS 7.13 It is considered that this SPD is in 32/,&<)3/$11,1*2%/,*$7,216 conformity with the London Plan, particularly with respect to sustainable design and Policies marked with an asterisk are construction and promotion of renewable particularly relevant to the successful energy infrastructure in non-residential redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital and are developments. expanded upon in Appendix A of this SPD. 7.14 It is considered that this SPD is in conformity with Merton’s Unitary Development Plan. This is set out in detail in Appendix A, but Supplementary Planning Guidance is considered particularly in relation to sustainable development, urban design and 7.9 The Council has produced a number of conservation and the built environment. subject based SPG documents. These cover areas such as Archaeology, Design, Designing out Crime, Sustainable Development and Sustainable Transport.

7.10 With commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act in September 2004 bringing changes to the planning system, the council has also recently adopted a range of SPDs. Two SPDs of particular relevance are the Conservation Area Character Appraisals for Merton Hall Rd and Wimbledon Chase Conservation Areas. These SPDs form much of the basis for the design and conservation chapter of this brief.

7.11 Further details of Merton’s Supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents are given in the background documents section of this SPD

Adopted January 2007 22 8.0 | Sustainable Design | Merton’s 10% policy

Renewable Energy Combined Heat and Power:

8.1 Merton Council is committed to 8.5 CHP is a much more efficient way of reducing energy use and promoting the use of producing energy as it provides both heat and renewable energy through its 10% renewable electricity in one unit from burning a fuel, energy policy; usually gas. Should the PCT propose to introduce a Combined Heat and Power unit into the hospital, the Council will recognise this POLICY PE.13: ENERGY EFFICIENT as being beneficial to reducing the overall DESIGN AND USE OF MATERIALS consumption of the building so thereby the Council will reduce the 10% renewables The Council will encourage the energy requirement to around 5%. efficient design of buildings and their layout and orientation on site. All new 8.6 This is in recognition of the fact that non-residential development above a although a CHP unit cannot be defined as a threshold of 1000m2 will be expected renewable energy source it does provide far to incorporate renewable energy greater benefits over a conventional boiler production equipment to provide at system, through being a very efficient least 10% of predicted energy generator of energy. A CHP is defined as a requirements. The use of sustainable renewable source if biomass is used as the building materials and the re-use of fuel although there can be issues regarding the materials will also be encouraged, as will transport and storage of the fuel. the use of recycled aggregates in the construction of buildings. This will be 8.7 The Council is actively looking at the subject to the impact on the amenity of feasibility of setting up a District Heat and the local environment, taking into Power scheme in the borough. This involves account, the existing character of the setting up a large CHP plant and then linking it area. to various developments/sites that require the power. The Nelson Hospital is an ideal site for a CHP plant as hospitals have a relatively 8.2 Merton’s renewables policy is constant demand for heating, electricity and supported by the London Plan policies 4A.9 hot water throughout the day. and 4A.7 and the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance on Sustainable Design & Construction. The Mayor’s Energy Strategy Further Guidance: also provides targets for renewable energy equipment across the capital. 8.8 Further guidance on the types of renewable energy sources can be found in the 8.3 Means of generating at least 10% of London Renewable Energy Toolkit. the Nelson Hospital’s energy needs on site may include the use of photovoltaic energy, http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/e solar-powered and geo-thermal water heating nergy/renew_resources.jsp as well as energy crops and biomass (depending upon the source of biomass crops). However this must not include energy from domestic, industrial or clinical waste.

8.4 Compliance with the policy is required as a condition of planning consent. In order for the PCT to get a clear idea of costs it would be advisable that discussions are initiated early on in the design process to ensure that renewable energy equipment is incorporated effectively as an integral part of the development.

23 Nelson Hospital Planning Brief 9.0 | Transport | public transport

9.1 The redevelopment of the Nelson Public Transport Accessibility hospital will mean a more intensive healthcare service being provided on site, which will 9.6 The Nelson Hospital is located in an impact on the local transport network. area with Public Transport Accessibility Level 3 (out of 6) as assessed in July 2005. This is in 9.2 A local care hospital will generate a the upper levels of a mid range PTAL, where number of visitors from across the borough the borough’s highest PTAL is 6. The site is and will impact upon the road network, public well served by a range of public transport transport network, and in particular reference modes which will help reduce the need for car- to NHS staff, impact on the network in terms of based travel. Within a 10 min walk of the linkages between the Nelson and other local Nelson, there is access to local buses, tram and critical care facilities. and suburban and national rail services. (local transport services highlighted in the diagram 9.3 At this stage, it is still unknown what below) services will be provided at the Nelson, which in turn means that there is yet no indication of 9.7 Public transport linkages with other the numbers of staff or visitors likely to be healthcare facilities such as St Georges, St travelling to the Nelson. Hellier and the Wilson local care hospital exist, but require a change in either mode or service. 9.4 The Council has no fixed policy in Improvements to this situation will be sought to terms transport provision for hospitals and will offset any increase in travel between the sites, therefore treat the Nelson proposals on its particularly for NHS staff travel patters merits. This will involve early discussion with between sites. the PCT on the transport impact of the hospital once there is a clear indication of trip 9.8 As a general rule, the Council will generation brought about by the hospital. expect any improvements made to the public transport infrastructure and public realm to be 9.5 The proposals will be assessed designed to DDA standards. This included against the current levels of staffing, visitors raising kerbs at bus stops and providing and trips generated by the present hospital. adequate seating. Should any inadequacies in the local transport network be identified, the Council will seek contributions to meet any rise in demand.

Adopted January 2007 24 9.0 | Transport | parking + servicing

Car parking standards 9.15 Visitor cycle parking should be located in a prominent location offering good natural 9.8 The Council has no set car parking surveillance and lighting levels. Again these standard for hospital developments, each case facilities should be under cover where will be assessed in its own merits. possible.

9.9 As an overarching principle, the Council will require that all of the hospital’s parking and servicing needs are contained within the site to avoid hospital parking spilling over onto neighbouring residential streets. The option of a basement or deck car parking, in addition to surface parking is welcomed.

9.10 Parking should be predominantly short Odd twisted metal tubes? But side-on, It’s a bike… term with an emphasis on providing for vulnerable groups such as mobility impaired, Imaginative approach, combining cycle parking with art. elderly, women at night and staff who may be Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh. working early or late shifts. Allocation of car parking will be determined at a detailed Servicing and Loading planning stage, however the allocation should ultimately aim to reduce reliance on the car. 9.15 Adequate provision is required for servicing, loading & unloading and turning 9.11 In designing a car park, it should be facilities, on site and clear of public highway. In just that – a park. Protected mature trees terms of audible disturbance to local residents, surround the car parking area and the new car servicing facilities should be located away from park will be expected to enhance the setting. neighbouring residential properties. Preferably This could be achieved by using permeable an underground servicing and parking solution surfaces and planting rather than tarmac. This will be sought. would also aid sustainable urban drainage. 9.16 The proposals map indicates that 9.12 If it is thought that the hospital will servicing, if it is not accommodated cause parking problems in the locality, the PCT underground, should be taken from The Rush, will be expected to contribute to the where servicing happens at present. However consultation of, and potential implementation of the Watery Lane access will be closed off to an extension to local Controlled Parking Zone. alleviate damage cause by tight turns on At present the CPZ does not cover the hospital Watery Lane. This option minimises the site or adjacent streets. number of residential properties that would be affected by servicing, when compared to other servicing options, such as alongside Cleveland Cycle parking standards: Avenue or to the rear of Manor Gardens.

9.13 There are a number of cycle routes 9.17 The PCT will be expected to give within close proximity to the Nelson site and details of the type and frequency of servicing linking the site to this network should be vehicles in their transport assessment as part explored. The Council adopts Transport for of a planning application. London’s cycle parking standard for hospitals, which is 1 space per 5 staff and 1 space per 10 Community transport and taxis: visitors. 3.18 There will be patients who are unable 9.14 As part of sustainable transport to access the hospital by car or conventional strategy, the Council will expect long term public transport and may need to use cycle parking (for staff) to be secure and community transport services. These vehicles covered, perhaps accommodated inside one of should have a dedicated setting down space the new blocks. Shower and changing facilities provided off the western vehicular access to should also be provided to encourage more the site. This could be integrated drop off staff to cycle to work. space with scope to accommodate ambulances and taxis for setting down / picking up visitors.

25 Nelson Hospital Planning Brief 10.0 | Planning Application | requirements

Planning Application submission Section 106 Headings

10.1 This Supplementary Planning 10.5 Circular 05/2005 provides the basis for Document aims to encourage the submission the current system of obtaining planning of a full planning application for the appropriate benefits from developments. Commonly redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital. A referred to as Section 106 agreements. (s.106 section 106 Planning Agreement will be of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act.) expected to accompany any planning application. The Council’s approach to 10.6 Essentially an agreement between the planning obligations and developer Council and developer to mitigate or against contributions is set out in Policies ST.36, LU.5, the impact of proposals or to meet a policy F.1 and F.2 of the Council’s Unitary objective. For example, provision of renewable Development Plan. energy infrastructure is a policy objective whereas a financial contribution may be 10.2 In accordance with the Councils aim of required to compensate the need for deficiency securing a sustainable redevelopment of the in local amenity space. Nelson Hospital, the following documentation will be expected as part of any planning 10.7 An s106 agreement will be expected to application: include the following subject headings, in order to secure appropriate community and planning Transport Impact Assessment benefits. These benefits are highlighted to Green Travel Plan provide to offset the local impact of the Archaeology Assessment redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital. Most of Sustainable Development Statement the benefits outlined are in response to Design & Access Statement* problems already caused by the current hospital, highlighted in this SPD, such as car *Design & Access Statements are now a statutory dominated public realm, accessibility by public requirement and is explained further in section 11 of this SPD. transport and provision of community facilities.

10.3 A planning application for outline Environmental Management Scheme consent will not be acceptable given the (For the treatment and disposal of waste) development will require substantial demolition Combined Heat and Power Plant works within a Conservation Area. The (Funding towards its development and connection to it, if planning application must be detailed enough CHP is favoured over the 10% policy. See section 8.5 of for the Council to make a judgement on the this SPD) quality of the buildings intended to replace those demolished as part of the Landscaping and public realm redevelopment. enhancements to The Rush, Kingston Road and Blakesley Walk (Community Involvement, possible Council led design 10.4 The Council will expect the following tender and appointment for The Rush. Footway and details as part of a planning application Highway improvements, Maintenance and upkeep of public spaces and landscaping) Plan showing building layouts on site Detailed elevations for The Rush and Community Facilities (Provision for community facilities – meeting rooms, IT Kingston Road frontages infrastructure, notice boards etc. Provided in response Sections through the site, showing height to ongoing consultation between the PCT and local and relationship of new buildings to the interest groups, details being co-ordinated by the Nelson retained blocks and neighbouring buildings Community Reference Group) Indication of materials to be used on the building exterior as well as those to be Sustainable Transport Initiatives (Secure cycle parking & changing facilities, travel plans, used in the streetscape. bus infrastructure and service improvements, city car Indication of landscaping and planting to club, local CPZ consultation and potential be proposed. implementation to mitigate against the transport impact 3D modelling to demonstrate scale, bulk of the new hospital) and massing of the development. Percent for Public Art (Contribution to the provision of art with the hospital and public realm in order to provide local distinctiveness and sense of place in the public realm)

Adopted January 2007 26 11.0 | Design + Access Statement | guidance

11.1 From 10th August 2006, design and The main inputs to the design process: access statements are required as part of most planning applications - as set out in Explanation of the design process: Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Circular 01/2006. 11.16 demonstrating that the designer has thought about how the new buildings and 11.2 A design and access statement will be spaces have been informed by what exists on required to supplement the planning site and the local context. application in order to explain and justify the design rationale for the new Nelson Hospital. Use: The statement will help the Council to understand fully, the principles of the design 11.17 explanation of where different uses will proposals. The design and access statement be accommodated in the development. For will also help the Council in considering how example, where community, clinical and well the proposals relate to UDP design administration functions will be located in the policies and the advice given in the Councils building. Supplementary Planning Guidance documents and the site’s planning brief. The design details:

11.3 The design and access statement 11.8 To establish a 3D form of the should be the first step in the approach to development, axonometric and CAD developing plans for the Nelson Hospital. It visualisations will be useful. However the should explain how the design has evolved scheme should also be explained in terms of: and should not be an afterthought to merely justify a pre-determined solution. Early drafts of Layout: a design and access statement will be useful in any pre-application discussions. 11.19 How the buildings routes and public and private spaces will be arranged on site and the relationship between them and the Format and Structure of the Design buildings and spaces surrounding the site. and Access Statement: Designing out crime should also be considered at this level. 11.4 The design and access statement should be a single document, accompanying, Scale: rather than being part of a planning application. The Council will not register a planning 11.20 Details of the height, width and length application for the Nelson Hospital of the building will be required. redevelopment unless an adequate design and The planning brief sets out maximum access statement is provided. The statement parameters for height and built area. The should be concise but cover all the necessary design and access statement should explain issues and demonstrate an integrated how these parameters have been taken into approach to design. account.

11.5 The design and access statement Landscape Design: should explain the design principles and concepts that have been applied to particular 11.21 How the open spaces will be treated aspects of the Nelson redevelopment. and detailed to enhance and protect the sense of place. For example what trees, paving, lighting, seating and planting will be provided/retained. Details of how any open spaces or public realm will be managed will also be expected as part of the design and access statement.

27 Nelson Hospital Planning Brief 11.0 | Design + Access continued… | design champions

Appearance: Design Champions

11.22 Details of all aspects of the 11.25 The Secretary of State has announced development, which will affect the visual that every NHS Trust and Primary Care Trust impression that the Nelson Hospital makes. is to have its own design champion. The design and access statement should justify the principles behind the intended appearance of the building and spaces, for “Each hospital embarking on a new example, building materials and architectural development will nominate a local details. Details on how accessibility has been design champion from the Trust considered should also form part of the board to ensure that the new statement. building provides a high quality, Access and Inclusivity: patient-focussed environment with good working conditions for staff 11.23 The access component of the and buildings that make a positive statement relates to ‘access to the contribution to the local development’ rather than the internal aspects neighbourhood” of individual buildings, which are covered by DDA legislation. Alan Milburn MP Secretary of State for Health Building a better patient environment design conference 11.24 This section should explain how the 2001. hospital has been designed to allow individuals access to buildings, spaces and public transport. It should explain how everyone could 11.26 The NHS design champion will ensure: get to and move around the building and why the points of access and key routes have been The building promotes civic pride chosen. there should also be an explanation of Consumerism is taken into account how policy has been met and how any patients and staff are consulted and their consultation has influenced the proposals. views addressed The building fits into the local surroundings and settings The building is fit for its purpose The building takes on board modern technology.

11.27 Merton Council also has its own Design Champion, Councillor John Bowcott who also chairs the Council’s Conservation and Design Advisory Panel (CADAP)

11.28 As proposals for the Nelson Hospital develop, the views and guidance of the Council’s Design and Conservation Officers, Urban Design Officers, CADAP and Design Champion will be sought.

Adopted January 2007 28 12.0 | Further Information | background documents

Statutory Documents Community Involvement in Planning: The Government’s objectives, Town & Country Planning (Local ODPM (February 2004) Development) (England) Regulations 2004 (Part 5 (17&18) Public Participation) Safer Places – The Planning System and Crime Prevention ODPM & Home Office (March 2004) National Policy Guidance Towards and Urban Renaissance Urban Task Force (1999) PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (January 2005) Planning and Development Briefs: A guide to better practice PPS 12: Local Development Frameworks (September 2004) Llewelyn Davies & Drivers Jonas for DETR (April 1998) PPG 13: Transport (October 2002)

PPG 15: Planning and the Historic Department of Health / NHS Estates Environment (September 1994) Guidance and other references PPG 16: Archaeology and Planning Better Health Buildings: Good design is a (November 1990) commitment to a better quality of life for all Department of Health & NHS Estates Government Publications Centre for Healthcare Design (May 2002)

By Design: Urban Design in the Planning Tomorrow’s Hospitals: NHS design review System: Towards better practice programme DETR & CABE (May 2000) Department of Health & NHS Estates (2004) Urban Design Compendium Llewelyn Davies, English Partnerships & NHS Estates Design Review Panel Housing Corporation (2000) Department of Health & NHS Estates (2001) Creating Excellent Buildings – A guide for clients NHS Design Champions CABE (2003) Department of Health, NHS Estates & CABE (2001) Designed With Care - design and neighbourhood healthcare buildings Advice to Trusts on the main components CABE (February 2006) of the design brief for healthcare buildings. Department of Health, NHS Estates Design Quality and the Private Finance Design Brief Working Group (July 2002) Initiative CABE (2005) The Design Development Protocol for PFI schemes: Revision 1 Design and Access Statements: how to Department of Health & NHS Estates read, write and use them (August 2004) CABE (2006) The Design Brief Framework for PFI Public Better Public Buildings – a proud legacy Sector Comparators at OBC Stage for the future Department of Health & NHS Estates Department for Culture, Media and Sport (October 2004) (October 2000) Healthy Living Centres: A guide to primary healthcare design. Geoffrey Purves (2002) Architectural Press

29 Nelson Hospital Planning Brief 12.0 | Further Information | background documents

Development Plan Publications: Other Council Publications:

Greater London Authority: John Innes Merton Park Conservation The London Plan (February 2004) Area Character Appraisal (2005)

London Borough of Merton: John Innes Merton Park Conservation Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) Area Design Guide (1994)

Merton Hall Road Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2005) Supplementary Planning Guidance Merton Hall Road Conservation Area Greater London Authority: Design Guide (1991) Wimbledon Chase Conservation Area Sustainable Design & Construction SPD (2006) Character Appraisal (2005) Delivering Good Design and Urban Design London Borough of Merton: – Guidance for Applicants & Agents (February 2003) Archaeology SPG (September 1999) Street Design Guide, London Borough of Merton (March 2006) Design SPG (September 2004) Merton’s Community Plan 2006-2015 (June 2006) Designing Out Crime SPG (September 1999)

Sustainable Development SPG (October 2001)

Sustainable Transport SPG (April 2004)

Planning Obligations SPD (July 2006)

Adopted January 2007 30 12.0 | Contacts |

Paul McGarry Planner: Sites and Projects Plans and Projects Section Regeneration Division Environment and Regeneration Department Tel: 020 8545 3003 e-mail: [email protected]

Phil Ryder: Principal Planner: Design & Conservation Plans & Projects Section Regeneration Division Environment & Regeneration Department Tel: 202 8545 3074 e-mail: [email protected]

Lone LeVay Conservation Officer: Design & Conservation Plans & Projects Section Regeneration Division Environment & Regeneration Department Tel: 020 8545 3055 e-mail: [email protected]

Jonathan Lewis Team Leader: South Team Development Control Section Planning & Public Protection Division Environment & Regeneration Department Tel: 020 8545 3287 e-mail: [email protected] Nick Greenwood Transport Planning Manager Transport Planning Section Regeneration Division Environment & Regeneration Department Tel: 020 8545 3058 e-mail: [email protected] Þ

31 Nelson Hospital Planning Brief 13.0 | Aerial Image | current building layout

Adopted© Ordnance January Survey 2007 2006. London Borough of Merton. 34 Licence Number 100019259 14.0 | Proposals Map | design framework for the new nelson hospital

33 Nelson Hospital Planning Brief

SPD Supplementary Planning Document London Borough of Merton

Plans + Projects

London Borough of Merton Civic Centre London Road Morden Surrey SM4 5DX SPD Supplementary Planning Document London Borough of Merton

Appendix A Planning Policy Framework

Nelson Hospital

Adopted | January 2007 You can also get this information in large print, in Braille and on tape.

Paul McGarry 020 8545 3003 Appendix A | policy context

Government Planning Guidance Development should respond to their local context and create or reinforce local Planning Policy Guidance and Statements set distinctiveness and be visually attractive as a out the Government’s national policies on result of good architecture and appropriate different aspects of land use and spatial landscaping. Local planning authorities should planning. not attempt to impose architectural styles or tastes, however, it is proper to seek, promote The Guidance and Statements which are most or reinforce local distinctiveness. relevant to the redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital are referred to, although, generally, no particular interpretation of them is made, as PPS 12: Local Development Frameworks with the relevant London Plan and Merton UDP (September 2004) Policies. Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) should be included in the Local Development PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development Framework for the area. SPDs may expand (January 2005) policy or provide further detail to policies in a Development Plan Document. They must not PPS 1 sets out the overarching planning however be used to allocate land. SPDs may policies on the delivery of sustainable take the form of design guides, area development through the planning system. development briefs, master plan or issue Sustainable Development is the core principle based documents that supplement policies in a underpinning planning, thus planning has a key development plan document. role to play in the creation of sustainable communities. An SPD must be consistent with national, regional and development plan policy; it must Key Principle (ii) states that local planning be clearly cross referenced to the authorities should promote the development of Development Plan Document or saved policy it renewable energy resources. Key principle (iv) supplements; it must be reviewed along with states that design which fails to take the Development Plan Document policies; and the opportunities available for improving the process by which it has been prepared must character and quality of an area should not be be clear and a statement of conformity with the accepted. statement of community involvement be published with it. The conservation and improvement of the natural and built environment brings social and SPDs should be accompanied by a economic benefits for local communities and sustainability appraisal; and assessment of planning should seek to mitigate the effects of whether the SPD is in general conformity with declining environmental quality. Local planning the regional spatial strategy (The London authorities should promote the more efficient Plan); and a statement of the consultation use and re-use of existing resources by means undertaken, representations received and the of energy efficient buildings, community local authority’s response to those heating schemes, combined heat and power, representations. low carbon energy schemes, sustainable use of water resources and the use of sustainable drainage systems. PPG 13: Transport (October 2002) Good design is indivisible from good planning. Planning authorities should plan positively for Planning, through shaping the pattern of the achievement of high quality of design in development and influencing the scale, buildings and spaces. Design which is density, design and mix of land uses, has a inappropriate in its context, or which fails to key role to play in helping to reduce the need take the opportunities available for improving to travel. Local authorities should focus major the character and quality of an area and the generators of travel demand in town and way it functions should not be accepted. Good district centres and close to public transport design should be integrated into the existing interchanges; plan for increased intensity of urban form and the natural and built development for housing and other uses at environments. locations highly accessible by public transport; and ensure developments offer a realistic

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Planning Policy Context | Adopted January 2007 1 Appendix A | policy context

choice of access by public transport, walking Walking is the most important mode of travel at and cycling. Priority should be given to people the local level and local authorities should use over the ease of traffic movement and local their powers to give greater priority to walking. authorities plan to provide more road space to They should create more direct, safe and pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. secure walking routes, provide wider pavements including the reallocation of road A key planning objective is to ensure health space to pedestrians, and improve lighting. facilities (amongst other things) are accessible Regarding cycling, authorities should seek the by public transport, walking and cycling and to provision of convenient, safe and secure cycle actively manage the pattern of growth and parking and changing facilities in location of development to make fullest use of developments and the provision of cycle public transport. Local authorities should work storage facilities at transport interchanges; and with PCT, developers, community and the provision of cycle routes and cycle priority transport interests to ensure plans and measures in major new developments. proposals are feasible. Good partnerships between these interests are essential to Planning conditions for developments may be achieving the objectives of this guidance. used to specify the number of parking spaces; Developments that have significant transport control the management and use of parking implications should include Transport spaces; and specify the arrangements for Assessments. The coverage of these should deliveries, removals, their hours of operation reflect the scale of development and extent of and the design of delivery areas and lorry transport implications. For major proposals the parking. assessment should illustrate accessibility by all modes, including modal split, and give details of proposed measures to improve access by PPG 15: Planning and the Historic public transport, walking and cycling. Environment (September 1994)

New development should help to create places There should be effective protection for all that connect with each other sustainably, aspects of the historic environment. The providing the right conditions to encourage physical survivals of our past are to be valued walking, cycling and the use of public and protected for their own sake and their transport. People should come before traffic. presence sustains the sense of local Local authorities should promote designs and distinctiveness which is so important an aspect layouts that are safe. The needs and safety of of the character of out towns, villages and all in the community should be considered from countryside. Conservation and sustainable the outset, taking account of the importance of economic growth are complementary. As good design. Reducing the amount of parking highway authorities too, local planning in new development is essential as part of a authorities’ activities should reflect the need to package of planning and transport measures, protect the historic environment. Roads can to promote sustainable travel choices. Local have a particular impact at all levels, such as authorities should encourage the shared use of road maintenance and the quality of street parking. furniture and surfaces.

Well designed traffic management measures Plans should seek to identify the opportunities can contribute to planning objectives by which the historic fabric of an area can offer as reducing community severance, noise, a focus for regeneration. Developers should pollution and accidents; promoting safe assess the likely impact of their proposals and walking, cycling and public transport, improving provide written information or drawings before the attractiveness of urban areas; and avoid or an application is determined to allow their manage congestion. In taking decisions on the significance to be assessed. It is better that management of traffic, priority should be given old buildings are not set apart, but woven into to people over traffic and authorities should the fabric of the community, and that new actively consider traffic calming and the buildings are carefully designed to respect their reallocation of road space to promote safe setting in terms of scale, height, massing, walking, cycling and public transport. Planning alignment and use of materials. authorities should negotiate for improvements to public transport as part of development The desirability of preserving or enhancing a proposals conservation area is a material consideration in assessing proposals which are outside a

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Planning Policy Context | Adopted January 2007 2 Appendix A | policy context

conservation area but which would affect its Moving forward into Merton’s LDF, it is setting or views into or out of the area. expected that the policy will apply to most developments in the borough. It is essential that local highway authorities take full account of the wider costs of transport choices, including impact on the historic The London Plan environment. Local highway authorities should take measures to protect the historic The London Plan is produced by the Greater environment from the worst effects of traffic. London Authority and is the statutory planning The pattern of roads and open spaces and the document for London as a whole and forms views they create within the townscape may be part of the Development Plan for the borough. as valuable as the buildings. If a street or It is a strategic plan setting out an integrated space is to be pedestrianised it is important to social, economic and environmental framework retain the traditional relationship between for the future of London. It was adopted in footways and the carriageway, including kerb February 2004 and consists of policies for the lines. Wall-to-wall surfaces are often spatial development of the city. unsuitable and the scale, texture colour and laying patterns of materials should be A number of policies in the Plan are relevant to sympathetic to the area’s appearance. the redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital.

These policies are Introduction Policy I1; Broad PPS 22: Renewable Energy Development Strategy Thematic Policies (August 2004) 3A.15, 3A.16, 3A.18*, 3C.1, 3C.2*, 3C.3, 3C.17, 3C.18, 3C.19, 3C.20, 3C.21, 3C.22; This planning guidance sets out the Crosscutting Policies 4A.1, 4A.2, 4A.7, 4A.8, Government’s agenda for renewable energy. In 4A.9, 4A.10, 4A.11,, 4B.1*, 4B.2*, 4B.3*, reference to Local Government planning 4B.4, 4B.5, 4B.6*, 4B.7, 4B.9, 4B.10, 4B.11, frameworks, and this SPD, PPS 22 establishes 4B.14; Sub-regional Policy 5F.1; and the UK Government’s ambition to strongly Implementation Policy 6A.4. encourage Local Government to adopt prescriptive renewable energy policies. Policies marked with an asterisk are “Local planning authorities may include policies particularly relevant to the successful in local development documents that require a redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital and are percentage of the energy to be used in new expanded on below. residential, commercial or industrial developments to come from on-site renewable energy developments.” Policy 3A.18 Locations for healthcare: This policy states that Boroughs should support the Merton Council are the first local authority in provision of additional healthcare in the the UK to adopt such a policy (adopted in borough as identified by the strategic health Merton’s UDP, 2003), requiring any non authority and local primary care trusts. The residential development over 1000m2 to meet preferred locations for hospitals and primary 10% of its energy needs through on-site care centres should be identified in appropriate renewables. With reference to small scale locations accessible by public transport and renewable energy developments; with particular relevance to London Plan policies 3A.17, 3A.5 and 3D1. The Nelson is “Local planning authorities and developers reasonably well served by a variety of modes should consider the opportunity for of public transport and as a result of the incorporating renewable energy projects in all Nelson redevelopment, the Council will seek new developments. Small scale schemes improvements to these provisions. utilising technologies such wind turbines and photovoltaic cells etc…can be incorporated into new developments and some existing Policy 3C.2 Matching Development to buildings. Local planning authorities should Transport Capacity: This states that specifically encourage such schemes through development proposals should be considered positively expressed policies in local in terms of existing transport capacity, that development documents. “ where capacity required for the development is not adequate, development should be phased until requirements can be met, and that

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Planning Policy Context | Adopted January 2007 3 Appendix A | policy context

developments with significant transport Merton Unitary Development Plan implications should include a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. It is considered The Merton Unitary Development Plan (UDP) that, in order to avoid uncertainty and to is the statutory planning document for the ensure successful completion of a borough as a whole. It is part of the comprehensive redevelopment of the Nelson Development Plan for the Borough. It was site, development proposals should adopted in October 2003 and contains policies demonstrate from the outset that the proposed for the development and other use of land for transport infrastructure is workable and the borough. Its purpose is to guide implementable for the whole development. A development in the borough by setting out Transport Assessment and Travel Plan should policies and proposals against which planning form part of this. applications and development proposals will be assessed. A number of policies in the UDP are relevant to the redevelopment of the Policy 4B.1 Design Principles for a Nelson Hospital. Compact City: This policy sets out a series of aims for new development. All are relevant to These polices are; the Nelson Hospital, but specifically, given its local character and the hospital’s present run Strategic Policies: down physical environment, it is considered that the principles of ‘safe for occupants and ST.1*: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT passers-by’, ‘respect local context, character ST.17*: BUILT ENVIRONMENT and communities’ and ‘are attractive to look at ST.18*: HERITAGE and, where appropriate, inspire, excite and ST.22*: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION delight’ are particularly important and must be C.8* : HEALTH FACILITY SITES achieved by any redevelopment proposals. C.9*: PROVISION OF HEALTH FACILITIES

Built Environment Policies: Policy 4B.3 Maximising the Potential of Sites: This policy states the importance of POLICY BE.1*: CONSERVATION AREAS, making best use of land. It also stresses that NEW DEVELOPMENT, CHANGE OF USE, this must be done in a way that is compatible ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS. with local context, Policy 4B.1 design principles POLICY BE.2*: CONSERVATION AREAS, and public transport capacity. Any DEMOLITION. redevelopment proposals must demonstrate POLICY BE.3*: DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT clearly that they comply with these provisos TO A CONSERVATION AREA and how they do so. POLICY BE.14*: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION POLICY BE.15*: NEW BUILDINGS AND Policy 4B.6 Sustainable Design and EXTENSIONS; DAYLIGHT, SUNLIGHT, Construction: This policy includes a list of PRIVACY, VISUAL INTRUSION AND NOISE. measures relating to sustainable design and POLICY BE.16*: URBAN DESIGN construction that any redevelopment proposals POLICY BE.22*: DESIGN OF NEW must take into account. Proposals should DEVELOPMENT demonstrate how they adhere to and take into POLICY BE.23: ALTERATIONS AND account these measures. Particularly EXTENSIONS TO BUILDINGS important in the Nelson context are the re-use POLICY BE.25: SUSTAINABLE of the pavilion blocks and promoting Combined DEVELOPMENT Heat and Power (CHP) and renewable energy POLICY PE.9*: WASTE MINIMISATION AND schemes. Retaining the pavilion buildings WASTE DISPOSAL. contribute to Kingston Road’s local character POLICY PE.13*: ENERGY EFFICIENT and is important both for sustainability and DESIGN AND USE OF MATERIALS local distinctiveness. The Council would also like to develop local CHP schemes across the Transport Policies: borough; proposals should be designed to connect into such a network in the future. POLICY PT.1*: LOCAL AND REGIONAL NEEDS POLICY RN.3: VEHICULAR ACCESS POLICY PK2*: CAR PARKING STANDARDS

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Planning Policy Context | Adopted January 2007 4 Appendix A | policy context

POLICY PK.3*: CAR PARKING AND POLICY ST.17: BUILT ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT POLICY LU.3: TRANSPORT IMPACT OF This policy focuses on the need for a high NEW DEVELOPMENT quality urban environment in the areas of POLICY LU.5: DEVELOPER design quality, accessibility, sustainability and CONTRIBUTIONS security. Proposals for the Nelson must POLICY LD.3: PLANNING BRIEFS demonstrate in the Design & Access POLICY F.2: PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Statement how these requirements are to be met. Policies marked with an asterisk are particularly relevant to the successful redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital and are POLICY ST.18 HERITAGE expanded on below. This policy seeks the protection, preservation or enhancement of the Borough’s heritage, POLICY ST.1: SUSTAINABLE including statutorily and locally listed buildings. DEVELOPMENT, ST.22 ENVIRONMENTAL As parts of the Nelson Hospital provide PROTECTION, BE.25 SUSTAINABLE character and heritage to the area, the Council DEVELOPMENT, PE.9 WASTE will give particular regard to protecting these MINIMISATION AND WASTE DISPOSAL. aspects.

These policies relate to sustainable development and are fundamental elements of POLICY C.8 HEALTH FACILITY SITES Merton’s UDP. Policy ST.1 requires plans for large redevelopment schemes, such as the This policy highlights the importance of local Nelson, to include the submission of a social infrastructure and seeks to protect Sustainable Development Statement with any health facility sites for that purpose. planning application, which will be assessed against the Council’s sustainability checklist. Merton Council have been working closely with Policy ST.22 relates primarily to energy use. Sutton and Merton Primary Care trust to The Council has aspirations for future CHP ensure that both the local care hospitals and schemes in the borough and proposals should the critical care hospital are in the most be designed to connect into this network if it is suitable and most feasible locations to serve implemented. This is particularly relevant to the the borough’s health needs. Following Nelson, as hospitals are ideal users of a CHP extensive site searches across the borough, network. Policy BE.25 relates to buildings and Sutton and Merton PCT, in partnership with the how they can be made more sustainable. Council agreed that local care hospitals will be Proposals should show in the Sustainable located at the Nelson site, Merton Park and the Development Statement how this is to be Wilson site in Mitcham. done. Policy PE.9 relates to waste and encourages the adoption of Environmental Management Schemes for the treatment and POLICY C.9 PROVISON OF HEALTH disposal of waste. A future CHP scheme FACILITIES would contribute to this but it is likely other methods of waste minimisation will also be The Council will encourage the provision of appropriate and could be sought through health facilities and will: planning obligations. Grant planning permission for health facilities which are well located in The Council has prepared Supplementary terms of their accessibility to the Planning Guidance on Sustainable residents of the area they intend to Development (October 2001) However this serve and provided they do not document will be revised and updated as a adversely affect the amenities of the Supplementary Planning Document in line with area or contravene other policies of the LDF. It is expected that the revised draft the plan. will also be in line with the GLA’s Sustainable Seek to secure planning obligations to Design and Construction SPD. improve health facility provision and identify new sites.

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Planning Policy Context | Adopted January 2007 5 Appendix A | policy context

Require full access for people with The character of private open space and disabilities and the provision of townscape is particularly significant in several facilities for children. Conservation Areas. In these areas, infill or Identify priority areas and new sites. backland development can be damaging to their character. The Council generally wishes to encourage health facilities which are a valuable service to Applications involving a change in the the community, but it needs to ensure they are appearance of buildings should be fully well located and are not at the expense of detailed, including plans showing the proposal other UDP policies. This policy will ensure that in its context. Outline applications could not be valuable opportunities are not lost to provide assessed against the policy and therefore are additional health facilities on sites which might likely to be refused. otherwise be developed for less suitable uses. Policy BE.22 sets out the criteria against which development proposals will be assessed. The Council wishes to ensure that full access and facilities are provided for people with disabilities and children. The Council in partnership with Sutton and Merton Primary POLICY BE.2: CONSERVATION AREAS, Care Trust and the South West London DEMOLITION. Support Services Partnership will seek suitable sites for health facilities and may produce Proposals that will involve the substantial planning briefs on these sites. demolition of an unlisted building in a Conservation Area that makes a positive contribution to its character or appearance will not be permitted unless the following can be POLICY BE.1: CONSERVATION AREAS, demonstrated: NEW DEVELOPMENT, CHANGE OF USE, ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS. There is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable efforts have been Within a Conservation Area, a proposal for made to continue the present use or to new development alteration or extension to a find a viable use for the building and building or for the change of use of land or these efforts have failed and it is buildings will be required to preserve or demonstrated that preservation of the enhance the character or appearance of that building as part of the scheme or in Conservation Area. some form of charitable or community ownership is not possible or suitable, Proposals will be expected to; or The costs of repairs or maintenance of Respect or compliment the design, the building cannot be justified against scale, form and materials of existing its importance or value derived from its buildings and spaces. retention, provided that the building Respect street patterns or other has not been deliberately neglected, or features contributing to the character, There will be substantial planning historic value of the area or pattern of benefits for the community from development in the area. redevelopment which would decisively Maintain important views within and outweigh loss from the resulting out of the area. demolition. Ensure that the level of activity, traffic, parking services or noise generated by Acceptable and detailed plans for a the proposal would not detract from replacement scheme will be required even if it the character or appearance of the will involve total or substantial demolition of an area. unlisted building in a Conservation Area that makes little or no contribution to the character Well designed new buildings in Conservation or appearance of that area. Areas can often contribute to or enhance the existing character of the area and the Council A condition will be imposed on a planning will take specific account of the architectural permission granted, to ensure that demolition and other merits of any new development. shall not take place until a contract for the

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Planning Policy Context | Adopted January 2007 6 Appendix A | policy context

carrying out of the development works has been made. POLICY BE.16: URBAN DESIGN

POLICY BE.3: DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT Policy BE.16 consists of seven urban design TO A CONSERVATION AREA objectives which new developments will be expected to achieve. Redevelopment A development proposal adjacent to a proposals must explain in their design and Conservation Area will be expected to access statement how the proposals meet preserve or enhance its setting and not detract these objectives. This is considered a key from views in or out of the area. This policy is policy with respect to redevelopment of the relevant to the western section of the Nelson Nelson Hospital as it is closely related to and site which falls outwith, but impacts on, the supports Council policies on sustainable adjacent conservation areas. development and transport and meeting these objectives successfully will also make meeting Development proposals for the western side of sustainability and transport objectives more the Nelson site could have an impact on the achievable. Policy TC.5, whilst specifically neighbouring Conservation Area’s character aimed at town centres, is relevant to the and appearance. It may for example impact on Nelson site. The policy stresses the views into or out of the Conservation Area. The importance of good urban design in improving Council will wish to ensure that such the quality of the public realm. The interface development preserves or enhances the between buildings and spaces is key to both character and appearance of the Conservation the success of the buildings and spaces. Area. Active frontages and maximising activity onto the street are critical to this. Thus the Council POLICY BE.14: ARCHAEOLOGICAL will not support any proposals that undermine EVALUATION the quality of the public realm, and will seek the improvement and creation of new public The Nelson Hospital is located in the Merton spaces as outlined in the design guidance of Village Archaeological Priority Zone (APZ). this SPD. The Council will encourage early consultation on the Nelson proposals with Conservation officers and English Heritage. Acting in POLICY BE.22: DESIGN OF NEW consultation with their archaeological advisors, DEVELOPMENT the Council will require as part of the planning application, an assessment of the impact of the Proposals for new development or for change Nelson proposals on the archaeology of the of use of land or buildings will be required to site. This will enable the Council to consider achieve the following: whether any archaeological safeguards are required. Respect for the siting, rhythm, scale, For further information, please refer to the density, proportions, height, materials Council’s Archaeology SPG (1999) and massing of surrounding buildings, and High standards of deign that will POLICY BE.15: NEW BUILDINGS AND compliment the character and local EXTENSIONS; DAYLIGHT, distinctiveness of the adjoining SUNLIGHT, PRIVACY, VISUAL INTRUSION townscape and/or landscape, or a high AND NOISE. standard of design that will enhance the character of the area where local This policy relates to the orientation and design distinctiveness is lacking. of buildings and the protection of basic Layouts that are safe, secure and take amenities such as daylight, privacy, noise and account of crime prevention. visual intrusion. Due to the compact nature of the Nelson site and the level of development A design and access statement will be required envisaged, it is considered critical that these in support of proposals to demonstrate how the basic amenities are not compromised in the above requirements will be met. desire to maximise the development potential of the town centre as a whole and individual sites in particular.

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Planning Policy Context | Adopted January 2007 7 Appendix A | policy context

POLICY PE.13: ENERGY EFFICIENT care hospital. Any gaps identified in the DESIGN AND USE OF MATERIALS network should be addressed through planning obligations. Merton Council will encourage the energy efficient design of buildings and their layout and orientation on site. All new non-residential POLICY PK2: CAR PARKING STANDARDS development above a threshold of 1000m2 will be expected to incorporate renewable energy The Council will require all developments to production equipment to provide at least 10% provide appropriate levels of car and cycle of predicted energy requirements. The use of parking in accordance with the standards sustainable building materials and the re-use adopted by the Council which are detailed in of materials will also be encouraged, as will the Schedule 6 of the UDP. use of recycled aggregates in the construction However, the Council has no set car parking of buildings. This will be subject to the impact standard for hospital developments, each case on the amenity of the local environment, taking will be assessed in its own merits. into account, the existing character of the area. As an overarching principle, the Council will require that all of the hospital’s parking and Plans for the Nelson will be required to servicing needs are contained within the site to incorporate on site renewable energy avoid hospital parking spilling over onto generation to meet 10% of the hospital’s neighbouring residential streets. energy needs. For the purpose of this policy the means of generating renewable energy include photovoltaic energy, solar-powered POLICY PK.3: CAR PARKING AND and geo-thermal water heating, energy crops DEVELOPMENT and biomass, but not energy from domestic or industrial waste. Planning permission will not be granted for development likely to result in an increase in The Council has a Sustainability Checklist on-street parking where it would adversely which outlines a number of criteria that are affect traffic management, bus and cycle taken into account when assessing planning movements, safety, the convenience of local applications. Energy efficiency and use of residents or the quality of the environment. recycled materials are two of the criteria. When assessing applications, the Council will seek to The Council’s Transport Planning team will maximise energy efficiency where possible. work with developers to mitigate against such impacts. This may involve consulting residents Variations in the orientation of buildings, on the extension of a CPZ to protect residential pitches of roofs, large glazed areas, streets from being used by users of the construction from heat-absorbing materials, or hospital additional ventilation are all possible components of energy efficient developments. These can sometimes lead to differences with surrounding areas. When assessing applications, the Council will have regard to the existing character of the area and the appropriateness of the design.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT POLICY PT.1: LOCAL AND REGIONAL NEEDS

Where improvements to public transport are necessary to support new development, contributions will be sought through planning obligations. For the Nelson Hospital development, the focus in transport improvement will be on how the hospital connects with surrounding NHS facilities such as the other local care hospitals and the critical

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Planning Policy Context | Adopted January 2007 8 Appendix A | supplementary planning guidance

Supplementary Planning Guidance

The Council has produced a number of subject based SPG documents. These cover areas such as Archaeology, Design, Designing out Crime, Sustainable Development and Sustainable Transport.

With commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act in September 2004 bringing changes to the planning system, the council has also recently adopted a range of SPDs. Two SPDs of particular relevance are the Conservation Area Character Appraisals for Merton Hall Rd and Wimbledon Chase Conservation Areas. These SPDs form much of the basis for the design and conservation chapter of this brief.

Full references for these documents are listed in the Further Information, background documents section of this SPD as the majority of their content is relevant to the Nelson redevelopment.

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Planning Policy Context | Adopted January 2007 9 Appendix A | statement of conformity of proposals with planning policy and guidance

National Planning Policy Guidance & Statements

It is considered that this SPD is in conformity with the national planning guidance as set out above. It is considered so in relation to a number of relevant subjects including sustainable development, urban design, local distinctiveness, location of development, land uses, regeneration, accessibility, community safety, proactive planning, and transport choice.

The London Plan

It is considered that this SPD is in conformity with the London Plan, particularly with relevance to sustainable development, design and construction.

Merton Unitary Development Plan

It is considered that this SPD is in conformity with the Merton Unitary Development Plan. This is set out in detail above, but it is considered so particularly in relation to sustainable development, conservation, urban design, community facilities and transport.

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Planning Policy Context | Adopted January 2007 10

SPD Supplementary Planning Document London Borough of Merton

Plans + Projects

London Borough of Merton Civic Centre London Road Morden Surrey SM4 5DX SPD Supplementary Planning Document London Borough of Merton

Appendix B Sustainability Appraisal

Nelson Hospital Adopted | January 2007 You can also get this information in large print, in Braille and on tape.

Paul McGarry 020 8545 3003 Sustainability Appraisal for Nelson Hospital Planning Brief

Contents 1.1 Introduction...... 2 1.2 Summary of the effect the process ...... 2 1.3 Approach Adopted...... 2 1.4 Background ...... 2 2.1 The Scoping Report...... 3 2.2 SPD objectives: ...... 3 2.3 The Brief Requirements...... 3 2.4 Other plans, programmes and objectives relative to the plan with information on synergies and inconsistencies ...... 4 2.5 Baseline Information...... 4 2.6 Identification and consideration of the social, environmental & economic issues ...... 5 2.7 What’s missing ...... 5 3.1 The SA Framework...... 7 3.2 The broad options for the site...... 9 3.3 Proposals for the Structure of Section Two ...... 9 4.2 Assessment of the SPD for Nelson Hospital: the adopted brief...... 10 4.3 Assessment of the draft SPD for Nelson Hospital: Do nothing ...... 13 4.4 The preferred option and reasons for its choice ...... 16 4.5 Mitigation Measures ...... 17

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Sustainability Appraisal | Adopted January 2007 1 1.1 Introduction

This report incorporates the scoping and sustainability statements for the redevelopment of the Nelson Road Hospital. It is required by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act in order that the brief can be considered as a Supplementary Planning Document.

1.2 Summary of the effect the process

The process has identified the draft brief as the most appropriate option for the site when compared with a housing development or maintaining the status quo. In mitigation two issues remain that could be dealt with upon receipt of a planning application for the site.

The sustainability appraisal of the consultation draft has helped to improve aspects of the brief such as transport impacts through travel planning and promoting the use of materials.

1.3 Approach Adopted

The scoping report is the initial stage in the process and will comprise the first section of this document. It is required to ensure that the sustainability appraisal is comprehensive and robust enough to support the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) during the consultation stages of the approval process. For the appraisal of a small site brief it is deemed that the scoping report is not necessary as a separate document.

The second section of the document will contain the initial Sustainability Appraisal which will contain the appraisal of the sites objectives and the analysis of the various options for the site.

It is recognised from the ‘Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks’ published November 2005 that ‘the SA should provide a level of detail that is appropriate to the spatial scale and level of detail of the plan being appraised, including the significant effects of site specific allocations and infrastructure proposals where these are included as part of the plan.’ From this it would appear appropriate that the level of detail is not required to be as thorough as would be required for other more significant LDF documents.

1.4 Background

The Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust is proposing to make some changes to healthcare provision in the area. This is being driven by changing needs and demands on health services across London. A proposed ‘model of care’ has been developed that encourages an increase in the amount of care provided locally for example in GPs surgeries, clinics and in the home. And to supplement this two local care hospitals are to be provided in the borough with the Nelson hospital being redeveloped as one of these where many of the outpatient services provided at a larger hospital will be provided instead.

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Sustainability Appraisal | Adopted January 2007 2 2.1 The Scoping Report

A scoping report is required to set out the following:

I. the objectives of the SPD II. the plans, programmes and objectives relative to the plan with information on synergies and inconsistencies III. the baseline information IV. the social, environmental, and economic issues identified as a result of the work undertaken V. the Sustainability Appraisal Framework (SF) VI. the broad options which are proposed to be considered in detail at the next stage VII. any other proposed methodologies VIII. proposals and structure of and level of detail of the SA report

2.2 SPD objectives:

The key aim of the SPD planning brief for the site is to achieve a sustainable redevelopment of the Nelson Hospital which respects the Hospital’s heritage, and responds positively to the site’s local setting within a Conservation Area.

The objectives for achieving this are:

- Achieve high quality urban design, architecture and public realm - Create a vibrant and attractive public space on the Rush - Enhance accessibility to the site whilst promoting sustainable transport

2.3 The BriefRequirements

- Four pavilion blocks fronting Kingston Road to be retained and renovated as part of the hospital redevelopment, including cleaning and restoration of the building’s external fabric and removal of any unsympathetic additions. Internally, the PCT can alter the blocks to suit. It is not a requirement to retain The Lodge, however if the PCT intend to demolish The Lodge, the Council will expect a clear and convincing argument to justify the demolition.

- Maximum height for the hospital should be no higher than the ridgeline of the present pavilion blocks. This is approximately 12.5m, which would allow for up to three storeys of development. (Assuming an average floor to ceiling height of 3.5m - 4m) However, three storeys will not be permissible across the entire site. It is a requirement that the building steps down to a maximum of 2 storeys to the rear, protecting the aspect from neighbouring residential properties.

- A new block should be constructed to terminate views south from Merton Hall Road and maintain the building line and rhythm on Kingston Road. This block will also be a focal point for The Rush and the eastern approach to the site.

- Landscaped boundaries of the site should be retained and enhanced where necessary to protect privacy of neighbouring residential properties. Large trees in the current car parking area protected by TPO must be retained, and protected during the construction period.

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Sustainability Appraisal | Adopted January 2007 3 - Public realm and streetscape improvements will be applied to Kingston Road and Blakesley Walk and the Rush, as set out in the relevant sections of the brief.

- Hospital buildings are to provide natural surveillance and overlooking of the public realm, particularly at The Rush and Blakesley Walk.

- Service access from Watery Lane will be closed, with access to be taken from The Rush instead. This provides and opportunity to improve the character of Watery Lane.

- Junction improvements and provision of a bus stop at Kinston Road and Merton Parade with re-alignment of the Rush as set out in the proposals map.

- The boundary wall on the Kingston Road frontage should be retained in front of the pavilion blocks and restored, with unsympathetic additions removed. However the wall is to be removed adjacent to The Rush, in order to open up the public space and create a pedestrian approach to the hospital.

- The area between the Kingston Road boundary wall and the pavilion blocks should be re- landscaped to provide an attractive drop off zone for users of the hospital, and should also be a pedestrian friendly space.

- New structured tree planting along the entire Kingston Road frontage, providing rhythm, defining and unifying the edge of the site.

- Vistas south from Quintin Avenue and Richmond Avenue to be protected through sensitive design solutions

- The hospital’s car parking requirements to be met entirely within the site. The design of which will depend on the level of parking needed to support the hospital. This is not yet known, however in principle, the Council supports the use of either a single storey deck car park, or basement car parking which could also accommodate building plant and servicing requirements.

- Main vehicular access to the site to be taken from Kingston Road, opposite Richmond Avenue. This will provide access to car parking and servicing. Patient drop off areas will be located on the Kingston Road and The Rush frontages, as illustrated on the proposals map.

- At least 10% of the hospital’s energy requirements must be generated on site using renewable energy technologies.

2.4 Other plans, programmes and objectives relative to the plan with information on synergies and inconsistencies

The assessment of the relevant planning documents and policies is set out in the draft SPD in Section 7. It is not required to repeat it here.

2.5 Baseline Information

The local authority is in the process of assimilating a baseline of information for sustainability appraisal purposes across the borough. A fuller picture will be provided in the future.

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Sustainability Appraisal | Adopted January 2007 4 The sites area is 1.33 hectares in area and is located south of Wimbledon Town centre on the busy Kingston Road. To the south is the John Innes recreation ground and park and the playing fields of the Rutlish boys school. The eastern end of the site is within the John Innes/Merton Park conservation area whilst the western portion of the site is not. It should be noted that the adjacent Manor Gardens is now part of the John Innes conservation area.

Wimbledon Chase railway station is the closest station just over 300 metres away. In the other direction, is the Merton Park tram stop which provides a connection with the Croydon Tram link. This is 700 metres away. The hospital is served by three bus route the 152, 163 and 164 buses which run along Kingston Road with a stop for the hospital. These provide access to Wimbledon, Pollards Hill, Kingston, New Malden and Sutton and the St Helier hospital. These transport links give the site a PTAL rating of 3 out of 6 in the upper level of a mid range PTAL.

The hospital is located in the Merton Park ward which has a population of 9,144 in 3,736 households, average for the borough. There’s just over one car per household in this ward which again is about average for the borough.

The history of the development of the site is comprehensively covered in the planning brief in section 2 of the draft SPD.

Unemployment in the ward is between 2 – 2.8% which is normal for the west of the borough. The above data is from the 2001 census.

The council undertakes a traffic survey every year as part of its statutory duties. This involves monitoring traffic on roads in the borough. One such monitoring site is a manual count site at the railway bridge beside Wimbledon Chase station on Kingston Road. This has identified the trends over the last four years based on counts taken on a day in June. Unfortunately for Kingston Road it has only been monitored manually for the past two years therefore the overall trend will be summarized. It monitors bus passengers, car drivers and passengers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians.

The car driver continues to be the dominant mode of transport accounting for 48% of all trips, although falling slightly from the previous year. This has followed by bus passengers which has increased slightly from 25% to 28%. Pedestrians, motorcyclists and cyclists have all remained unchanged making up 5%, 2% and 1% respectively. The only trend is the steady increase in bus passengers.

2.6 Identification and consideration of the social, environmental & economic issues

The environmental issues relate to the surrounding conservation areas and the consideration that any development should have regarding them. For example the Quintin Avenue/Richmond Avenue conservation area mentions the visual importance of the trees located in the hospital car park opposite Richmond avenue which needs to be considered in any development.

2.7 What’s missing

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Sustainability Appraisal | Adopted January 2007 5 x Economic data. Due to the publication limitations regarding data which restricts the council regarding the Annual Business Monitor information it is not possible to go into great detail in this area x Air pollution related to transport x Detail on the number of beds in the hospital and whether this will be replaced in the new hospital. This can only be provided by the Primary Care Trust but the principle should be to ensure that the existing level of service provided to the community should be maintained. x the location of other community facilities

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Sustainability Appraisal | Adopted January 2007 6 3.1 The SA Framework

The table below is the starting point for the Sustainability Framework for future sustainability appraisals of LDF documents at Merton Borough Council. It is in its early stages of development and is an amalgamation of previous work. Aims and objectives are expected to change over time and no indicators or targets have been included due to the lack of baseline data. The aims of the previous sustainability appraisals (1998 and 2000) of the current UDP are the logical starting point for this framework. They were developed through assessment of the objectives of other publications and sustainability issues. They have been revised against major publications and issues since so that they are up to date. This assessment is available separately if required. As objectives are required to be ‘a statement of what is intended, specifying a desired direction of change’ new objectives have been devised that relate to the aim.

Topic Aims Objectives Landscape Land is used efficiently, ensuring that greenfield sites are protected and brownfield sites - Increase the use of urban brown field land are re-used. Minerals and Minerals are used efficiently. - Minimise the loss of the soil resource and maintain and enhance soil quality Soil pollution is limited to levels which natural systems can cope with without damage soils Waste Waste production is minimised, and, where possible, waste is re-used or recycled. - Increase the provision of facilities for recycling and re-use of waste Pollution from waste is limited to levels which natural systems can cope with without damage and the effects on humans are minimised. - Improve the management of waste so that it is disposed of or dealt with as close as possible to the point at which it is generated. Energy Energy use is minimised. - Encourage specific improvements in energy efficiency for new developments and Renewable energy is used where possible. refurbishment schemes - Encourage development of renewable energy schemes Pollution & Air pollution is reduced to levels which natural systems can cope with without damage. - To reduce pollution and emissions to air and focus action to reduce air pollution on Water pollution is reduced and water resources are conserved. existing problem areas Climatic factors Noise and light pollution are minimised/reduced. - Ensure that the borough’s water resources are used efficiently and with care to ensure including air, there is enough for all water, noise and light The Natural Biodiversity is valued, protected and enhanced. - Protect designated sites of nature conservation interest Natural environments are valued for their aesthetic and amenity value. Environment - To maintain and conserve protected species where possible and its Biodiversity The Built The quality of the built environment is maintained and improved through protection - Encourage well designed development Sustainable building materials are used where possible. - Protect the historic environment

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Sustainability Appraisal | Adopted January 2007 7 Topic Aims Objectives Environment The location of new developments will take into account flood risk and reduce their - Reduce the impact development has on flood risk contribution to it where possible and heritage Basic Needs Everyone has available; good food, water, shelter & fuel at reasonable cost. - Increase availability of affordable housing in Merton - Maintain vitality and viability of local shopping parades Satisfying work Everyone has the opportunity to undertake satisfying work in a diverse economy. - Encourage development that will add diversity to the local economy Economic success is encouraged through growth but in a context which minimises impact and on the natural environment. - Maintain stable local employment levels encouraging economic success Health and Peoples’ good health is protected by creating safe, clean, pleasant environments and - Ensure the risks to health from man made contaminants are reduced health services which emphasise prevention of illness as well as proper care for the sick. Safety Encourage sport and recreation

Transport and Where possible, local needs are met locally. - Increase the proportion of travel by foot Access to facilities, services, goods and other people is not achieved at the expense of the access environment or limited to those with cars. - The use of private cars is minimised The need for travel is minimised. - Increase the use of public transport The capacity of the infrastructure is not compromised through development - Increase cycle use for all types of journeys - Limit development outside town centres

Crime People live without fear of personal violence from crime or persecution because of their - Reduce the level of street crime personal beliefs, race, gender or sexuality. Education Everyone has available to them the skills, knowledge and information needed to enable them to play a full part in society. Equity and - Inequalities are reduced through all members of the local community having good access - Ensure that the following groups are neither directly or indirectly affected. Men, women, to education, health care, work, transport and recreation girls, boys, people of different age groups, disabled people, people of any ethnic group, Participation people of different faiths and gay men or lesbian women, people living in deprived neighbourhoods or on low income Cultural, leisure Opportunities for culture, leisure and recreation are readily available to all. - Maximise the amenity value of open spaces and social - Maintain the inclusion of educational, social and community facilities within new activities developments

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Sustainability Appraisal | Adopted January 2007 8 3.2 The broad options for the site

All Housing. The site could be developed entirely for housing although this is unlikely as the facility would have demonstrate that it is no longer needed therefore this option has now been removed for the final appraisal. In any case it had the least satisfactory impact during the consultation draft appraisal.

All Employment. The site could be developed entirely for employment, particularly office use. This would not be appropriate as it is too distant from existing areas of employment and public transport accessibility is not low. In any case, the brief will provide employment as a medical use therefore it is not necessary to assess this.

All Retail The site could be developed for retail. However this option would not be realistic given its location outside Wimbledon town centre and the need for retail use to be developed where accessibility is greatest. It will not be appraised.

A mixed use development The health use could be re-developed as part of a mixed use development. However as neither retail nor employment would be acceptable on the site then this will not be assessed.

Redevelop in line with the brief The site is redeveloped entirely as a health use.

Do nothing The site could remain as it is.

3.3 Proposals for the Structure of Section Two

I. The Sustainability Appraisal table II. Summary of the results of the sustainability appraisal III. The main options in more detail IV. Table showing sustainability appraisal of the options V. The preferred option and reasons for its choice VI. Any mitigation measures necessary

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Sustainability Appraisal | Adopted January 2007 9 4.2 Assessment of the SPD for Nelson Hospital: the adopted brief .H\ Ⴌ*RRG21RWUHOHYDQW Assessment of the Effect "8QNQRZQႰ%DG Comment on the Effect and any assumptions made noting any

Short Medium Long possibilities of secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects. Sustainability Framework Objectives Positive/ Permanent/ Topic And sub-objectives Negative Temporary

Landscape - Increase the use of urban brown field Provided the redevelopment of the hospital site is made in line with the brief it will be an efficient use of the site incorporating basement parking and servicing and maximising the land Permanent ႬႬ "Ⴌ height of development without harming the character of the area. The internal design will - Use brownfield land efficiently determine whether the new hospital is a long term success therefore this is unknown. Minerals - To reduce land contamination and Ⴐ OO Over the short term there will be an effect however once the development is completed it will have no further effect. It is hard to assess as there is no baseline data. and soils safeguard soil quality and quantity Ⴌ Temporary - Minerals are used efficiently Waste - Reduce the amount of waste generated, Ⴐ " " " It is hoped that the redevelopment will provide the possibility for increasing the level of maximise reuse, recycling and recovery recycling in the hospital but it is not possible to ascertain this. and reduce our reliance on landfill Unknown Over the short term during construction the level of waste would rise. disposal " ? ? ? - Divert biodegradable waste Energy - Ensure specific measures to improve ႬႰ ႬႰ ႬႰ ႬႰ The brief highlights the use of natural lighting as a means of saving energy although energy efficiency and reduce improving energy efficiency is not mentioned. But the 10% policy requirement is clearly set greenhouse gas emissions are used in out and the possibility of CHP is also raised. The site is reasonably well located in terms of new developments, refurbishment and/or public transport accessibility and improving its level of service provision will help reduce the renovations and extensions. Permanent need for people to travel further afield for their health care. Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ - Reduce the need to travel by car Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ - Use sustainable energy systems as widely as possible. Pollution & - Ensure the risks of pollution to human Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ Permanent Whatever the development of this site there are not the planning policies in place that can health and all areas of the boroughs reduce emissions Climatic factors environment are reduced including - Air quality is improved, Water pollution is Inconclusive So long as plant and machinery are located in suitable locations then noise should not be an air, water, reduced and resources are conserved. " " " " issue but it is not possible to say whether water quality will improve or if it will help to noise and - Noise pollution is minimised Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ conserve water either. Air quality should improve if the hospital reduces the need for people

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Sustainability Appraisal | Adopted January 2007 10 4.2 Assessment of the SPD for Nelson Hospital: the adopted brief .H\ Ⴌ*RRG21RWUHOHYDQW Assessment of the Effect "8QNQRZQႰ%DG Comment on the Effect and any assumptions made noting any

Short Medium Long possibilities of secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects. Sustainability Framework Objectives Positive/ Permanent/ Topic And sub-objectives Negative Temporary light to travel further afield for their healthcare. The - Further protect and enhance all existing Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ Not relevant This is not relevant as there are no designated sites that need protecting. It is worth Natural designated sites mentioning that there are a number of trees with preservation orders in the car park which are expected to be retained and The Rush public space will be improved which will involve Environme - Reduce the area of the borough deficient Not relevant planting. It would be useful to require the planting to be of plants indigenous to the local nt and its in access to areas of natural greenspace 2 2 2 2 area. Biodiversit y The Built - Encourage sustainably built ႬႰ ႬႰ ႬႰ ႬႰ 3HUPDQHQW The brief is very strong on stressing the importance of good design and the significance that Environme development this building has for the community. It covers the use of sustainable energy too and sets out how the building will improve The Rush. However it does not explain in detail the possibility nt and - Reduce the flood risk to people and ႬႰ ႬႰ ႬႰ ႬႰ of using sustainable materials during construction apart from quoting the policy PE13 or the heritage property 3HUPDQHQW potential for re-using on site demolition waste in the construction. - Protect and enhance the boroughs archaeological heritage and architectural Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ The site is not in an area at risk from flooding. The brief recommends the use of permeable materials for the car parking surfacing. The possibility of green roofs is also identified in a heritage Temporary cross section diagram but not in any detail elsewhere. If both methods are used then it will contribute to reducing run-off which will reduce the pressure on the local storm drainage system.

Due to the history of the area the site is in an area of archaeological importance therefore any development will require an assessment and possible excavation. Basic - Increase the number of appropriate 2 2 2 2 1RWUHOHYDQW This is not relevant for the brief as it is not providing affordable housing although the brief affordable housing units in Merton to does now provide for two units of residential on the closed access to Watery Lane but this Needs reflect increases in demand will not be enough provision to provide any affordable housing. Not relevant - Ensure everyone has reasonable access 2 2 2 2 to basic services within a reasonable Hospital use is not a basic use therefore this is not relevant. distance (10 minutes walk) 2 2 2 2 Not relevant - Alleviate fuel poverty This is not relevant for the brief. Satisfying - Maintain local employment levels Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ 3HUPDQHQW The brief will help to both maintain and expand local employment levels as it is intensifying the use of the hospital for the foreseeable future.

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Sustainability Appraisal | Adopted January 2007 11 4.2 Assessment of the SPD for Nelson Hospital: the adopted brief .H\ Ⴌ*RRG21RWUHOHYDQW Assessment of the Effect "8QNQRZQႰ%DG Comment on the Effect and any assumptions made noting any

Short Medium Long possibilities of secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects. Sustainability Framework Objectives Positive/ Permanent/ Topic And sub-objectives Negative Temporary work and - Maintain and expand employment in a diverse range of economic sectors encouragin Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ 3HUPDQHQW g economic success Health and - Improve health equality Ⴌ" Ⴌ" Ⴌ" Ⴌ" 3HUPDQHQW The brief will help to improve health equality by providing a better hospital that is better Safety designed which will provide a better service to residents. This of course is reliant on the new - Encourage regular participation in sport Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ 3HUPDQHQW facility providing the same number of beds that already exist. It is also mentioned in the brief and recreation that it will encourage health and fitness. Transport - The need for travel is minimised Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ 3HUPDQHQW By maintaining and improving the existing hospital facility on this site it should help increase and access the number of people using the facility which will reduce the need for people to travel further - The use of the private car is minimised Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ 3HUPDQHQW afield. This will hopefully reduce the need for people to travel by car as it is well located in - Improve facilities for walking and cycling " " " " 8QNQRZQ terms of buses, trams and trains. It is not possible to determine whether facilities for walking and cycling will be improved by the brief and redevelopment. Crime - Reduce the level of anti social behaviour 22 2 2 2 It is unlikely that the scheme will have any affect on this. Education This is not relevant to this proposal. - Increase educational attainment of the OO O O boroughs residents O Equity and - Equality is promoted Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ The scheme will be open to all, new entrances are proposed in the brief to improve access. Participatio - A vibrant socially inclusive community is " " " " " n encouraged Cultural, - Improve the access to and quality of 22 2 2 2 This is not relevant to the policy. leisure and open spaces social - Improve access to cultural and leisure activities facilities

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Sustainability Appraisal | Adopted January 2007 12 4.3 Assessment of the draft SPD for Nelson Hospital: Do nothing .H\ Ⴌ*RRG21RWUHOHYDQW Assessment of the Effect "8QNQRZQႰ%DG Comment on the Effect and any assumptions made noting any

Short Medium Long possibilities of secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects. Sustainability Framework Objectives Positive/ Permanent/ Topic And sub-objectives Negative Temporary

Landscape - Increase the use of urban brown field Not doing anything with the site will ensure that the land is not used to its maximum potential over the coming years. This may not be an issue in the short term but will increase with time. land "Ⴌ Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ Permanent This will not be an efficient use of land nor will it increase the use of brownfield land. - Use brownfield land efficiently Minerals - To reduce land contamination and If no development occurs then there will be no effect on soil quality. and soils safeguard soil quality and quantity 222 2 Not relevant - Minerals are used efficiently Waste - Reduce the amount of waste generated, ႰႬ ႰႬ ႰႬ ႰႬ If no development occurs then there will be no possibility for a reduction in the amount of maximise reuse, recycling and recovery waste produced. However no redevelopment will not produce any construction waste. and reduce our reliance on landfill Permanent disposal 2 2 2 2 - Divert biodegradable waste Energy - Ensure specific measures to improve Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ If no redevelopment occurs then there will be no possibility to improve the levels of energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. An older building will traditionally produce more greenhouse gas greenhouse gas emissions are used in emissions than a new one. new developments, refurbishment and/or renovations and extensions. By not improving the building or the service it provides it may increase peoples need to Permanent travel by car to medical facilities further away. - Reduce the need to travel by car Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ - Use sustainable energy systems as Not replacing the existing facility will not enable renewable energy systems to be fitted. widely as possible. Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ

Pollution & - Ensure the risks of pollution to human Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ Permanent Whatever the development of this site there are not the planning policies in place that can health and all areas of the boroughs reduce emissions therefore air pollution, water or any noise pollution will not be improved. Climatic factors environment are reduced Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ including - Air quality is improved, Water pollution is Permanent air, water, reduced and resources are conserved. Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ noise and - Noise pollution is minimised

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Sustainability Appraisal | Adopted January 2007 13 4.3 Assessment of the draft SPD for Nelson Hospital: Do nothing .H\ Ⴌ*RRG21RWUHOHYDQW Assessment of the Effect "8QNQRZQႰ%DG Comment on the Effect and any assumptions made noting any

Short Medium Long possibilities of secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects. Sustainability Framework Objectives Positive/ Permanent/ Topic And sub-objectives Negative Temporary light The - Further protect and enhance all existing 2 2 2 2 Not relevant This is not relevant as there are no designated sites that need protecting. It is worth Natural designated sites mentioning that there are a number of trees with preservation orders in the existing car park. Environme - Reduce the area of the borough deficient Not relevant nt and its in access to areas of natural greenspace 2 2 2 2 Biodiversit y The Built - Encourage sustainably built 2 2 2 2 Not relevant As no development will take place there will not be any need to build sustainabily. development Environme nt and - Reduce the flood risk to people and Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ 3HUPDQHQW Without any development any existing run off that the building creates will not be attenuated heritage property therefore increasing the flood risk to the wider area. - Protect and enhance the boroughs archaeological heritage and architectural O O O O With no development there will be no risk to any archaeological heritage. heritage Not relevant

Basic - Increase the number of appropriate 2 2 2 2 1RWUHOHYDQW This isn’t relevant as without development there will not be any affordable housing. affordable housing units in Merton to Needs reflect increases in demand Not relevant - Ensure everyone has reasonable access 2 2 2 2 to basic services within a reasonable distance (10 minutes walk) 2 2 2 2 Not relevant - Alleviate fuel poverty Satisfying - Maintain local employment levels Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ Ⴌ 3HUPDQHQW Maintaining the existing development will help to maintain local employment levels but may not expand it in the future. work and - Maintain and expand employment in a encouragin diverse range of economic sectors g economic " " " " 3HUPDQHQW success

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Sustainability Appraisal | Adopted January 2007 14 4.3 Assessment of the draft SPD for Nelson Hospital: Do nothing .H\ Ⴌ*RRG21RWUHOHYDQW Assessment of the Effect "8QNQRZQႰ%DG Comment on the Effect and any assumptions made noting any

Short Medium Long possibilities of secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects. Sustainability Framework Objectives Positive/ Permanent/ Topic And sub-objectives Negative Temporary

Health and - Improve health equality Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ 3HUPDQHQW Not redeveloping the site will not help to improve health equality. Safety - Encourage regular participation in sport 2 2 2 2 Not relevant and recreation Transport - The need for travel is minimised Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ 3HUPDQHQW By not improving the building or the service it provides it may increase peoples need to and access travel by car to medical facilities further away. This will not minimise peoples need to travel - The use of the private car is minimised Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ 3HUPDQHQW by car. - Improve facilities for walking and cycling " " " " 8QNQRZQ Crime - Reduce the level of anti social behaviour 22 2 2 2 This is not relevant Education This is not relevant - Increase educational attainment of the OO O O boroughs residents O Equity and - Equality is promoted Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ Ⴐ Not developing it will not help to improve equality of access as specific groups may have Participatio certain access requirements for instance which are not addressed in this sort of age of - A vibrant socially inclusive community is " " " " " building. n encouraged Cultural, - Improve the access to and quality of 22 2 2 2 This is not relevant leisure and open spaces social - Improve access to cultural and leisure activities facilities

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Sustainability Appraisal | Adopted January 2007 15 4.4 The preferred option and reasons for its choice

The assessment of the options against the Sustainability Framework is used to identify a preferred option that will satisfy as many of the objectives as possible. The results of the above appraisals are displayed below. The actual appraisal of the Housing option was removed from the final appraisal but has been retained below to demonstrate the worst option for the site. However this was closely followed by the do nothing option. This is unexpected as usually the do nothing option is the least suitable of the three choices.

Topic Housing led Draft Brief Do Nothing Land-use Soils Waste Carbon Pollution Biodiversity Built Envt Basic Needs Economy Health Transport Crime Education Equity Cultural/Leisure

There were three objectives not met that were common to the options. There will be negative effects on air pollution and emissions that affect climate change. They will all affect soils through the impact of development although the do nothing option will not have any impact on this. They will all fail to reduce the amount of waste reduced both through their construction and during the developments use.

In the draft appraisal for consultation on the brief the housing option performed badly because it reduced the employment in the borough and reduced the amount of health provision. This in turn increased the possibility of people travelling further and by car. This also impacted upon equality as certain groups in the borough would find it difficult to travel further. The housing options only plus side would have been the provision of affordable housing. Given that it was unlikely that the housing option would ever take place it has been removed from the final appraisal.

The do nothing option is acceptable in the short term but this will deteriorate as the buildings become less useful for their purpose, create more carbon emissions than an equivalent new building and do not provide the facilities and services required by the public as these requirements change over time.

The brief provides for the renewable energy requirement which will have a significant impact as it will promote this form of energy production as it will be on display in a public building. It also increases the chance of an energy efficient building being developed with the encouragement of use of natural light. Great emphasis is placed on good design of the building. It will also maintain and improve the level of employment in the borough. Finally it will help to improve the local environment by

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Sustainability Appraisal | Adopted January 2007 16 providing the opportunity to improve the Rush and create a more useable public space.

4.5 Mitigation Measures

Although the brief states policy PE13 which includes sustainable use of materials the brief could highlight improving waste mitigation further during the construction phase as demolition will be involved which would provide the opportunity for the re-use of demolition waste in the new buildings. Use of the demolition protocol as produced by London Remade could be referred to. It could also go into more detail regarding the possibility for using locally sourced materials in the construction and recycled materials wherever possible such as recycled steel thereby reducing the carbon footprint of the building.

The impact of surface water run off is not mentioned specifically but the potential for green roofs is identified. This will provide an additional garden resource or simply as a means of reducing the speed of run-off and reducing flood risk.

These points should be considered upon receipt of the planning application for the site.

Mike Carless Merton Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Officer 020 8545 4854

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Sustainability Appraisal | Adopted January 2007 17 SPD Supplementary Planning Document London Borough of Merton

Plans + Projects

London Borough of Merton Civic Centre London Road Morden Surrey SM4 5DX SPD Supplementary Planning Document London Borough of Merton

Appendix C Statement of Community Involvement

Nelson Hospital Adopted | January 2007 Statement of Community Involvement

Introduction

This statement has been prepared in compliance with The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004, for the preparation of Supplementary Planning Documents to the emerging Local Development Framework.

The Consultation Strategy for the Nelson Hospital SPD consisted of two phases; the first being an Issues and Options consultation, carried out prior to writing the brief. This was carried out at a public exhibition on 26th March 2006. The responses from this event were used to inform the content of the planning brief.

The formal public consultation on the draft brief was undertaken between 28th August and 6th October 2006. This consisted of the following:

A copy of the brief was made available for inspection at the Council offices between 28th August and 6th October 2006 (6 weeks)

Copies of the brief were made available for inspection at Morden Library, Wimbledon Library, Raynes Park Library and Merton Civic Centre between 28th August and 6th October 2006 (6 weeks)

In addition, display panels highlighting the key proposals for the brief were displayed in Merton Civic Centre, Wimbledon Library, Raynes Park Library and within the Nelson Hospital between 28th August and 6th October 2006 (6 weeks)

Downloadable PDF versions of the brief and display panels were placed on the Council’s website on 28th August 2006 with a deadline of 6th October (6 weeks) to make representation on the brief. The electronic documents have remained on the website for reference purposes.

A public exhibition of the proposals took place at the John Innes Society Coach House in Merton Park on 19th September 2006. The event was attended by approximately 60 people, representing local residents, businesses and the PCT.

Notice was placed in the Wimbledon Guardian on 24th August 2006 advertising the availability of the brief for public comment. A copy of the notice can be found at Annex 1 of this document.

Letters were issued to residents within 500m of the site (400 properties), informing them of the consultations. In addition, Merton Park Residents Association issued approximately 500 leaflets to advertise the consultation and public exhibition.

Letters and copies of the draft brief were posted out on 28th August to statutory consultees, local ward members, residents associations and the Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust

A table summarising respondents’ views on the brief and the Council’s response is attached overleaf. The Nelson Hospital | planning brief Consultation Strategy CollaborativePlanningProcess

Indicative timeframe: March 2006 August-October 2006 January 2007

Aspirations Public can Comment on ‘Front Loading’ Concerns Planning Application

Pre-Planning Involvement Issues

Feedback The Community

Urban Design & Architecture Revision of Brief The V Sustainability Teamwork Draft Cabinet Approval to adopt as Supplementary Planning Traffic Planning Document Brief V Health Becomes Material Consideration in Planning Decision Process The Experts Community Planning Planning Brief Adopted Planning application

Sutton & Merton PCT ‘Better Healthcare Closer to Home’ Formal Consultation on the Planning Brief Merton Council PCT and Developers submit plans Developers (PFI)

Local Politicians ‘Have your say’ Planning Event Stakeholders Summary of epRresentations Nelson Hospital | Draft Planning Brief | Formal Consultation 28th August – 6th October 2006

Reference Summary of Comments Officer’s Comments

SPD NH 1 1. I am I’m pleased to note the re-siting of the west bound bus stop, but am a little 1. In consultation with the Council’s Highways team, the proposals pose no greater concerned that the junction with Merton Hall Road could be even more difficult for threat than what currently exists on that stretch of Kingston Road. traffic leaving Merton Hall Road to negotiate – particularly turning right.

2. Could the east bound bus stop be moved closer to the crossing? 2. There may be plans in the future to relocate the crossing and will be considered as detailed plans are formed for the Nelson site.

3. I’m also concerned that traffic leaving the Rush will find their sight lines restricted by 3. Noted, However sight lines exiting onto Kingston Road are clearer than previously the bend in Kingston Road.

4. Will the planned parking bays have a time limit? 4. Any change in parking regime is decided by Highways and Parking. Currently, there are no proposals to change the parking limits.

5. What provision will there be for a drop-off zone for taxis and mini buses? 5. There are now revised drop off positions at the front of the hospital, accessed from the Rush with exit onto Kingston Road and the Hospital car park.

6. Is the pavement on the south side of Kingston Road along side the site to be widened? 6. Alongside the Rush, the pavement will be widened.

7. I hope the rapid response light change at the crossing remains. If only more such crossings could show such respect to pedestrians we would have fewer “jay walkers”. 7. Noted

SPD NH 2 In general we very much welcome the ideas put forward in the document, but raise the following points:

1. Please ensure that all local businesses are given a copy of this document [SPD] to 1. All businesses on the Rush were informed of the brief during consultation. comment upon

2. Please comment on how the Kingston Road and Richmond Avenue junction will be 2. There are no plans to install traffic lights in this location. There is already an entry- managed in terms of traffic flow, if one of the hospital entrances is to be situated at this exit to the car park in this location. The brief proposes moving the existing access point. Presumably traffic lights will be sited here to allow residents of Richmond Avenue slightly. In consultation with Highways, this was not deemed to be a problem. to vacate their road.

3. The suggested row of new trees to be planted along the Merton Park Parade side of 3. This has been revised and agreed. There are already substantial trees on the Rush the Rush will obscure the view of our business premises to passers-by, and hence that will be protected in the redevelopment. have a detrimental effect on our income. I for one, already suffer this partly, during the summer months, as a result of the two large trees that are currently on The Rush. Planting more will ruin this facet of our new trade. I bought the premises because of it's location, and it's value will be significantly reduced if more trees are planted, so I oppose this proposal vehemently.

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Statement of Community Involvement | Adopted January 2007 1 4. The council have only in recent years implemented parking restrictions around the 4. The Rush currently has capacity for 15 vehicles to park legally. Rush and along this region of Kingston Road. Generally it seems to work for residents, With the introduction of right angled parking, this figure remains. There is no loss of businesses and customers, but only just! By removing bays, people will have less available parking capacity. chance to park close to their homes/ businesses, and chaos will ensue. Please do not remove parking opportunities, but add to them to ease some of our current problems.

5. Please ensure that if parking meters are retained, they have the ability to accept money 5. Noted, and comments passed onto Parking Services. before the allotted restriction time starts. Currently it is not possible to buy a ticket This cannot be addressed through a planning brief. before 10am. If you have a 9.30 appointment, it is impossible to get to the meter and purchase a ticket half way through a treatment, hence you run the risk of a penalty notice, even if you have been willing to buy a ticket beforehand.

SPD NH 3 Inevitably, my comments focus on the changes I would like to see in the Brief, but I Noted would like to stress that in general the Brief seems to me to be an excellent basis for the consultation process, and clearly has taken into account the comments you have received earlier.

1. I am pleased that you have stated that the maximum height of the building will be 1. Para 4.7 does say that the building should be no higher than the current blocks. no higher than that of the current pavilion blocks, but the second bullet point in 4.7 However, paragraph has been rephrased to state both the ridgeline requirement and could state this requirement more clearly. maximum height of three storeys.

2. The current building steps down to a single storey at the rear, and I would be most 2. I agree that the proposals map and 3D modelling are in parts, inaccurate regarding unhappy if we were to be more overlooked than we are now, by a second storey. I the rear heights of the existing hospital. This has been corrected in the final draft. am asking you to be more specific and restrictive in your Requirements in 4.7 than you currently are, so that this section and your proposals map clearly mirror your I accept that parts of the existing hospital are single storey, however it is not feasible page 15 diagram to ensure that the rear of the building steps down to a single to limit future development to single storey. The previous planning application granted storey as now. for the Nelson has already set the precedent for a 2 storey building on the site. (With hipped roof, which is again, similar in height to the existing pavilions) Provided that the Council’s standards of daylight and privacy are applied, then two storeys to the rear of the building would be acceptable.

20m is an appropriate privacy distance between facing windows of habitable rooms. The distance between the proposed hospital building line and rear of residential properties on Manor Gardens is 23-25m, and is greater than the ‘front to front’ distance on Manor Gardens, 21m. Therefore residents of Manor Gardens are no more overlooked by development than they are at the front of the houses. The hospital would not overshadow gardens as properties backing onto the hospital are north facing, the gardens would be shaded by the residential properties, not the hospital building. With regard to protecting privacy in the gardens, it is proposed that the landscaped boundary of the site be retained and enhanced where needed.

3. Paragraphs 3.10 and 4.6 mention the desirability of retaining the Lodge, even if this 3. The Lodge does not feature in the Conservation Area Character Appraisal, and is not an absolute requirement. However, no mention of this is made in the publicly, there was mixed feelings over its scale and presence on Kingston Road, Requirements in 4.7. I believe this should be included in the first bullet point when compared to the other four blocks. Therefore the retention of the lodge is an there, along with the references to the retention of the 4 pavilion blocks, as your aspiration, not an absolute requirement, Therefore there is no mention of the Lodge in words in 4.6 indicate that it “should be retained”, which sounds more than just an 4.7 Requirements. aspiration as the heading to 4.6 might imply.

4. In the bullet point in 4.7 about car parking, and in section 9, there are no mention of 4. Agreed, any requirements for shielding the car park from Blakesley Walk and the end of Changes made to section 3.22 in the revised brief

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Statement of Community Involvement | Adopted January 2007 2 Manor Gardens. This shielding is currently provided by the buildings adjoining Blakesley Walk, which will be demolished under the development plan, a solid high fence and, at the end of Manor Gardens, a row of (pot-planted) trees. I would very much like to see in your document a requirement that there should be at the very least a solid fence or wall together with a landscaped buffer between the car park and Blakesley Walk.

5. It seems premature to say without any qualification in the 3rd bullet point in 4.7 that 5. The 3rd bullet on 4.7 does not refer to building on the current car park. It refers to a new landmark block should be constructed (on the western site, currently the car the building which should terminate views south from Merton Hall Road – adjacent to park), given no evidence of any need for this amount of additional space. Would it the Rush. be better to add the phrase “if required”? In the absence of any space requirements from the PCT, the brief has been written on the assumption of providing a maximum built volume for the site. It is of course conceivable that the PCT may not need all the space proposed in the brief. The intention of the brief is to set maximum parameters for the development.

6. The re-design of The Rush (bullet points 6 & 7 in 4.7, and 3.27 – 3.34) is attractive, but I am concerned about the practicability of the road plan.

Is the road wide enough for service vehicles and delivery lorries to pass each 6. The road is 6m wide, allowing two vehicles to pass, and for 90’ parking. other? If not, won’t traffic trying to enter the Rush back up onto Kingston Road and start to cause congestion there?

How will the double-parking which appears to be an endemic problem in the Rush Parking problems on the rush, aren’t down to hospital parking, or even public parking, be prevented? but rather local businesses taking up road space by parking illegally. This does need more enforcement, but cannot be done through a planning brief

Shouldn’t there be some provision on Kingston Road at the Rush hospital Considered in the Rush redesign entrance to enable cars/taxis etc to drop patients off and pick them up there? Otherwise, they are highly likely to continue to use the Rush for this purpose. Where in The Rush will cars/taxis etc be able to stop without causing hold-ups? And how will they turn round to get back out into Kingston Road?

As I’m sure you know, the residents of Watery Lane and Manor Gardens Noted and considered in the redesign of the Rush sometimes have considerable difficulty of access through the Rush in both directions, and I would hope that any change in road design would improve matters here rather than make them worse.

7. I presume the “public realm improvements” in the 5th bullet point of 4.7 include the 7. Yes this does include straightening of Blakesley Walk, which is expanded on in the straightening of Blakesley Walk between Kingston Road and Manor Gardens. It Blakesley Walk section of the brief. appears from your map that there will be a new section of Landscaped Buffer alongside the end house in Manor Gardens (no. 28). Shouldn’t this be identified Mapping updated to show ‘new landscaping’ as a new area rather than being included within the retained buffer as shown on your map? Will this land, which is currently public land as part of Blakesley Walk, Maintenance will be dealt with through s106 agreement, negotiated at a planning be transferred to become hospital land, and if so, on what terms? Will the application stage. tapering shape of this section be practicable to develop and maintain as a landscaped buffer?

8. I believe the houses in Manor Gardens and other roads to the South and West of 8. Noted. the site are a decade or so older than stated in 2.7. The original lease for our Dates used in 2.7 were estimated, based upon historic mapping which are often house dates from 1913. produced 10-15 years apart. 2.7 will be updated to reflect this.

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Statement of Community Involvement | Adopted January 2007 3 SPD NH 4 1. I like the idea of greening up the Rush 1. Noted

2. The site appears to be very limited in size. The row of houses between the Hospital 2. The site is constrained, but there is no indication of need, nor desire to purchase car park and Cannon Hill Lane are old and don’t appear to have any special merit. I adjacent properties. have heard people say that they shake when lorries pass, so it cant be much fun The planning brief does not propose any compulsory purchase. living there. Would it be possible buy them and incorporate with the hospital site?

SPD NH 5 1. We are very concerned about the trees at the bottom of our gardens as they 1. The underground car park is an option, not a necessity. The need will depend on preserve the tranquillity and general aspect of our community. Accidents can how many staff and patients the PCT propose to locate on the Nelson site. This happen and we have always been vigilant on this matter. The proposed car park information is not available from the PCT at this stage, but will be considered at a seems to be like a looming building horror scenario. Is an underground car park planning application stage. really necessary? Merton’s Tree Officer will be consulted on any plans which are likely to affect any TPOs.

SPD NH 6 1. Residents of Manor Road are very concerned that the trees at the bottom of the 1. Noted. existing car park ARE NOT TOUCHED. They provide and invaluable barrier and Most of the trees in the car park are protected by TPO, and the brief does not propose are the reason many of us choose the place to live. building up to the edge of the site. The existing landscaped buffer will remain.

2. We are also concerned about the noise involved in putting in a basement car park 2. As with any development, the Council’s code of practice for demolition and at the back of our properties – WE DON’T WANT YEARS OR MONTHS OF construction will apply. DISRUPTIVE NOISE.

SPD NH 7 Thank you for this presentation – please keep things going! Noted

SPD NH 8 1. It has been agreed in conjunction with Highways and Transport Planning that 1. Is the removal of the bus stop to The Rush wise? Consideration should be given to relocation of the bus stop has more benefit to bus users, particularly those travelling leaving it where it is, and providing an additional entrance to the Hospital just to the Hospital and Rutlish School. behind it. 2. The underground car park is an option. The need will depend on how many staff 2. "Potential for basement parking". Almost certainly (to judge from other recent local and patients the PCT propose to locate on the Nelson site. At the very least, our projects) basement parking will be needed, whatever NHS say now. They are, principal is that all the hospital’s parking needs must be met on site. This may be frankly, not too good on parking issues (note the absence of parking provision basement or deck parking, and will be dealt with at a detailed planning stage. when the Church Lane doctors' surgery was redeveloped some years ago). Plan for basement parking right from the start, and charge an economic price for parking there.

SPD NH 9 It's tight site for a large development but I approve of the retention of the Kingston Road Noted frontage buildings & wall and the enhancement of The Rush. I have concerns regarding the trees as follows:

Noted – but can be dealt with at pre-application advice stage 1. The TPO should be updated and the locations of the trees correctly located and a schedule of their sizes and canopy spread included (which Tree wardens could do this if Rose or Nick do not have the time or finance for it). Noted- but can be dealt with at pre-application advice stage 2. The brief should show the Root Protection Area of each tree worthy of retention as BS5837 Trees in Relation to Construction, to ensure the trees can be protected from future designers' ambitions for the site. (Otherwise the levels at which the

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Statement of Community Involvement | Adopted January 2007 4 existing trees are growing should be included in the Brief, which is difficult at such an early stage). 3. Basement parking would conflict with the retention of trees on the west part of the Noted – and the deck option has also been included in the brief. However much site. A multi-deck open topped car park to maximise car space might be a better depends on the PCT deciding option. 4. The 2no Tree of heavens on the Rush which are a great asset to the area are Noted – there is scope to retain the wall on Kingston Road, and remove the growing at a higher level, so the area cannot be flattened if they are to be retained. remainder to protect the roots, and still provide a more accessible space. This will be 5. And grass may not be the best surface material because of the heavy usage the considered at the detailed design stage in conjunction with Tree Officers. area will attract.

Noted Thank you for your direct method of response which makes residents / groups feel heard.

SPD NH 10 As residents of Manor Road we are concerned about the development of the Nelson Hospital

1. The Car Park is closed at present at night, which firstly protects our properties from 1. Noted, but an issue for the PCT on how they secure their site burglaries at the back. Generally the area is peaceful and quiet at night 2. There have been two occasions in the past 12 years where lighting has glared into 2. Noted our windows at night. In both occasions, the lights were redirected after complaint. 3. We are concerned about security and lighting which penetrates the tree canopy 3. Noted very easily, moreso in winter. 4. We are also concerned at noise levels at night. 4. Noted 5. I am concerned at damage to tree roots in the development of the underground car 5. Noted, deck parking option also added should basement parking prove difficult (but park. not impossible) on the site

SPD NH 11 1. Behind 20 Manor Gardens I think, there is a gap in the "Landscaped Buffer to be 1. It is intended that if there are any gaps in the landscape buffer, that they be filled in, retained". As it is drawn on the map it is continuous. Does that mean that it will be to protect privacy from the residential properties and the hospital continuous in the future, or is it just a drafting error and the buffer will be left alone and not filled in?

2. Obviously it would be better for us if this buffer were continuous so we were 2. Noted screened from the hospital.

SPD NH 12 1. First and foremost, I think this is an excellent document which has done a superb 1. Noted job of reconciling the various conflicting views and demands, and provides every possibility of lasting improvement to the locality, for the benefit of all.

2. Emphasis is placed on minimising negative impacts on Manor Gardens, The Rush, 2. Noted. Consideration is given to Watery Lane in the revised brief, in particular, the Kingston Road… but no mention of Watery Lane. I feel strongly that there should side service entrance to the hospital, and trees to the rear of the car park. be at least the same kind on requirement and consideration concerning the impact of the new building on watery Lane.

3. It has been generally recognised for many years that Watery Lane is totally 3. Service access from Watery Lane has been revised unsuitable for service vehicles. Whilst it is clearly desirable for the service entrance from The Rush to be limited in width, this does not necessitate the continued use of Watery Lane.

4. I feel strongly that the Watery Lane access to the hospital must be closed, and the 4. Noted, and considered for housing opportunity be taken to improve the area, as is taken for Blakesley Walk and The Rush. This should be by extending the holly hedges and tree planting to obscure the hospital buildings.

5. I support the proposal to widen Blakesley Walk but would like to see the line and 5. Noted. Floor treatments will be considered at the planning application stage.

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Statement of Community Involvement | Adopted January 2007 5 character of the original historic route maintained within the widened boundary, either by use of traditional hard and soft landscaping or modern design features.

6. I strongly support all aspects of the proposals for The Rush, but would like the 6. Noted. It is envisaged that the Rush be a place in its own right, rather than just design to create a strong distinction between the ‘historic’ Rush and entrance to the being the entrance to the hospital. hospital, rather than become a single entity. This could perhaps be achieved by Detailed designs at the planning application stage will deal with this, although the brief use of block paving, reminiscent of cobblestones, along the line of original lane. does give an indication as to how this might be achieved.

SPD NH 13 1. May I thank you for putting on and manning the open exhibition at the John Innes 1. Noted Society Coach House, which was very well attended and made the brief accessible to a large number of local people.

2. The reaction to the brief is generally favourable and I would like to thank you on 2. Noted behalf of the local community for all the work and care taken over its preparation.

3. The amenities and outlook of the residents in the new conservation area (Manor 3. Heights and separation distances have been revised, however it is not possible to Gardens) must be preserved. It is felt that the height and massing of the rear of the simply restrict the heights to singe storey at the rear. The brief’s proposals are within buildings could overlook and overshadow their homes and gardens, and further planning policy guidelines for securing standards of privacy and overlooking. reductions in height, massing and proximity are needed.

4. There is a worry that the design of The Rush, although attractive, will not allow 4. The Rush layout has been revised. The carriage way is 6m wide, allowing vehicles adequate vehicular access for the residents of Manor Gardens and Watery Lane. to pass, and for right angled car parking manoeuvring. The hospital will have an The main concern is that drivers cannot turn around in the Rush without access off the Rush, which could be used for a 3 point turn, or alternatively, drive obstructing Watery Lane, or having to turn at Manor Gardens. through the hospital’s drop off zone and back onto Kingston Road.

SPD NH 14 1. I am really encouraged by this planning brief, which seems to seek to retain the 1. Noted character of the area while building in possibilities for improvements.

2. I am a little concerned, though, that in the brief's requirements, section 4.7, the 2. Trees to the west of the site are protected by Tree Preservation Orders, therefore retention of trees and green border to the south of the site is mentioned to protect they’d be protected anyway. The TPO section of the brief makes this clear. the privacy of residents of Manor Gardens and Watery Lane but nothing is specified about retaining the trees on the west of the site to protect the privacy of residents of Cleveland Avenue. Is that because the Tree Protection Orders provide guarantee of the retention of the trees there?

SPD NH 15 1. My main concern is the height and design of any new building on what is currently 1. The building on the car park, is only an option, should the PCT need additional the car park. space. At the moment this information is unavailable. However, the brief sets out that in principle, a building in this location would be acceptable. In addition, the proposed scale and height is acceptable for the site.

2. The proposed entrance/exit for traffic into Kingston Road and particularly to let 2. There is already an exit from the car park onto Kingston Road , therefore the vehicles turn right onto Kingston Road is potentially hazardous and would hold up situation would be no different to what exists at the moment. traffic on an already very busy road.

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Statement of Community Involvement | Adopted January 2007 6 SPD NH 16 1. I am concerned at the excavation for an underground car park. The vibration 1. Noted. caused by digging would cause serious structural damage to the properties As part of a detailed planning application (should underground parking be proposed) surrounding the hospital site. the PCT’s architects will be expected to assess if there is any risk of damage.

SPD NH 17 Noted Although overall we support the draft planning brief for the Nelson Hospital, we are concerned about certain points, as outlined below:

The Rush

1. We support the proposal to have a pedestrian entrance at this location, and the 1. Noted relocation of the westward bus stop adjacent to The Rush. We do, however, have some serious misgivings about certain other proposals in this area.

2. We feel that there is a real risk that the proposed canopy at this entrance will be 2. Noted. The ‘canopy’ is only an indication of built form, demonstrating an entrance out of keeping with what is essentially a residential / small retailer area. It would be feature , curved façade and stepping back that will be expected from the building. unfortunate to end up with a structure more suited to a modern business or retail There is no intention to create a ‘business park’ frontage. park.

3. Although generally in favour of the proposed layout for The Rush with landscaping, 3. Any seating on the Rush is not intended to be exclusively for the Hospital users, planting and greater pedestrianised area, we would argue against providing but for everyone. The Rush will be overlooked by the shops and the hospital will outdoor seating. Seating is not necessary for people going to and from the hospital, provide an active frontage to the Rush, which should help discourage any antisocial and will almost certainly prove a focal point for loitering, littering and, in the summer behaviour. months, a drinking venue for customers of the pub opposite (with the road safety issues associated with drinkers crossing and re-crossing the Kingston Road).

4. The above factors could make it unpleasant for residents of Watery Lane and 4. Noted. As above, the increased natural surveillance of The Rush should actually Manor Gardens returning home on foot both in the daytime and in the evening. improve the perception of safety in the area – not make it worse.

5. A pleasant outdoor seating area / garden could be provided within the curtilage of 5. It is likely that this will be provided by the PCT, following guidelines in ‘Designed the hospital for the benefit of patients and those accompanying them. with Care’. Once again, the Rush is being redesigned for the public, not as an external space for the hospital. We are also opposed to the provision of any water features in The Rush; they will simply be a focal point for vandalism and other disruptive behaviour 6. Noted. However the brief only proposes a ‘focal point’ which may be in the form of a sculpture, artwork or water feature. This will be determined at a detailed planning application stage.

We believe it would be a mistake to provide a community facility / cafe adjacent to 7. There is a commitment by the PCT and the Council to promote and support local this entrance. These can so easily become scruffy, neglected, desolate areas, groups who are interested in taking up space in the Nelson. This may be in the form which are of little use in cooler weather. Such an amenity would be better sited of meeting rooms, activity rooms, communal space, perhaps even a café. This will be within the hospital. integral to the Nelson building and not an external community facility, as your comment would indicate. Blakesle y Wal k

8. Noted. The examples are in urban settings, but are only meant to demonstrate that We are opposed to a footbridge across this right-of-way. We do not believe it is imaginative design solutions exist. possible to design a structure which will blend in with a residential area. The The idea of a bridging structure was broadly supported at the March 2006 examples provided do not advance the argument for a bridge - both are in city consultation. It is only an option, should the PCT feel the need to a) build on the car centre environments where the aesthetic considerations are very different. park and b) need to link the buildings. The design and impact of any structure will be considered closely at the detailed planning application stage, however the principal of a bridge is generally supported.

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Statement of Community Involvement | Adopted January 2007 7 9. The scale of the development is not yet known. This work is still in preparation by the PCT. The brief only sets out the maximum scale. It is conceivable that the hospital In the light of the scale of this development, we would urge you to specify a may not be as large as the brief sets out. However, maximum limits must be set. pedestrian subway to link the hospital facilities at this point. A pedestrian subway would be more cumbersome than a bridging structure. However the final design choices will be up to the PCT at the detailed planning stage.

SPD NH 18 1. We have looked at the document with interest. It is good to see that you have used 1. Noted the recent CABE work 'Designed with Care'.

2. We have no further comments to make on the Brief but please could you let us 2. Noted know when the brief is finally approved.

SPD NH 19 The recent planning consultation meetings and draft documentations 1. Noted around constructions/re-development specific to the Nelson Hospital site & immediate surrounding areas; including planning briefs/meetings have been really well organised, and great thought has gone into the output documentations & findings. Great effort and resource has been put behind the process so and a local & immediate resident - thank you.

As invited below is my feed back, not in any priority ranking:

1. General Highway/Roadway access to the area around Nelson Hospital - there is already a problem with parking/transport/residential/business to The Rush, Watery 1. Noted, and reconsidered throughout the brief, particularly regarding the Rush, Lane, Manor Gardens - the access and parking is generally not addressed in the brief basement/deck car parking and drop off provision.

x I question the traffic flow by changing the layout of the road around The Rush, Watery Lane road is large enough for one car. By changing this layout traffic flow The Proposed layout for the Rush is adequate for two cars to pass and to allow for will be forced down Watery Lane and Manor Gardens both of which are dead ends parking. Vehicles can also enter the hospital site and turn around via the drop off quite possibly creating bottle necks with delivery vans and general traffic. point x There are not enough car parking spaces in this area already - the proposed new layout of The Rush seems to reduce the amount of parking, rather than create more. The Rush currently has capacity for 15 vehicles to park legally. x Suggest more consideration and planning advise around transportation, parking, With the introduction of right angled parking, this figure remains. There is no loss of access - within the catchment area - all aspects - residential, visitors, emergency, available parking capacity. general patients, professional staff and general working support - not just immediate to Nelson Hospital - but include the surrounding areas, which include Noted, but much of what is suggested could only be considered at the detailed Watery Lane, Manor Road, Cannon Hill Lane, Quinton Ave, Merton Hall Road, and planning stage when the traffic impact of the development can be properly assessed. even as far away as Church Lane/Wilton Ave and further. Not everyone visiting the hospital will be using public transport. x The current situation is that many visitors and staff that frequent Nelson Hospital use Watery Lane and Manor Gardens as a car park, and the planning document The brief does stress that the PCTs parking requirements must be met on site, in did not address parking solutions in these areas. future. The level of which cannot be determined until the detailed planning stage, x What will the site actually house? What are the NHS Trusts plans for this site? where the size of building and expected number of patients and staff will be known. Depending upon what the site will house will obviously depend what the support Therefore the option of basement or deck parking could be a solution elements will be - a hospital can be a 24 hour operation, and as such, there needs This is up to the PCT, not the Council. As I understand at present, the hospital is not to be further considered for local residents and immediate area residents - and envisaged to be open 24hr a day. The PCT will solicit further input from local residents towards the detailed planning stage. The planning brief only deals with the building, not the services within it.

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Statement of Community Involvement | Adopted January 2007 8 once this is known, further input should be solicited.

3. Noted. It is proposed that service access is now from the Rush, no longer using 3. The current access for deliveries is from Watery Lane - often times van's and Watery Lane. lorries have difficulty manoeuvring entry and exit, and have damaged bollards, Access from anywhere else would mean up to 20 houses having a service vehicles or use a resident's driveway. There have been jams and blocks in the traffic with pass their gardens. The Rush option minimises this impact to just one dwelling, which deliveries to Rutlish School, often conflicting with deliveries to the hospital. This is a currently has a service access adjacent anyway. huge concern with the change in flow presented for The Rush. A suggestion is to change the access for deliveries to another area of the building and not from The Rush/Watery Lane.

4. HIGHWAYS: 4. As part of the planning document, has anyone done any actual research on traffic Traffic flow of the development can only be assessed when detailed planning flow on an average daily basis to see what it is currently like - and considered what it proposals come forward. EG, number of staff and patients envisaged to come to the might be like? hospital. This information is not available at present. 5. The view from the back of the hospital - ie: houses on Watery Lane that either back 5. The closure of the Watery Lane service access will improve the outlook on Watery onto, or face the rear side of the hospital building - nothing on this is included in the Lane, with either hedge planting or the option of providing new housing to ‘stitch plans, although a great deal of thought has been put into the plans for homes in together’ Watery Lane and the Rush. Manor Gardens/Blakesley Walk. These should also be included into the plans as Trees to the rear of Manor Gardens will be retained and improved to protect the Watery Lane is very much an old village lane. Any plans should ensure this side is privacy of residents gardens. in keeping with the lane - addition of planted hedging, new fencing. Currently there are mature trees on the hospital grounds protecting the privacy of the houses on Manor Gardens and Watery Lane and it would be idea to ensure these or whatever changes protect the views/privacy from the back of the adjoining houses. 6. Noted. Security of the site will largely be up to the PCT, but will be considered at 6. Last point is security - pending the hospital's main activity - with more people using the detailed planning stage. the facility from further afield, there may be a need for consideration to general safety and security of the residents in the immediate area. The infrastructure may need an aspect in the planning of more secure fencing and secure access around the building, easier access to the main parts of the building, etc.

Thanks for the hard work you and your team have done on the planning documentation and Noted hope the input and comments above are useful to you in this process.

SPD NH 20 1. Watery Lane/ The Rush

I feel that there is insufficient facility for the amount of traffic likely to use this area. Since an 1. The Rush has been redesigned to allow for a drop off zone and adequate space for entrance to the hospital is planned for this corner of the new hospital, there will inevitably be cars to pass in two directions. cars dropping people off in this area. Also, the planned closure of the section of The Rush Exit to Kingston Road should be no more difficult than the current situation. which is currently a one-way exit from Watery Lane will make it much more difficult for traffic (particularly residential) to exit onto the Kingston Road. Currently it is frequently only Service access will no longer be in a ‘loop form’ around 10 The Rush. With a change possible to exit the Rush when the pedestrian traffic lights change and the traffic stops. in surfacing materials (rather than signsage), it should be clear where vehicles can However, traffic on Kingston Road is approaching the area of Merton Parade from round a go. corner and at speed, so it would be dangerous and difficult to try to enter Kingston Road from Merton Parade. From the map provided it is also unclear whether the service road will be marked as such - it would seem there is a danger that people will use this as a 'mini- roundabout' which must be discouraged. I suggest that bollards which can be raised and lowered by authorised vehicles should be considered.

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Statement of Community Involvement | Adopted January 2007 9 2. Boundary Wall 2. The pavement at Kingston Road is narrow, particularly due to the current bus stop. I believe that the opportunity to widen the pavement on Kingston Road and perhaps provide a Relocating the bus stop to the Rush will address this. Also, The Rush option provides bus pull-in in the vicinity of the current bus stop far exceeds the benefit from retaining the a pull in space. boundary wall and therefore propose that the boundary wall is not retained and that a bus Behind the wall, will be a drop off zone for the hospital, but should be more pedestrian pull-in space is created. friendly, providing more options for pedestrians on Kingston Road.

3. Height of building 3. The brief proposes a greater separation than what currently exists. Generally the I welcome the requirement that the height of the building must be limited by the ridgeline of separation has increased from 20 to 23-25m at the rear of the site. the present pavilion blocks, and that the building must be stepped down at the back. I do not think the building should at any point exceed the distance from the rear boundary than the Windows will be dealt with at a detailed application stage, in line with the council’s current building. I also feel that, to maintain the privacy of the houses in Manor Gardens, any privacy standards. However the landscaped buffer will also help alleviate the issue. windows facing to the rear of the building should be obscured glass.

4. Blakesley Walk 4. Noted A boundary wall not fence should be built along Blakesley Walk, preferably with non-graffiti surface.

5 Car Parking I suggest that basement parking should be provided in addition to the proposed ground level 5. It is envisaged that if basement parking is provided, that there would also be parking around the main entrance, with disabled spaces close to a lift up into the reception surface parking above. Alternatively, deck parking may be an option – but will be dealt area of the building. with at a detailed planning stage.

6 Green Roof 6. Noted I think there is an opportunity for a green roof on the stepped down part of the building, which would be pleasant to look at and environmental. 7. The linear nature of the site does pose problems for the hospital building re. 7. Main entrance for the hospital Entrances. Entrance arrangements can be dealt with at the detailed planning stage. Because there is a new block planned on the Rush, this looks like a main entrance to the As long as there is an active edge to the Rush, the entrance could be on Kinston hospital. I think it is important that this is not made the main entrance and feel that it should Road, new block. be modified so as not to look like the main entrance. The Rush and Merton Parade are insufficient for an increase in pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The Main Entrance should be enhanced to look like a main entrance!

SPD NH 21 1. Thank you for giving the PCT the opportunity to respond to the Draft Planning Brief. 1. Noted – with the exception of retaining the pavilion blocks, the rest of the site is On a general point, the PCT would wish there to be sufficient flexibility in the available for development. The brief offers as much flexibility as Merton’s planning planning brief to allow the potential to develop an appropriate and sustainable policies will allow for the site, given its location and constraints. health facility on the site, serving the local population of West Merton.

2. The design, and size of buildings needs to be flexible, in order to respond to the 2. The design of the buildings will be up to the PCT, the brief sets out the extent of changes in medical technology and practice, and changes in the needs of the land which is available for construction. It doesn’t assume that the whole site should population. We would seek, therefore, for maximum flexibility in the Planning Brief, be filled, but offers this opportunity, perhaps as a phased development. to allow the designers of any healthcare facility to create options for buildings, which will be a valuable community asset for the next 30 years plus.

3. The funding of the NHS, and the revenue resources available to the Sutton and 3. Noted. It is hoped that by focussing on purely built form issues that the PCT will Merton PCT are a factor, with judgements made about the level of investment in have a clear steer regarding the built form capacity and design expectations of the competing priorities, such as acute hospital care, mental health, local care and site. primary care. The direction of travel is to provide as much care in primary care and local care settings, which is the current PCT proposed use for the Nelson site. However, work is still being undertaken on the appraisal of options, and their

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Statement of Community Involvement | Adopted January 2007 10 affordability, for the healthcare facilities needed.

4. The Planning Brief indication that the pavilions blocks should be retained appears 4. The blocks are retained as a response to the Conservation Area Character to be restrictive, their scale and mass would limit any development. They would Appraisal, and was generally supported by the public. It is intended that the blocks will force the retention of the existing building line and sit within a difficult site within a set the tone for the scale of the rest of the development. It has also been accepted limited number of floors. The PCT would suggest that the brief should be that the blocks also contribute to the heritage of the local area, and the decision to something like “the council will promote the retention of the 4 pavilion blocks, but retain them is not purely based on aesthetics. this will not be an absolute requirement of the development. Should the blocks not be retained then a new build should be sympathetic to other buildings in the Kingston Road frontage, and the size and nature of the current pavilion blocks should provide a context for the scale, height and massing of the hospital frontage and the rest of the development.

5. The PCT welcomes the brief that the retention of the Lodge need not be an 5. Noted absolute requirement of the development.

6. The PCT agrees that due consideration should be given to the retention of War 6. Noted memorial plaques, and that there should be a way of incorporating them into the design of the site to provide visible connections to the community the healthcare facility serves, and to the history of the site.

7. With reference to the hospital’s car parking requirements it is noted that they need 7. Noted – options have been expanded to allow for either basement, deck or surface to be met entirely within the site. The PCT would not wish for the preference for a parking. Details of which can be discussed at the detailed planning stage. basement car parking, to be made a requirement, but for options to be considered by health planners and discussed with the Planning Authority.

8. The PCT notes the preservation order on the trees, but also notes this may limit 8. Noted – again, a matter for detailed design flexibility on car park design.

9. The PCT agrees that careful thought needs to be given to the design of the Rush, 9. Noted pedestrian and vehicular access (particularly for service vehicles). The concept of improving this area is welcomed.

10. The PCT is concerned about the aspiration that the end of the building should be a 10. The term landmark is used to describe how the building will terminate the view “landmark”. This appears to be over restrictive. The total size of the healthcare south from Merton Hall Road, much like how the current pavilion blocks do for Quintin facility has yet to be determined, and design considerations will need to be given to and Richmond Avenues. an effective healthcare facility with easy internal access for the frail and elderly. The linear nature of the site does present problems for circulation within the hospital. Should the building volume be less than the full site, a design concept often There is scope for further exploration at the detailed design stage. The introduction of favoured by modern healthcare facilities is easy access from an entrance to a the drop off zone on Kingston Road will offer more flexibility re. Entrances. waiting area, and then all main facilities at a short distance from the waiting area. A long, linear building may not be ideal in these circumstances. The Planning Brief should allow flexibility for hospital designers to work with the Planning Authority on these issues, rather than have any absolute statements about the design of the building.

11. The current draft brief has implications for the whole frontage, and assumes the 11. This is true regarding the pavilion blocks, however the area to the west (car park) size of the facility will require this. is presented as an option for development if needed. In the absence of any size requirements on the site, the brief attempts to present a maximum limit. Any volume less than what the brief proposes would be acceptable.

SPD NH 22 1. Congratulations on the very clear, interesting draft. 1. Noted

2. The original central block upper floor extension in the 1940s – is it intended to add 2.Unknown at this stage, but will be considered at the detailed planning stage in glazing bars to the central windows on the ground and first floor? consultation with conservation officers.

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Statement of Community Involvement | Adopted January 2007 11 3. The lodge, because of its smaller scale adds variety to the façade and acts as a 3. Noted. The Lodge does provide some character to the site, but isn’t specifically punctuation point to the other four blocks. When viewed from the west, it provides mentioned as providing a ‘positive contribution’ to the conservation area. Therefore an interesting build up of the roofscape and the tile hung bay relates well, in scale the Council cannot demand its retention. However it is supported as an aspiration. In to the pedestrian. I sincerely hope the Lodge will be retained. addition, there is no reason why a contemporary replacement cannot provide the ‘stepping up’ qualities that the Lodge demonstrates. A contemporary replacement could provide another ‘bookend’ to the original blocks.

4. Extending the public ream up to the hospital building creates issues of ownership 4. Boundary Wall, I feel there is a real opportunity to improve the area by removing and maintenance. Also, there is a need for patient drop off facilities in this location. the wall to create a wide pedestrian boulevard, with paving up to the building, with Relocation of the bus stop to the Rush should alleviate overcrowding on the Kingston trees and occasional bench seats. This would create a more visible and accessible Road pavement. The wall is only retained in front of the existing blocks, therefore link between the buildings and the public realm. generally there is more space for pedestrians than at present.

5. A bridging structure, if fully glazed would also provide surveillance to Blakesley 5. Noted Walk.

6. The Rush. There is concern that the Rush will become an overspill area for the 6. Noted. Also, increased natural surveillance from the Hospital building could pub, however relocation of the bus stop might prevent this. alleviate the issue.

7. Much will depend on the style of the new hospital building and how it relates to the 7. Agree, this is the intention, and will be judged at a detailed planning application existing curved parade of shops. I hope some informality can be retained in the re- stage. design of the Rush.

8. I like the transparency between the original blocks along Kingston Road. Will this 8. Agree. This is the intention, to create visual interest between old and new. The be shown on the large plan at the end of the brief? brief has been amended where necessary.

Nelson Hospital Planning Brief | Statement of Community Involvement | Adopted January 2007 12 Annexe 1: Press Notice SPD Supplementary Planning Document London Borough of Merton

Plans + Projects

London Borough of Merton Civic Centre London Road Morden Surrey SM4 5DX