The order of business on the agenda was changed at the meeting. This application was heard first.

 

Update Report noted.

 

Paul Buckenham introduced the application to grant planning permission for demolition of all existing building and structures on site (excluding main hospital building, South Wing and Sanitation Tower) and to redevelop the site to provide residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and flexible commercial and community floorspace (Use Class E(b) / F2(b)) within a converted and extended hospital building and five new buildings ranging from five (5) to nine (9) storeys, with associated works to built heritage, selected removal of TPO trees, plus new tree planting and landscaping works including new shelter surrounding Mulberry Tree (T82), the provision of disabled car parking spaces, cycle parking, refuse storage, mechanical plant and other works incidental to the development, and a Transport for London bus driver facility. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

 

and

 

Listed Building Consent for works to the main hospital building and Sanitary Tower including, demolition of extensions to the rear of the main building, construction of extension across the rear of main building, retention and repair of the front of the main roof, including repairing (or replacing in replica where repair is not feasible) the existing chimneys and roof lanterns, the introduction of new roof dormers, alterations to the building including the removal and replacement of windows, various internal alterations, and associated works of repair across the main  building; works to the South Wing including the retention and repair of the roof, a comprehensive repair of both roof slopes at the gable end, the removal of the external fire stair from the gable elevation, and various internal alterations, and associated works of repair across the South Wing; the demolition of all other buildings on site; repair and reinstatement of the gas lamp; and works to boundary features.

 

Nicholas Jehan, provided a presentation to accompany the application, which highlighted  the proposal’s, design features, site and surroundings. This included the Grade II listed church and Vicarage, as well as Bonner Gate Piers the tree preservation order. The Committee were informed of the consultation process and 176 objections to the proposal, primarily related to  the height of building E and the impact the new buildings will have on heritage, the conservation area, daylight / sunlight to neighbouring residents.

 

Other objections received related to the loss of trees, affordable housing provision and lack of commercial space within the proposed scheme. Mr Jehan provided planning history of the site and  noted that an initial application was submitted in 2018 and granted in 2020. This was challenged in the High Court due to the proposal requesting the removal and replacement of a veteran Mulberry tree. The new proposal will remove 20 trees and 51 new ones will be planted, with the veteran Mulberry tree protected by a barrier to ensure its survival.

 

The new proposal encompasses 274 new homes, with 50% of those will be affordable by habitable room, and 72% of those affordable homes will be social rent homes, resulting in 76 homes. The scheme will also include the refurbishment and extension of the listed building, and the retention of the South Wing of the former hospital and five new blocks built on the site. The Committee were informed that the commercial unit at ground floor will be used as both a commercial and community based cafe secured by a section 106 agreement.

 

The Chair invited Shamsia Begum, Chair of Parkview Resident Association, to speak in objection to the application. Ms Begum highlighted the following concerns:

 

·       Not all residents were informed of the proposal.

 

·       170 objections and six supporting comments were submitted as residents were unable to navigate the planning system to voice objections at the consultation stage.

 

·       The Committee should defer the application so that amendments to the proposals can be made.

 

·       The proposed height of Block E at nine stories, would negatively affect nearby residents' daylight/sunlight.

 

The Chair next invited Dipti Ahir, a resident, to speak in objection to the application. Ms Ahir highlighted the following concerns:

 

·       Although the community is approving of redevelopment, the proposed height of Block E is too tall and will negatively affect the area's heritage and character.

 

·       The proposed plant room on Block E's roof increases the height to almost 10 stories and should be reduced.

 

·       A neighbouring block submitted an application to increase to eight stories high, which was refused as it was considered too tall and did not adhere to the local plan.

 

·       Right of Light Consulting Ltd conducted an independent report, which identified 49 neighbouring households would be negatively affected by the proposed Block E.

 

·       Historic England have stated that the scale and massing of the new buildings would undermine the visual primacy of the hospital causing harm to, amongst other things, key components of this conservation area.

 

The Chair then invited Matthew Prudence, Senior Development Manager, Latimer by Clarion Housing Group, to speak in favour of the application. Mr Prudence highlighted the following benefits:

 

·       Any profit from the development is redirected to providing more affordable housing.

 

·       The proposed scheme will create 274 high quality homes, to meet the growing demand for housing across the borough and improves on the previous scheme, which now proposes four bedroomed family homes.

 

·       The scheme saves the Grade 2 listed hospital building south wing and Sanitation tower from further deterioration preserving an important local historical landmark, including the veteran Mulberry Tree in its current location.

 

·       The proposal will create approximately 3000 square metres of open spaces, providing two public routes across the site, which will facilitate community access.

 

Further to the presentation, the Committee asked questions to the Officers and objectors regarding the following issues;

 

·       Confirmed that consultation letters were sent to residents of Parkview Estate,Saint James Avenue, Bonner Road and Approach Road. The applicant also conducted their own pre-application consultation, which included issuing flyers, around 8000 letters, and engagement with residents and councillors. Site notices  on each corner of the site were also erected, as well as a press notice. All details are included in the Community involvement statement.

 

·       Objectors stated that if Block E was reduced by two floors, it would be more in keeping with the rest of the buildings in the vicinity and would not negatively impact the conservation area.

 

·       Officers stated that the ground floor of Block E is situated below road level and the plant room at the top of the building is placed back at the corners, to further reduce the height of the building.

 

·       Confirmed that the Sotheby Court application to increase its height was refused, as it only provided 9 additional homes, none of which were affordable housing. Sotheby Court and Block E are not comparable buildings.

 

·       Acknowledged that somesingle aspect units on the proposed site do have lower light levels and ventilation which fall below  BRE guidelines. However, mitigation has been secured by inserting new or additional windows to those properties. Mechanical ventilation will be implemented in all units to reduce overheating, as part of the sustainability plan and has been considered acceptable.

 

·       Clarified that there will be no difference in the quality of architecture between social-housed units and privately-owned ones. All buildings will have the same red brick as the main hospital building. The social tenants building will be located next to the child play space and both residents and the community will have access to the same open spaced areas, including the veteran Mulberry tree.

 

·       Confirmed that Block E is located away from the neighbouring blocks to prevent privacy issues occurring and are in line with separation distance guidelines above 18 meters.

 

·       Noted that the daylight/sunlight study conducted is the accepted form of analysis and has been considered acceptable for this scheme. The minor adverse daylight/sunlight impacts noted do not relate to neighbouring properties, but to properties near Block E within the scheme.

 

·       Clarified that the social rent levels proposed, are set by central government agencies and are cheaper than most London affordable rent levels. These rent levels are based on local rental levels and local income.

 

·       Confirmed that the previous applicant was a subsidiary company of Clarion Housing.  Members were informed that details of the applicant cannot be considered a material consideration of the application.

 

·       Explained the route that both refuse collection and emergency services will use to enter the site, via Bonner Road.

 

·       Noted that the London Fire Brigade’s update responses related to building regulations and not planning concerns. Members were informed that evacuation lifts to all floors will be included in the scheme,  there will be wheelchair accessible housing and full access for emergency services throughout the site, within 18 metres of each front doors.

 

·       Explained that there will be a concierge level service for private residents in order to keep the cost of service charge low for social rent tenants. Members were informed that details of the service charge cannot be considered a material consideration of the application.

 

Upon a unanimous vote on both applications the Committee RESOLVED;

 

1.    That planning permission with conditions and obligations and listed building consent with conditions at the former London Chest Hospital, Bonner Road, London, E2 9JX be GRANTED, subject to any future direction by the Mayor of London..