Agenda item

Demolition of the existing buildings and erection of a new 78no. bedroom mental health inpatient facility with associated landscaping and cycle parking

(Planning application number: P2020/0761/LBC)

The Chair informed the meeting that both items B2 and B3 will be considered together however recommendations of the different applications will be voted on separately.

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer informed the meeting that the site is located within the existing Whittington Hospital campus and bound by Dartmouth Park Hill to the west, Holbrook Close to the north and the wider Whittington Hospital campus to the south and east. Highgate Conservation Area was located to the west and the listed Jenner Building was located immediately to the south.

·         Members were provided with two updates since the agenda was published. With regards to Appendix 2 of Item B3 (Page 306), that the existing plans and demolition plans should be added into Condition 2. Also meeting was informed that paragraph 9.99 should be amended to read 5No wheelchair accessible parking bays. 

·         With regard to land use consideration, Members were advised that the application proposes a social infrastructure use in the form of a 78 bed mental health inpatient facility which was consistent with London Plan and Islington’s Local Plan policies.

·         The Planning Officer acknowledged the demolition of the Whittington Education Centre which is curtilage listed, being within the curtilage of the listed Jenner Building and that this had been taken into consideration during the assessment of the proposal.

·         The Planning Officer informed members that the proposed height, bulk and massing are considered appropriate for the site and that the scheme successfully addresses the significant change of levels across the site.

·         The Planning Officer explained that the building covered a large footprint but had been set in from the sides to protect the existing green edge to the north and to leave sufficient space for a new landscaping along the street frontage. The application was also accompanied by a well-developed landscape strategy improving the public realm, routes through the site, semi-public areas & creating small gardens and terraces for staff & residents.

·         The Council’s Design & Conservation Officer commended the scheme’s design and explained how the proposed building had been designed to be sympathetic to the surroundings and sensitive to surrounding heritage assets. Members were advised that the design of the scheme was conscious and respectful of its sensitive heritage setting which has been ably addressed in the height and massing arrangement on the site, the building’s configuration including the echo of the Jenner’s E shaped footprint and form, and the use and selection of appropriately traditional materials.

·         Members were advised that although the loss of the WEC building would have some impact on the setting of the Jenner building, given the extent of the many alterations and extensions, the legibility of the historic relationship between the WEC and the Jenner building has been substantially compromised and thus its loss was not considered to result in a significant harm to the setting of the Jenner building.

·         Members were reminded that the loss has been carefully and fully considered inaccordance with legislation, in particular Section 66 of the relevant Act andofficers were of the view that the harm would be less than substantial andin this case public benefits associated with the overarching development, notleast the importance of the proposed health services and the high quality designof the buildings being proposed, which are designed to be sympathetic to thecharacter and appearance of the listed Jenner Building are compelling wouldoutweigh the harm.  Members were advised that on balance, the loss of the WECis considered to be offset by the significant benefits of the overall proposal.

·         The D&C Officer informed the meeting that the scheme would facilitate and improve the key east/west pedestrian movement route across the whole of thehospital site, from Dartmouth Park Hill to the west to Highgate Hill to the east.

·         With regards to daylight and sunlight loss, the meeting was advised that a Daylight & Sunlight Report was submitted with the application, acknowledging that with regards to 1-5 Holbrook Close, good levels of sunlight would be retained for these neighbouring residential properties following the proposed development. The losses of sunlight and retained sunlight levels would meet the criteria of the BRE guidelines.

·         The Planning Officer advised that the residents from Holbrook Close had objected on grounds of loss of views and outlook and that the proposal would reduce some of the views of the London skyline from the top floor of these properties, partly because of the location of the proposed 4th floor and plant room. However, there was an operational rationale for locating the top floor here as described in the report, as well as a design and heritage logic. The loss of view, which is generally not considered to be a material planning consideration, would not outweigh the significant planning benefits of the proposed design and layout.

·         In response to overlooking and privacy concerns, members were advised thatthe northern and western edges of the site will be characterised by densegreen wedges and mature trees which will provide an attractive setting as aneffective green screen separating the hospital from the primary school andresidential terrace to the north and the resident streets off Dartmouth Park Hill and that a condition would require further detail on privacy screens and obscured glazing.

·         In terms of loss of trees, the application would result in the loss of a number of trees on the site’s western boundary. The majority of the trees are Category C or U and the proposal does include a detailed landscape strategy with tree replacement resulting in an overall increase in tree canopy cover on site.

·         Members were advised that objections had been raised to the quality of design and the quality of accommodation proposed but that the proposal had gone through a rigorous process involving several Design Review Panel sessions and was considered to result in a high quality contextual building providing well-considered quality accommodation and health services as detailed in the report.

·         A neighbouring resident informed members that although he was not against the proposal in principle he was concerned that the plans being altered after 18 months of discussion with the applicant. Overlooking concerns as a result of the proposed height of the building was raised especially as this would give rise to unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupiers. The objector was also concerned that some of the objections had been misrepresented in the report and had not been fullyaddressed and requested for item to be deferred to address residents concerns.

·         The agent informed the meeting that the architecture as proposed was quiet yeturbane and presented a proportionately acceptable mass and height to this edge that read as a 2 – 4 storey building. On the quality of accommodation it was noted that the proposed facility would be suitable for the intended occupiers in terms of the standard of facilities provided and the level of independence required.

·         Members were advised that the proposed facility would also be accessible to public transport, shops, services and community facilities appropriate to the needs of the intended occupiers. The top floor element was needed to be located at the south-western section of the building as there was a need for medical and administration offices away from the wards that could be accessed without crossing the secure line into the service user access areas.  This needed to be accessed and controlled via the main reception point. So the offices to the southern elevation to the ground, first and fourth floors would need to be stacked vertically for ease of access and interaction. The location of the top storey office element was a result of the design rationale and the functional need to provide the correct clinical and non-clinical pathways.

·         Members welcomed the scheme, noting their concern about taking a decision withoutthe benefit of an overarching masterplan for the broader hospital site. Membersnoted that the designs have been crafted in a suitably respectful manner thatensured that any future redevelopment would not be adversely impacted on.

·         Members also noted that the scheme had established a suitably high design benchmark for future developments on the Whittington Hospital campus.

·         Members acknowledged the residents’ objections but felt that their main point of contention was the loss of outlook and views, which was not considered to be sufficiently harmful given the overall benefits derived from the scheme.

·         Members agreed that the proposed development would contribute positively to the surrounding public realm, streetscape and wider context and would result in improved public health services.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to grant Listed Building Consent . This was seconded by Councillor Convery and carried.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.