Agenda item

Change of use of existing staff hostel (sui generis) to temporary accommodation for Maltese residents receiving medical treatment in the UK and their families (sui generis), alongside provision of single storey roof extension, external and internal alterations; and associated new plant, parking, landscaping and related works

(Planning application number: P2024/0239/FUL)

Cllr Craig declared a personal interest with this item and did not participate in the deliberations or decision making.

In the discussion the following points were made:

·The site is located on the south-eastern side of Margery Street and is bounded by Wilmington Street to the east, Yardley Street to the west and the rear gardens of residential properties on Wilmington Square to the south.  The Site contains a three-storey building with a basement car park accessed from Yardley Street

·Meeting was advised that application seeks permission for the change of use of vacant staff hostel (sui generis) for temporary accommodation for maltese residents receiving medical treatment in the UK and their families (sui generis).

·It was stated that the change of use previously approved through planning permission ref: P2021/3255/FUL, dated 12/05/2022 is still extant although yet to be implemented and is a material consideration.

·Loss of existing hostel use is considered acceptable.

·Proposed use does not meet need identified within development plan but results in merits which are not expressly recognised in planning policy terms in that it meets a need on a larger than local level and on an international level which is beneficial in planning terms.

·Meeting was reminded that the bi-lateral agreement between the UK and Maltese Governments for patients to receive NHS care in the UK is a material consideration.

·In addition, Planning Officer stated that evidence submitted by applicant and letter of support from Great Ormond Street Hospital suggests the proposed units would be fully occupied almost immediately.

·Meeting was advised that officers have recommended that an obligation be included within the legal agreement which would restrict occupation of the proposed development solely to those eligible persons connected with the Puttinu Cares Charity.

·Key planning considerations include land use, design and appearance, neighbouring amenity, transport and highways, energy and sustainability and planning balance.

·With regards land use, Planning officer advised that the unique circumstances of the proposed sui generis use as temporary living accommodation solely for use by Puttinu Cares secured through a legal agreement ensures that, despite not providing accommodation that meets a need identified in the development plan, the proposal would not raise a conflict with the aims of local policy that could act as an undesirable precedent elsewhere in the borough. It is, therefore, considered that the proposed change of use continues to be acceptable.

·Meeting was advised that a number of elevational alterations are proposed to the existing building, including the removal of the visually hostile steps and brick wall at the southern edge of the pavement, a softening of the perimeter with landscaping behind new back edge of pavement railings, new windows, rear elevational extensions, and a roof extension.

·Along Margery Street, the existing building has a brick wall perimeter which results in the building having a hard street presence and the applicant proposes to remove these walls, replacing them with railings more typical of the surrounding townscape.

·Planning Officer also stated that with regards to the southern end of the Margery Street elevation, the existing building has a poor-quality stair and ramp which acts as a secondary means of escape which is considered as adding to the level of visual clutter and detracts from the quality of the surrounding townscape. The applicant proposes to remove this structure, replacing it with a ramp which rises from basement level to the ground level at the southern end of the site. This is welcomed as it considered that the proposed replacement would be more discreet than the current arrangement and would, therefore, enhance the building’s relationship with the street.

·The existing building’s fenestration facing Margery Street is overtly horizontal in emphasis with UPVC window units. The applicant proposes to revise the fenestration strategy, reordering of the windows to provide more generous and architecturally improved treatments with an expressed masonry surround and vertical ventilation panel which helps bring some vertical counterbalance to the façade. The reduction in size of some of the ground floor windows helps with privacy to the residences but also provides a form of visual plinth base to the building. A tonally complementary but distinctive brick colour has been chosen to provide a feature for both the front and rear elevations where new brickwork is proposed. The proposed fenestration strategy is considered to be a key benefit of the proposals being assessed within this application.

·It was noted that given the applicant is proposing to amend the existing structure and ensures that the public benefit of the proposed design enhancements is delivered, it is recommended that a condition (4) requiring the proposed windows be installed prior to occupation be added to the decision notice.

·Planning Officer noted that a single storey roof extension is proposed to provide space for additional bedrooms and having gone through a number of design iterations, it’s proposed height has been reduced, and set back with shadow gaps, its windows are smaller than those below, and it has a plain stone-like appearance. It is considered that these design measures result in the roof extension being subservient in proportion and appearance to the host building.

·The proposed roof extension is considered to be of an appropriate design for the surrounding area with an understated calm appearance which is considered not to distract from the surrounding heritage assets nor the character or appearance of the conservation area.

·In response to a question on not having a mansard roof, the Council’s Design officer stated that it is considered that the proposed extension does not make too much of a statement on what is currently a simple brick building of little architectural merit. The proposed materiality, subject to recommended condition 3, would result in a high-quality appearance.

·Planning Officer acknowledged that whilst the proposed roof extension would result in a greater massing at roof level, the proposed development would be no taller than the highest point of the existing building, albeit these projecting elements are currently limited.

·Meeting was advised that there are currently solar PVs on the roof of the building that do not have an adverse impact on the public realm and that a replacement solar PV array is proposed for the new level of flat roof and that similarly, it is not anticipated that they would have an increased impact on the character or appearance of the area or the setting of listed buildings.

·The application site sits within the New River Conservation Area and includes some of the finest terraces and squares in the Borough. The area has a rare quality and consistency of scale, materials, design and detailing which require protection and enhancement.

·It was noted that although the application site sits within the setting of the listed terrace houses in Wilmington Square and Yardley Street and the listed Charles Rowan House, and located less than 50 meters from the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area (CA34), it is not currently visible from within this conservation area and it is not considered that the proposals would change this.

·In summary, meeting was advised that the proposals would preserve the character or appearance of the New River Conservation Area and would not adversely affect the setting of the listed buildings of Wilmington Square and Yardley Street and Charles Rowan House and would be appropriate in the surrounding townscape.

·On the neighbouring amenity, Planning Officer advised that although the site is surrounded by residential properties on all sides it is considered that the proposed development would not result in a harmful increase in overlooking, subject to a recommended condition (17) securing the installation of obscured glazing to windows on the rear elevation.

·Similarly it was noted that whilst the proposals would result in an increased massing through the addition of a roof extension, the existing building’s rear elevation is clearly visible from the properties at Wilmington Square and resulting in an increased level of visibility, it would not result in any overall increase to the building’s height, as it would be no taller than the existing lift overrun. Further more due to the sufficient distance between the site and neighbouring residential properties has been maintained, it is therefore not considered that the proposed massing would create an unusual or unreasonable relationship to surrounding properties in the surrounding area. It was also noted that all windows to the rear of the building either serve circulation areas, or where they serve habitable rooms, the windows are conditioned to be obscurely glazed.

·With regards to noise and disturbance, Planning Officer acknowledged that  bringing the application site back in to use would result in noise from increased comings and goings when compared to the existing vacant site, however it is not considered that this would be uncharacteristic of the surrounding residential blocks. Furthermore, through the recommended conditions and planning obligations, it is considered that noise and disturbance from the proposed use would be limited to an acceptable level.

·On the issue of daylight and sunlight impact, meeting was advised that applicant has submitted a daylight and sunlight assessment which confirms that the proposed development would result in some limited transgressions which breach the BRE guidelines, however on balance is considered acceptable.

·The proposal seeks to introduce landscaping across the site, with planting  proposed in the rear shared amenity space and in front of the building along Margery Street and Wilmington Street. Green roofs are also proposed to be installed at first and second floor levels. The proposed landscaping scheme incorporates a good level of inclusive design measures and includes a planting strategy which uses native species and pollinating plants to create a sensory experience for residents whilst still promoting biodiversity. It is, therefore, considered that the resulting landscaping on the site would be of a high quality, subject to recommended condition 6 which would secure details of the landscapingprior  to occupation.

·With regard to transport and highways, meeting was advised that delivery and servicing vehicles will park in existing parking spaces along Wilmington street and there will be basement car park for off street servicing and refuse collection will be from Yardley Street, which is the existing location.  Energy and Sustainability statement have been amended, that there will be a reduction of 17.50% in carbon emissions, Air source heat pump is proposed and an offset financial contribution of £37,215 has been secured by planning obligation. 

·On the issue of planning balance, meeting was advised that although scheme will have an impact on neighbouring amenity, the benefits outweigh the harm, that it has merits on a larger than local level and on an international level ( albeit not a material planning consideration), need for the use, bilateral agreement between the UK and Malta is a material consideration to which officers attach considerable weight in the planning balance and the improvements to the existing building in terms of design would benefit the surrounding streetscene.

·Objections raised include daylight and sunlight loss which has been addressed in the report before committee, boundary wall concerns, potential increase of traffic ,access concerns by ambulance and emergency vehicles and lack of diligence by the applicant .  Another objector had concerns about the proposed external lift and that overlooking concerns were being disregarded.

·In response, the applicant informed committee that the modest application was designed taking into consideration residents view point, reminding meeting that the proposal is to provide accommodation for the children of Maltese residents who come to the UK for treatment at Great Ormond Street Hospital. Meeting was reminded of the improvements to the rear of the building which was in poor state and that mitigation measures have been put in place to address overlooking concerns

·On the issue of the lift, meeting was advised that the lift is fully enclosed within the building, that it projects out from the elevation, noting that it was not part of the previous application that was granted planning permission and there are no overlooking issues as a result of using the lift.

·In terms of the use of the gate and access into the site, applicant reassured meeting that it will only be used for maintenance purpose, that all other access will be via Willmington street and will be covered by legal agreement.

·On the possibility of increasing the use of solar panels, meeting was advised that in as much as this is welcome, it required a difficult balancing act as too many solar panels would be visible and is one of the reasons why a Mansard roof was not used because of its visibility.

·With regards to transport concerns, meeting was advised that in light of the type of use of the building, assessment shows that trip generation would be lesser than a typical residential use and that most users would be visiting on foot as it is a 15min walk to the hospital or the use of public transport and taxis. It was also stated that there will be an area for ambulance drop off and disable parking access in the basement.

·In summary, the Chair noted that the building is primarily for housing the family of children in hospital, it is welcoming that the building is being refurbished and not demolished. Sunlight and daylight issues still remain but nothing different to what is there at the moment.

·With regard to the gate and accessibility, planning officer advised that if members are minded to agree planning permission, the wording on the operation management plan can be amended to address this rather than the construction management plan.

·Cllr Jeapes proposed a new condition that an updated transport management plan to be reviewed within a year so as to assess any arising traffic concerns around the hostel following commencement of the use. This was seconded by the Chair Cllr Klute.

·Councillor Klute proposed a motion to grant planning permission subject to an updated condition relating to the transport management plan. This was seconded by Councillor North 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 the additional condition outlined above; 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