Agenda item

P0321.15 Refused

P0323.15 Deferred

The report before Members considered two outline planning applications that had been received for the redevelopment of St. George’s Hospital, Suttons Lane, Hornchurch. The site had been vacant since 2012 and was now surplus to requirements. Both applications were submitted with all matters reserved except for access although the proposals set development parameters and a scale threshold for development. An illustrative masterplan for the overall development of the site had also been submitted.

P0321.15 was for the partial demolition and redevelopment of 10 hectares of the St George’s Hospital site to provide up to 290 dwellings including the retention and conversion of some of the existing buildings, new build residential housing and apartments, together with the creation and retention of areas of open space, a linear park and swale gardens and play space areas.

P0323.15 was for the redevelopment of 1.74 hectares of the St. Georges Hospital site located to the north west of the site for the purposes of providing up to 3,000 sq metres of new healthcare development together with a new vehicular access, plus car parking, infrastructure and landscaping.

Officers advised that there were a number of amendments to the report.

Item 3.2.4 on page 137 should now read as:

·            Not more than 290 residential units;

·           The retention, refurbishment and conversion of 6 key buildings along the frontage of the site (119/121 Suttons Lane, the Willows building, Gatehouse, Admin and Ingrebourne buildings and the northern ward block) to provide 75 apartments and houses.

·            New build development of 215 dwellings.

·           A predominant height of two to three storeys with no more than 3 locations identified for 4 storey development.

·            Developed parcels not to exceed 6.54 ha.

·           New housing laid out on a predominantly perimeter block arrangement except where adjacent to or backing onto the healthcare site or properties in Hacton Drive.

·            An indicative masterplan mix of housing which would deliver:

o    14% 1 bed apartments

o    28% 2 bed apartments

o    2% 3 bed apartments

o    12% 2 bed houses

o    24% 3 bed houses

o    14% 4 bed houses

o    4% 5 bed houses

o    1.4% studio flats

·            15% of units offered as affordable housing.

·            Car parking at a rate of 1.7 per unit overall.

Item 7.4.6 should also now read as:

The scheme proposes the retention and re-use of 4 of the six most important buildings on the site, plus two others, all of which offer the opportunity for viable residential conversion. 

Condition 5 of the report on page 133 to be amended to read Footprint and Floorspace.

On page 143 Natural England had now withdrawn its objection.

Members agreed to delegate any changes to the conditions of the planning permission to the Head of Regulatory Services

During the debate Members received clarification on the distribution of S106 monies and Mayoral CIL contributions.

Members also received clarification that the existing chimneys on the site were to be removed during the development.

Members also discussed the parking provision for the healthcare centre which was felt to be insufficient in relation to the amount of people who would be working at and visiting the site.

With regards to the residential development Members felt that 15% affordable housing was not sufficient and that the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site which left very little “green” areas and was a loss of the Green Belt.

Members also questioned the decision to build studio flats as these appeared to be out of keeping with modern home building practices.

With regards to P0323.15, the healthcare facility, the report recommended that planning permission be granted, however following a motion to defer the consideration of the item it was RESOLVED that consideration of the item be deferred to provide an opportunity for the applicants to (significantly) increase parking on site for occupiers and users.

With regards to P0321.15, residential development, the report recommended that planning permission be granted, however following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission which was carried by 8 votes to 3 it was RESOLVED to refuse the granting of planning permission on the grounds of:

·         Inappropriate, harmful development of the Green Belt;

·         Overdevelopment of the site by reason of unit numbers, built form and impact on openness;

·         Failure to meet minimum internal space standards;

·         Failure to secure by legal agreement the following – education contribution;

·         Sustainable transport/cycling improvements;

·         Mitigation of the Country Park impact;

·         Affordable housing provision

The vote for the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission was carried by 8 votes to 3.

Councillors Crowder, Kelly, Wallace, White, Nunn, Whitney, Martin and Williamson voted for the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission.

Councillors Misir, Donald and Hawthorn voted against the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission.