Replacement care accommodation at Meadbank Nursing Home, London SW11

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing buildings and creating a part four, five and seven-storey care facility with up to 139 beds and suites.

“Official Planning permission is sought for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to include the demolition of all existing buildings and erection of a part 4, 5 and 7 storey building plus basement level, providing up to 139 care beds and suites, with associated communal, wellness and ancillary facilities, hard and soft landscaping and associated car parking, and servicing, cycle parking, substation and plant equipment.”

“The massing of the flank elevation would consistent across the elevation, with 2.2 metre projecting balconies from second floor level and above depending on the height of the built structure. The wrap-around balconies would be located from first floor levels and above.”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

The site was an approximately 0.4-hectare former care home beside Parkgate Road, Battersea Bridge Road and the Ethelburga Estate, within a varied urban area.

“SITE DETAILS: The application site (Meadbank Nursing Home also referred to as a care home) is an approximately 0.4ha site, boarded by Parkgate Road to the north, Battersea Bridge Road to the west, and the Ethelburga Estate to the east and south. The existing building is a maximum of 4-storeys (plus basement level), with part single-storey, part 2/3-storey additions.”

“Official properties, across Radstock Street, is the part 4 and 8 storied contemporary Royal College of Art Rausing Research & Innovation Building. The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 3. The site is not located within a conservation area, however, the eastern edge of the Westbridge Road Conservation Area (the CA) is located approx. 20m to the west of the site. Located approx.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

External consultees generally raised no objection, while internal advice required conditions and identified concerns about trees, biodiversity, public health and design quality.

“External Consultation Responses: Emergency Planning: No objection. Environment Agency: No objection. Greater London Authority: No comment due to the proposal not having strategic importance Health and Safety Executive – Fire: No objection. London Heliport: No objection. Met Police/ Secure By Design: No comment. TfL – Spatial Planning: No objection. Thames Water: No objection, subject to conditions.”

“Official No objection. Economic Development Office: No objection. Would require a total contribution of £120,215.01 towards employment and skills as well as securing a local employment agreement or employment and skills plan under legal agreement. Environment Services (Noise): No objection, subject to conditions. Contaminated Land: No objection, subject to conditions. Trigon (Independent Fire Consultant): No objection. LLFA: No objection, subject to condition.”

Officer report

Objections from neighbours

Thirty-four objections raised concerns about neighbour amenity, height, traffic, parking, construction impacts, trees, consultation, access and whether the replacement would provide wider benefits.

“Neighbour Representations received can be read in full on the Council's web site (until a decision is made). Neighbour Consultation Summary OBJECTIONS: summarised as: - Harmful impact on neighbour amenity, including noise, access to daylight and sunlight, sense of enclosure - Harmful impact on the character of the area namely, height, scale and massing - Increased pressure on existing health care infrastructure - Increased traffic disruption - Poor air quality for future…”

“Official - No capacity for visitor car parking. - Increased parking pressure within the surrounding Ethelburga Estate - Strongly object to removal of TPO trees and landscaping along Parkgate Road. Resultant impact on wet weather drainage - The proposal would not bring any social value. - Will the applicant make efforts to recycle as much as of the existing material as possible. - Reduced number of occupiers from the existing and proposed sites.”

Officer report

Who took part

The Senior Planner, transport officers, the Area Team Manager and the Opposition Speaker contributed to the discussion in their respective roles.

What members debated

Members discussed design, construction impacts, transport, parking, consultation, daylight and sunlight, biodiversity credits and local employment.

“The impact on the local transport routes was also raised as a concern from Members, as well as an issue with a lack of parking spaces for the visitors and staff. Members commented that care homes were labour intensive and that there was already a lot of pressure on the local bus routes in the area.”

“Members were also informed that there was a transport assessment that indicated the need for visitors and staff to arrive by more sustainable forms of transport due to the limited parking. It was noted that there were also two other conditions to do with car parking management, as well as service delivery in order to ensure that satisfactory management would be maintained.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A proposal to defer the application was not seconded, and the committee then voted six for, one against and three abstentions.

“In response to the Chair asking for concluding comments, Councillor Govindia proposed that the application potentially be deferred to allow for additional detail and clarity to be provided from the applicant, specifically in relation to the visitor parking arrangements, as well as a review of the frontage on Parkgate Road in order to provide more of a setback at ground level. This motion was not seconded.”

“RESOLVED – (6 for, 1 against and 3 abstentions) that planning permission be granted as set out in the report, noting the additional information as set out in the late items of correspondence paper and with an informative to be added in relation to local employment being retained to the Wandsworth borough only.”

Minutes