Agenda item

Redevelopment of southern site at Hackney Hospital to provide a primary care resource centre located in a part 2, 3 and 4 storey building to contain 2 GP practices, a community dental facility and primary care function (2239 sqm), plus residential accommodation providing 48 flats (25 x 1b, 23 x 2b) in a 5 storey building with penthouse level, parking provision for 18 cars and 111 cycle spaces with associated amenity area.

(Councillor Hanson informed the Sub-Committee that she lived in the vicinity of the proposed development but did not have a personal or prejudicial interest in the application).

8.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  He explained that the design of the proposal had evolved over the course of the application and revisions had been made to address concerns regarding the design of the PCT building.  Further revisions had been made to the courtyard layout to address concerns regarding the legibility of pedestrian access to the residential building.  Minor revisions had also been made to the residential entrance and cycle store layout.  The cycle storage provided would now be 16 spaces for the PCT building and 63 spaces for the residential building.

8.2  The Principal Solicitor explained that this was a linked site, as 14-16 Kenworthy Road to the north of the site had previously been approved by the Sub-Committee.  A Section 106 agreement would be required for each of the sites as the developments were intrinsically linked as part of a wider development scheme for the PCT, as detailed within the addendum.

8.3  Steve Gilven and Paul Brand spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

§  Presented at Full Council last June regarding GP services.

§  Diagnostic services being provided for the south east of Hackney.

§  The development will allow the Lee Surgery to be brought to the area.

§  The GP elements of this service will be available to local residents.

8.4  Councillor Smith expressed concern that the majority of affordable housing units were one bedroom, as there was a need for larger family units.

8.5  The Planning Officer explained that there were a number of constraints that had restricted the number of larger units that could be located on the site, the main ones being that it was located adjacent to the mental health unit so there was a need for separation between the two sites and also the size of the plot was also unsuitable for larger family units.  He added that the previously approved site at 14-16 Kenworthy Road does have family units.

8.6  Members raised concerns about the location of the proposed development as it may not be suitable for children and the lack of larger family units, as they felt it did not benefit the community or the patients.

8.7  The Interim Head of Regulatory Services explained that this site offered a mix of tenure and that the wall to the rear of the site was not a solid brick wall but that it had timber elements and due to the constraints of the site the residential units faced into the square at the centre of the building.

8.8  The Chair asked about the transport catchment area, as he was concerned that the location did not have sufficient transport links.  The applicant stated that the majority of patients using the GP services were expected to come from the local area and a recent study had identified that 98% of visitors to GP practices lived within ½ mile of the facility.  He added that there was a bus link down Homerton High Street and that the site would also provide blue badge parking and drop off points.

8.9  In response to a question regarding why this particular site was chosen, the applicant stated that they had searched for quite a while to find a suitable site in south east Hackney, as they wanted to have a practice in the 4 quadrants of Hackney and thought that this particular site was large enough to provide all the services they required.  Public consultation had also taken place which had determined that the majority of residents were broadly happy with the proposed location.

8.10  Councillor Desmond proposed that the item be DEFERRED to allow the applicant to go back and look at the mix of units as the Sub-Committee would be more minded to accept the scheme if larger family units were included within the residential section of the scheme.  This was seconded by Councillor Webb.

(Councillors Stauber did not take part in the vote, as he left the meeting during the discussion of the item).

(Councillor Sharer voted against the recommendation).

RESOLVED that:-