Agenda item

APPROVED WITH GROUNDS OF PERMISSION.

Description of Application: Erection of an endoscopy unit and a sub-station.

The Planning Officer gave a brief presentation, providing an overview of the application and update on the report.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the Chief Executive of the Princess Royal University Hospital (PRUH) who mentioned the time critical nature of decision making on the project and the need for an early decision if it was to proceed. He gave the following responses to Members’ questions:

·  Improved cancer diagnosis and treatment was a key priority in Bromley’s Health and Wellbeing Strategy.  One in two people would develop cancer in their lifetime.  Although the cancer treatment standard of no more than two-weeks between GP referral and initial assessment was currently being met across King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, targets for the diagnostic tool of endoscopy services were not being met.  These services were often outsourced to other providers across South East London and the PRUH had to make significant use of its general operating theatres to deliver endoscopy procedures on a daily basis. 

·  While it was anticipated that artificial intelligence would improve clinical practice over the medium to long term, this would only be appropriate for a limited number of patients and the proposed unit was therefore considered an appropriate and necessary investment, particularly as an increasing number of patients required return surveillance.  Councillor Simon Fawthrop asked whether the PRUH would be prepared to accept a planning condition that the proposed unit could only be used for endoscopy with any change of use requiring a further planning application and the Chief Executive confirmed that this would be acceptable.

·  The PRUH had worked with the Council for over 18 months to review and develop options for the new endoscopy unit and had provided all necessary and requested documents.  The Chief Executive drew Members’ attention to an inconsistency in the Planning Officer’s report which did not reflect the cycle storage that was included in the design scheme.  The new unit would deliver six additional endoscopy facilities with one existing facility in the main PRUH building to be retained for critical emergency endoscopies.  This was anticipated to provide sufficient capacity to 2036, based on the current trend of 3% annual growth.  The five endoscopy theatres at the Denmark Hill site would also be retained, reflecting the high demand for this clinical area which was divided equally between active interventions and diagnostic procedures.

·  A range of sites had been considered across Bromley and the wider King’s Group.  However, due to the invasive nature of endoscopic tests and procedures, the proposed unit could only be based at Denmark Hill or the PRUH which had the necessary co-located critical services.  Government funding was only being made available for units that met all technical clinical standards under the Joint Royal Colleges.  A service offer divided across multiple sites would not meet these standards and would have additional cost and efficiency implications.  There was no scope to co-locate services with the Guys and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust or the Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust as both Trusts already had set plans for the expansion of their endoscopy services.

·  It would not be possible to move the proposed unit within the identified development space due to limitations with the physical land available and high voltage services being routed through the area which would increase the total cost of the scheme by more than £4M and was considered unaffordable.  Following concerns raised by local residents, the flood risk of building the unit on the proposed site had been fully investigated and both the PRUH and Council flooding experts had concluded the proposed development would not create an added flood risk.  There was no possibility that the PRUH would be able to purchase any residential properties affected by the proximity of the unit.

·  With regard to the proposed site for development:

·  Information had been provided to the Local Authority in December 2022 with regard to the badger sett located in the area for development, including video evidence which captured a single badger foraging in the area during a 20-day period.  While the Local Authority was concerned that the evidence provided did not identify the type of badger sett, the licensed ecologist acting on behalf of the applicant had identified the main badger sett as being located in the Darrick Wood area and Natural England had advised that a badger sett could be moved if it was unoccupied.

·  The 49 trees within the area for development had been assessed by the Council’s Tree Officer as being of low or moderate quality and highly replaceable.  The finished planting scheme would replace all but six trees within the curtilage of the hospital site and discussions were underway with the Local Authority to replace the remaining six trees at another location within the Borough or alternatively a set unit fine could be paid.

·  Revisions had been made to the building design in response to the consultation response, including a 15% reduction in the overall building footprint and the lowering of the building height by two metres.  Further reductions in scale were not possible due to the design requirements for six operating theatres but all windows facing residential properties had been removed or would be masked with security filming, and a sealed curtilage would create a secure area.  The hospital would have a net increase in 36 car parking spaces by the end of the build.  However, as the number of patients treated by remote consultation continued to increase, a net gain in reduced transport carbon effect would be achieved.

Oral representations objecting to the application were received from a local resident representing Starts Close who gave the following responses to Members’ questions:

·  Local residents were very concerned about the planning application which was inaccurate and lacking in detail.  The proposed building was of inappropriate size and scale and a staff exit point had been placed close to residential properties.  The design would remove a security wall built in 2001 at the direction of the Chief Planner with a condition that it be maintained ‘as such thereafter’ in the interest of the amenities of the residents of Starts Close.  There would be no space for a replacement wall under the proposed scheme.

·  The proposed unit would cause a loss of biodiversity in a unique site, negatively impacting protected species including badgers and bats.  The West Kent Badger Group had advised that the dry summer was likely to have reduced badger activity during the 20-day monitoring period but despite this, a badger had been recorded as entering and staying in the badger sett which indicated it was active.  The mature trees in this area contributed towards the Borough’s Carbon Strategy and also fully screened the residential properties in the summer months in a way which could not be replicated by saplings.  Local residents had significant concern that the loss of tree roots and the garden space would create an increased flooding risk in an area prone to historic flooding. 

·  Local residents had expressed concerns about the robustness of the consultation undertaken by the PRUH on the proposed development.  Although representatives had met with local residents, there had been no follow-up meeting and the proposed building was now bigger than that consulted on.  Summercroft GP Surgery had not been approached by the PRUH at all and had provided a consultation response explaining how the proposals would disrupt the surgery.

Councillor David Jefferys, Guest Member (authorised by the Chairman in light of his special expertise in health), addressed the Committee and

gave the following responses to Members’ questions:

·  Due to the Borough’s older demographic, cancer was the top priority in the current Joint Strategic Needs Assessment.  The Government funding on offer presented a unique opportunity to deliver a new endoscopy unit to improve cancer treatment and diagnosis in Bromley and would impact positively both individual patient care and wider public health.  Due to the set criteria of the Joint Royal Colleges regarding training, it would not be possible to split the unit across multiple sites and any such service model would also be far less efficient than the single location proposed.  It should be noted that the Government funding was time-limited, and it was unlikely another planning application could be successfully submitted in time to apply for this one-off funding opportunity.

·  The role of a Governor of King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust was to appoint the Chairman and represent local areas at the Council of Governors and associated committees.  Governors could also raise questions with the Trust Board on wider financial and governance matters. 

The Chairman invited Councillor and Ward Member Charles Joel to open the debate.  Councillor Charles Joel advised that while mindful of the growing demand for endoscopic services in Bromley, he had a number of concerns over the proposed site.  When the PRUH had been designed, this area was designated as an open space to be used as a meadow and the later addition of a high brick wall provided security and privacy to local residents.  The proposed development would be out-of-scale and have an adverse impact on local residents due to its siting, layout and proximity to the rear boundary.  A proposed footpath access along the rear of the building would also lead to further loss of privacy and additional security and noise concerns for local residents.  The applicant had not provided adequate information regarding the impact of the development on protected species and biodiversity or on replacement cycle storage and parking spaces, and there was also insufficient information to confirm the planning obligation needed to mitigate the impact of the development.  Councillor Joel highlighted Paragraph 6.1.15 of the report which raised the possibility of relocating the unit within the PRUH site and stressed the need to find an alternative to the proposed scheme.

In considering the application, Councillor Peter Dean recognised the proposed development would impact both local residents and wildlife and did not meet all planning conditions.  However, there was a need for the proposed endoscopy unit which represented very special circumstances and the planning issues raised were relatively minor.  Councillor Tony McPartlan similarly acknowledged the planning issues raised during the debate, but these were not insurmountable and could be addressed with the applicant.  This view that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the drawbacks was echoed by Councillor Shaun Slator and Councillor Alisa Igoe.  Councillor Thomas Turrell observed that the submission deadline for Government funding had not been provided but was minded to support the scheme in light of the wider benefit of the new unit to Bromley residents.

As the report was recommended for refusal, the Chairman reminded Members that grounds of permission would be needed for any approval.  Councillor Peter Dean proposed that the grounds of permission be based around the very special circumstances of the scheme transcending deficiencies within the planning application.  Councillor Tony McPartlan suggested a planning condition be applied to limit the use of the building for the purposes of endoscopy, as any change of use could impact local residents, and further recommended that ongoing discussions be held between the Local Authority and the King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust to secure any outstanding information.  Authority should also be delegated to Planning Officers to impose necessary planning conditions.

Councillor Peter Dean moved that the planning application be approved, subject to the above proposed grounds of permission. The motion was seconded by Councillor Christine Harris.

Councillor Keith Onslow spoke of his personal experience with the excellent clinical care at the PRUH but underscored that there was a need to consider the application as a planning matter.  The quality of the planning application had been very poor with insufficient and inconsistent information provided of which some information was still outstanding.  Councillor Onslow was concerned that the timescales to secure the Government grant would pressure Members to approve the application when a more workable alternative could be identified on the same or another site.  Councillor Onslow expressed reservations at the level of consultation undertaken with local residents who would be affected by the new unit. 

Councillor Charles Joel moved that the planning application be refused. The motion was seconded by Councillor Keith Onslow.

Councillor Simon Fawthrop highlighted many areas within the planning application which had been unacceptable beyond the stated grounds of refusal including principle of development; design; residential amenity; trees; green infrastructure; urban greening factor; biodiversity; and highways.  While there was a clinical need for a new endoscopy unit, Councillor Fawthrop suggested the planning application be deferred to allow time for a new or amended application to be developed that addressed all planning concerns while also securing Government funding.  Councillor Melanie Stevens suggested consideration be given to siting part of the unit below surface level to reduce the above-ground mass.  Councillor Chloe-Jane Ross underlined the potential for the King’s Group to look across its estates for alternative sites and Councillor Jonathan Andrews similarly agreed with deferral.

Councillor Simon Fawthrop moved that the planning application be deferred. The motion was seconded by Councillor Melanie Stevens.

In summation, the Chairman observed that three valid motions had been proposed and seconded and these would be taken in the order in which they were put forward. The motion that permission be granted was put to the vote and CARRIED for the REASONS THAT, in the overall planning balance, the harm identified in the officer’s report which would arise from the development was relatively minor in comparison with and was outweighed by the benefits of the application and that the benefits to public health in terms of improved cancer diagnosis and treatment that would result from the scheme were such as to amount to a very special circumstance in favour of permission.

RESOLVED: That PERMISSION BE GRANTED, subject to a condition limiting the use of the building for the purposes of endoscopy, and that the Assistant Director, Planning be given delegated authority to decide whether any other conditions should be imposed.

Councillor Charles Joel requested that his vote in objection to the application be recorded.