Committee Date:
30/04/2015
Application Number:
Accepted:
09/12/2014
Application Type:
Target Date:
10/03/2015
Ward:
Edgbaston
2014/09160/PA
Outline
Birmingham Women's Hospital, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston,
Birmingham, B15 2TG
Outline planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and
the erection of a six storey building and refurbishment of the remaining
existing accommodation. All matters reserved apart from access
Applicant:
Agent:
Birmingham Womens Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TG
IBI Group
Chadsworth House, Wilmslow Road, Handforth, SK9 3HP
Recommendation
Approve Subject To Conditions
1.
Proposal
1.1.
This application seeks outline planning permission for the demolition of Norton Court
and other buildings totalling 19,841sqm and their replacement with a new building
of 23,500 sqm in association with the Birmingham Women’s Hospital (BWH). The
project would also involve the refurbishment of some sections of the 19,195sqm
retained estate. The demolition and replacement building represents approximately
half of the current BWH estate. All matters are reserved apart from Access.
1.2.
The scheme includes an improved vehicular access, from Metchley Lane, and
reconfigured/additional parking. Pedestrian access is shown to be into the site from
both Metchley Lane (via a public footpath) and Metchley Park Road.
1.3.
Staff parking would be provided in five car parks being; F and H (for 191 and 172
spaces respectively) from Metchley Lane and G1 and G2 (for 167 and 56 spaces
respectively) from Mindelsohn Way (totalling 586). On site public parking would be
from Metchley Park Road providing access to a small public car park with 8 spaces
(for mobility users). Further public parking is provided within the main campus car
parks providing a total of 1209 public parking spaces.
1.4.
BWH propose this scheme to enable it to increase maternity capacity from 8,000 to
to 9,200 births a year to keep pace with a growing population in the city. The new
building would also accommodate an expanded genetics counselling and testing
facility and would increase the available neonatal intensive care cot capacity. As
floor space would be largely unchanged BWH do not anticipate a significant rise in
staffing levels, in fact the facility is expected an increase in staff numbers of only 97
staff.
Page 1 of 13
1.5.
BWH is operating on a tight delivery timeframe and aims to complete the project by
2018.
1.6.
The application has been supported by a Design and Access Statement,
Arboricultural Report, Transport Statement, Tree Survey, Extended Phase 1 survey,
Bat Survey, Noise Survey, Flood Risk Assessment and Travel Plan.
1.7.
The Design and Access Statement shows an indicative footprint, scale parameters
and visual imagery indicating an external appearance. The details show a building
extending the existing and retained main building with a maximum floor-space of
23,500sqm and a maximum height of 25.5m (183.99 AOD) equating to seven
storeys. This would be a similar height as the existing tower block of the retained
building in the centre of this frontage (facing onto Metchley Park Road).
1.8.
The site area is 3.87ha.
1.9.
The proposal is designed to integrate into the retained building and provide a new
hub of maternity care and supporting facilities, grouping key facilities into one part of
the site. An initial wider redevelopment masterplan has also been prepared that
shows how this proposal could act as a first phase for potential new expansion plans
which could include the Birmingham Children’s Hospital (BCH). The current
application shows that a large area of land to the south of the proposal, and
measuring 2 ha, would be available for BCH if required in the future without
prejudice to the current application proposal. The indicative masterplan shows that
the proposal includes main internal links that could connect to development to the
north or south if required in the future and shows where additional parking could be
provided on-site. However, it is noted that this wider project does not form part of
this current application. This wider reserved allocation could be made available for
the delivery of future healthcare development if required in the future.
1.10.
An EIA Screening assessment was undertaken at a pre-application stage and it was
concluded that one was not required.
1.11.
Link to Documents
2.
Site & Surroundings
2.1.
The Birmingham Women’s Hospital is located within the QE Hospital campus and
located adjacent to Mindelsohn Drive and Metchley Lane. The building ranges in
height from 7 storeys to 2 storeys and has been extended several times over the
years, but still retains a strong 1960’s architectural style.
2.2.
It has a 4 storey car park located in front of the site and other public car parks are
further within the campus.
2.3.
The site is adjacent to the new Queen Elizabeth Hospital site which opened in 2010.
The wider site connects to Aston Webb Boulevard to the south and Bristol Road
beyond.
2.4.
The wider area is predominantly residential in character.
2.5.
Access to public transport is excellent with easy access to the bus and taxi hub
located to the side of the QE Hospital (350m south of the application site) and the
University Railway Station 550m to the east.
Page 2 of 13
2.6.
Site Location Map
2.7.
Street View
3.
Planning History
3.1.
25/02/14 Pa no. 2013/09520/PA Alterations to Car Park and pedestrian entrance,
new lighting. Approved.
4.
Consultation/PP Responses
4.1.
Public Participation
4.2.
Residents, Resident Associations, Councillors and the MP consulted. Site Notice
erected, press notice made.
4.3.
Councillors Deirdre Alden, John Alden and James Mackay have objected in regard
to ongoing and historical parking problems caused by the hospital and University
complexes. The Councillors comment that the hospitals need to come together to
put in an application for more parking before the Council agrees to any more
development on the hospital site. They consider that the campus does not currently
have the parking and traffic management infrastructure to prevent negative knock on
effects on residential areas surrounding the site.
4.4.
Objections have been received from Calthorpe Residents’ Society, Abbey Road
Residents Association, The Harborne Society and Edgbaston Residents
Association. Objections have also been received from 3 residents. In summary the
concerns are as follows;
4.5.
Existing Local Congestion problems
4.6.
“Existing traffic controls are not sufficient to contain the existing congestion problem
and displace, rather than solve, the issue. Councillors and transport officials have
been working with local residents to place parking control measures on local
effected roads. This work is ongoing, but the traffic and parking situation continues
to worsen. We need to recognise that a more comprehensive response is needed,
and it needs to cover all the roads affected by the proposed hospital expansions
now and in the future. A planning application for this site that simply maintains the
status quo is not acceptable. Parking problems are compounded by people opting
for free on street parking rather than paying the University or Hospital Trust.”
4.7.
The growth of the site
4.8.
“Traffic studies have taken place ahead of every major proposal at the QE and
University of Birmingham sites over many years. Every single traffic study has been
proven wrong, and has underestimated the impact of parking and traffic flow across
the Calthorpe Estate. A completely new strategy for traffic flow management and for
the substantial provision of on-site parking is required. Until that is commissioned,
an engaged consultation occurs with impacted local residents, and a new traffic
management and infrastructure strategy is adopted no further planning consents
should be considered on either the QE or University campuses.”
4.9.
The current proposal
Page 3 of 13
4.10.
“The proposal includes an expansion of the capacity of the Women’s hospital. This
will increase the throughput of patients and increase the staffing levels of the
hospital. The plans provide little or no improvement to the transport infrastructure to
the site. The proposal would not make suitable provisions for the impact that the
expansion will have upon the surrounding area or adequately address long standing
concerns of residents in the area. There are significant reservations as to the
"knock-on" effect the expansion will have on the surrounding residential area.
Patient and visitor car parking is available within the site but this is at capacity during
the day.”
4.11.
“There is no estimate, in the Transport Assessment, for the undoubted increase in
patients and visitors. This number of visitor parking spaces is significantly less than
the overall total of beds across the campus, although the greatest throughput on
campus comes from short stay / day patients. Visitors will have to utilise the nearby
public car parks currently serving the entire QE campus. In effect a net reduction in
visitor parking of 46 spaces, at a time when visitor demand will increase
substantially due to the expanded facilities. The Travel Plan suggests that initiatives
past and future will transform the way people get to the site.”
4.12.
Construction Disturbance
4.13.
“The development would create considerable traffic problems throughout the four
year demolition, construction and refurbishment programme. Access for the
contractors would have to be from Metchley Lane. Provision must be made to
replace this parking during demolition/construction. Concern in regard to the extent
of measures to control dust and other mess. Confirmation is sought that the public
footpath/right of way along the northern edge will remain open throughout.”
4.14.
The impact of the Children’s Hospital
4.15.
“The intention of the Children’s hospital to move to the Edgbaston site has been
widely reported in the local media. The intention to move the Children's Hospital to
the site could prove to be disastrous for the surrounding residential area unless a
serious study is undertaken very soon to address the vastly increasing volume of
traffic resulting from the development of the hospital site which results in gridlock at
many times during the day.”
4.16.
“BWH is steadily progressing its plans to relocate the Children’s Hospital on to its
QE campus site and the potential location identified is primarily the surface parking
area fronting Mindelsohn Way on the southern side of the buildings to be
refurbished. It is suggested that the existing multi-storey car park close to Metchley
Lane could be extended to accommodate any lost spaces, even though an
extension would result in the loss of further BWH surface parking.”
4.17.
One letter of support has been received in support of the demolition of the existing
building and the erection of a new building. They consider that it will complement the
new Queen Elizabeth Hospital.
4.18.
Birmingham Children’s Hospital (BCH) – BCH say they have been working on a plan
to relocate to Edgbaston campus, in line with the Big City Plan, for several years.
BCH have considered whether the current proposal would facilitate the BCH move.
In response, BCH are currently unclear at this time and have commissioned a joint
Page 4 of 13
piece of work to consider a range of issues including the impact of this current
proposal and will consequently have a clearer understanding in the future.
4.19.
Consultation Responses
4.20.
Transportation – No objection subject to conditions to secure; that the applicants
secure a S278 Agreement for the works in the highway, details of cycle storage, that
the parking area are laid out prior to occupation, that the Travel Plan is annually
updated, and that the applicants provide a demolition and construction management
plan.
4.21.
National Grid – apparatus within the vicinity will be affected by the proposal.
4.22.
Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions to secure a contamination
watching brief during construction.
4.23.
Centro (and West Midlands Integrated Transport Authority) – No objection subject to
the applicants promoting public transport initiatives, travel information screens and
committing to a Travel Plan. The proposed development presents excellent
opportunities to provide Real Time Information (RTI) displays for public transport
serving the locality. If the development is approved, the adopted Travel Plan will
require that travel information is readily available for staff and visitors within the
development.
4.24.
Severn Trent – No objection subject to a drainage condition.
4.25.
West Midlands Police – No objection subject to the applicants building to Secure by
Design and Park Mark standards.
5.
Policy Context
5.1.
NPPF 2012
5.2.
Birmingham UDP (2005), Draft Birmingham Development Plan 2013, Places for All
SPG, Selly Oak Local Action Plan SPG, Draft Selly Oak – South Edgbaston Plan
SPD, Car Parking Guidelines SPD.
6.
Planning Considerations
6.1.
This scheme raises the following key considerations, principle of development,
design principles, traffic impact, arboricultural implications and ecological
implications.
6.2.
Principle of development
6.3.
The Selly Oak Local Plan (2001) identifies that the site is within the plan area. The
updated draft SPD (April 2014) makes reference to the potential redevelopment of
the Women’s Hospital. This requires any development within the campus to
contribute towards the high quality medical campus. It notes that the new QE
Hospital sets a standard for new buildings which should reflect its innovative ‘state of
the art’ design. It also requires new buildings to be set in landscaped grounds with
new tree planting and car parking that provides decked and multi-storey car parking.
This document acknowledges that overspill parking, onto nearby residential roads, is
Page 5 of 13
a known problem for the campus. This revised SPD is due to be adopted in the
summer of 2015, it is therefore considered to be of some weight at this time.
6.4.
The proposal seeks to demolish and replace medical facilities, of a similar type and
scale, as to that currently provided on site in new facilities within an established
medical campus. As such the principle of such a use is acceptable subject to issues
of scale/design, transport, ecology, drainage and arboricultural issues.
6.5.
Design principles
6.6.
The Design and Access Statement includes development parameters. These
indicate a building with a floor-space of 23,500sqm (GEA) and maximum height
parameters of 25.5m (and being a maximum of 183.99m AOD). The proposal would
be a similar height to the retained building on site and would present a 150m long,
15m wide addition to the existing building. The building would widen on its frontage,
including a large glazed atrium, and this would result in a section of building which
would be maximum of 55m wide. The proposal would be located alongside Metchley
Playing Fields as such it would express a 55m long elevation towards the fields. This
elevation would require careful design to ensure it provides an interesting building
that expresses various design features to add interest, due to the exposed nature of
this elevation. This can be adequately addressed at the reserved matters stage. I
consider that the general scale and massing of the proposal is appropriate for the
setting of the site and the surrounding context.
6.7.
Traffic impact
6.8.
The Transport Assessment has sought a ‘baseline’ position of evidence from the
Hospital of daily staffing levels, on-site staff parking demand, mode of travel to/from
work and parking provision the BWH have dedicated access to along with shared
provision on the rest of the hospital campus.
6.9.
Surveys were carried out on the staff and visitor/patient car parks across a week in
September 2014 and the highest levels of accumulation are shown in table 2.3.
Some of the car parking areas were over utilized and some were less used, which is
matched from visits my Highway Engineer has made to the site. Overall the
maximum demand by staff was noted at 456 vehicles (noting this is overly robust as
uses the maximum figure from any survey across the week in one of five car parks)
where 540 parking spaces are provided. There are currently 46 spaces for
patients/visitors in the car park around the BWH pedestrian entrance on Metchley
Park Road. As a comparison there are a total of 1,512 employees at the Hospital of
which a maximum 1,194 employees work on site at any one time. This equates to
37% of these staff driving to the site. From the Travel Plan staff survey data
available this notes that 42% of staff drive to work which equates to 501 employees.
6.10.
BWH propose to modestly increase staff levels, and maternity capacity is intended
to rise from an average of 22 births a day up to 25 a day. The redevelopment and
demolition plans allow the car parks to be reconfigured and expanded. There would
be a total of 586 in proposal staff spaces so an increase of 54 staff spaces. The
patient/visitor car park is redesigned to allow better ambulance and drop-off/pick-up
short stay parking so the existing 46 public spaces would be replaced with a smaller
car park for drop off and mobility parking only. Patients and visitors would, instead,
be directed to the existing shared public car parks on the site. Earlier car parking
analysis work from the recent (retained estate) QE planning application and revised
Travel Plan shows that the public car parks have space available for the public to
accommodate this provision.
Page 6 of 13
6.11.
In terms of the City’s Car Parking Guidelines, it is not possible to apply this proposal
to those guidelines as aspects of this proposal are unknown at this stage (being an
outline application room numbers and bed-space layout is undisclosed). In any
event it is considered that even with these details this would not enable parking
requirements to be determined. However, for completeness, the guidelines seek a
maximum provision of 1 space per 2 staff and 1 per 2 beds and would require a
maximum of 597 staff parking spaces (plus half the number of unknown bedspaces).
6.12.
I am mindful of the concerns, expressed by residents, resident associations and
Councillors raised in regard to parking demand across the area which relate to
activities on the medical campus, University site. It is possible the redesigned
building could cater for higher numbers of staff and patients, especially as the
outline design nature of the scheme does not fully allow a definitive comparative
view on facilities, such as number of beds, treatment and consultation rooms.
Equally changes in medical practices may lead to higher, or lower, levels of activity,
as would extending clinic times to later in the day and weekends and shorter patient
stays.
6.13.
Another comparison that could be made is the overall area that BWH would be
increasing. This would be by 9% from 39,036sqm up to 42,695sqm, whilst staff
numbers are planned to increase by 6.4%, this would be fairly consistent as a
proportional change.
6.14.
There are tables within the Travel Plan that refer to previous surveys on staff mode
of travel. These originate from a 2013 survey undertaken by Centro and included
within the Birmingham Women’s Hospital Employer Travel Plan 2013. They provide
staff surveys noting the baseline mode split of travel which states 42% of staff travel
by car as a single occupant or lone driver, and 7% car share. This Travel Plan refers
to reducing car single occupancy trips by 3% over five years, whilst increasing car
share trips by 1%.
6.15.
My Highway Engineer has very carefully considered the Transport Statement and
Travel Plan and is mindful of the objections raised. He has concluded that the
increase in car parking meets the increased level of staffing planned in the Hospital,
and that there is sufficient patient/visitor provision in the other public car parks
across the site. On the evidence provided the Highway Authority have raised no
objection to the proposal based on conditions being attached relating to that the
applicants secure a S278 Agreement for the works in the highway, details of cycle
storage, that the parking area are laid out prior to occupation, that the Travel Plan is
annually updated, and that the applicants provide a demolition and construction
management plan. I concur with this view and consider that the proposal would
adequately meet its minor additional parking demands.
6.16.
I am also mindful of the broader traffic and parking issues affecting the wider
hospital campus and these matters are being considered separately by the
University Hospital Trust, and as Members will be aware, are subject to ongoing
discussion and consideration. The current applicant cannot be prejudiced by wider
parking and congestion issues which will require a more comprehensive strategy.
6.17.
Ecology
6.18.
The site is currently dominated by the large hospital buildings of BWH. To the
immediate north is the amenity grassland of the Metchley Park Sports Pitches; to the
Page 7 of 13
south is the modern complex of the Queen Elizabeth II Hospital. To the east of the
site are various buildings associated with the hospitals, with further such buildings to
the west, including a multi-storey car park. In the wider area beyond the site is the
busy suburban environment of Edgbaston.
6.19.
The Extended Phase One Habitat Survey identified the key habitats on site and
highlighted areas for further survey. Several of the buildings were identified as
holding suitable features for bats. The submitted bat surveys were undertaken at
dawn and dusk between 24th July and the 25th September 2014 (within the optimal
time for such surveys). The surveys identified Pipistrelle Bats as using the site for
foraging but no bats were identified as using the buildings as a place of shelter. The
majority of Bat activity was confined to the darker sections of the site, especially the
vegetated northern boundary. Therefore bats do not currently present a barrier to
development of the buildings. As part of the site assessment for bats the trees were
assessed for bat roost potential. Three trees were of particular note for bat activity,
on the north boundary, these are not proposed to be directly affected by the
proposal.
6.20.
Generally the site offers limited potential for birds with two notable exceptions these
being Black Redstart and Peregrine Falcon (both schedule 1 species). Both of these
species have been recorded on or very close to the site and would need to be the
subject of more detailed surveys, something that was recommended in the Phase
One Survey conclusions.
6.21.
The above matters can be addressed through an ecological mitigation strategy
which can be secured by condition.
6.22.
There are a number of recommendations made in section 6.2 of the Phase One
Habitat Survey, in principle these are acceptable and should be adopted wherever
possible. Indicative drawings show that there would be a significant area of flat roof
space proposed and newly created flat roof space. Bearing in mind the close
proximity of both Black Redstart and Peregrine Falcon that would benefit from the
installation of Green/Brown roof designed for improved biodiversity.
6.23.
Given the above information my ecologist recommends conditions be applied to
require further surveys for the Black Redstart and Peregrine Falcon, a scheme for
ecological enhancement measures and the installation of bird and bat boxes. I
concur with these findings.
6.24.
Impact on Trees
6.25.
Policy 3.16A, of the UDP, states that developers will be expected to give priority to
the retention of trees, hedgerows and natural features on development sites and
identifies that where trees are lost suitable replacements will be sought.
6.26.
The application is in outline form only with all matters reserved apart from access.
However, the indicative layout plan shows that the footprint of the new
building/extension is likely to be located to the north side of the main building and be
adjacent to and parallel to the northern boundary of the site and adjacent to the
playing fields. This boundary has 5 trees located along it which may be affected by
the proposed indicative footprint this includes two sycamore trees, two oak trees and
a beech.
6.27.
The application makes the tree removals evident in the landscape proposal plan.
There are many C category trees directly under the outline footprint where the
Page 8 of 13
removals would be acceptable. The C category trees in the car parking area on the
frontage are proposed to be removed and replaced and the principle of this has
already been accepted in the previous application. Group G1 is also of low quality.
6.28.
Trees T48 and T49 (two sycamores) are shown for removal although the need for
this does not seem to be strongly implied by the layout as they remain alongside
hard standing at the western end of the footpath. The scheme includes the potential
removal of the two B category oak trees (T44 and T46) and the A category beech
tree T45. The position of the indicative layout plan shows their removal and this is
unfortunate as the trees have some public amenity value.
6.29.
The retention of T44 to T49 should be strongly considered, at the detailed design
stage, as they would be a mature asset to the landscape and amenity spaces
between the Women’s Hospital and the playing fields to the north.
6.30.
At this time detailed footprint and layout are reserved matters and direct impacts on
trees are unclear. There are some trees of note within the affected area and this will
require careful and proper consideration at the reserved matters stage.
6.31.
Environment Agency Comments
6.32.
The Environment Agency have considered groundwater and the potential for ground
contamination. They have noted that the information supporting the application does
not identify contamination as a potential issue at the site and there is no supporting
assessment of the contaminative potential. They consider that the site is anticipated
to be underlain by soils classified as having a low leaching potential. Which means
that soils have a high clay content, pollutants are unlikely to penetrate the soil layer
because either water movement is largely horizontal or they have the ability to
attenuate diffuse pollutants. They subsequently have no objection to the scheme
but, as a precaution they recommend that a condition is applied that requires a
contamination watching brief during construction and that any unexpected
contamination found be dealt with. This can be adequately dealt with through the
application of suitable conditions.
6.33.
Response to objections made
6.34.
I recognise that a number of objections have been received in regard to off-site
parking on residential roads. These detail the issues around parking demand that
currently exists on the local roads and objectors have commented that this has
increased as a result of numerous developments across the area. However, I
consider that there is no planning reason to object to the application in line with
current guidance in NPPF (paragraph 32) that states “development should only be
prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of
development are severe”. As is discussed above the traffic and congestion impact of
this scheme would be likely to be slight to none bearing in mind the proposed
change to floor area, anticipated staffing levels and the effective delivery of a robust
Travel Plan reducing staffing demand for parking and incentivising the use of public
transport.
6.35.
I recognise that councillors and residents have raised concerns that previous
expansions on the wider campus appear to have been approved without sufficient
understanding of the future long term needs of the Trusts and have failed to
adequately consider the full implications for infrastructure. Similarly in this case a
strategic response to the expansion plans of BWH and BCH would have enabled
your officers to consider the full implications of such a scheme and design a robust
Page 9 of 13
infrastructure response to the proposal. As BCH have not sufficiently advanced their
own plans and given we have an application before us, the current BWH scheme
has been considered on its own merits but with the benefit of sufficient master-plan
work to show how a future BCH scheme could be accommodated. This has enabled
officers to understand the wider implications for future growth.
7.
Conclusion
7.1.
The proposed scheme would enable the redevelopment of inefficient parts of the
facility in a sustainable manner with the retention of main services on site whilst
enabling the provision of new medical facilities and without detriment to highway
safety.
7.2.
The scheme complies with sustainable principles of the NPPF.
8.
Recommendation
8.1.
That Planning Permission be granted subject to the following conditions.
1
Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme
2
Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report
3
Limits the maximum gross floorspace of the unit
4
Limits the building heights
5
Limits the proximity of the building to the north boudary
6
Requires the implementation of the Flood Risk Assessment
7
Requires the prior submission of a construction ecological mitigation plan
8
Requires the prior submission of details of bird/bat boxes
9
Requires the prior submission of hard and/or soft landscape details
10
Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details
11
Requires the prior submission of a landscape management plan
12
Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme
13
Requires the prior submission of sample materials
14
Limits the layout plans to being indicative only
15
Requires the prior submission of details of refuse storage
16
Requires the prior submission of a construction method statement/management plan
17
Requires the prior approval of details to prevent mud on the highway
Page 10 of 13
18
Requires the prior installation of means of access
19
Requires the prior submission of a parking management strategy
20
Requires the prior submission of a commercial travel plan
21
Requires the provision of cycle parking prior to occupation
22
Requires the parking area to be laid out prior to use
23
Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details
24
Requires the prior submission and completion of works for the S278/TRO Agreement
25
Requires the prior submission of details for tree works
26
Requires the implementation of tree protection
27
Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme
28
Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans
29
Requires the submission of reserved matter details following an outline approval
30
Limits the approval to 3 years (outline)
Case Officer:
Ben Plenty
Page 11 of 13
Photo(s)
Fig 1 view of site from the north
Page 12 of 13
Location Plan
This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her
Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or
civil proceedings. Birmingham City Council. Licence No.100021326, 2010
Page 13 of 13