20/AP/2768
Demolition of the Michael Rutter Centre, Mapother House and
Professional Building and construction of 3 new buildings fronting De
Crespigny Park ranging from 5 — 8 storeys plus plant to create 189
one, two and three storey dwellings (use class C3), creation of a
nursery facility at ground floor level complete with secure outdoor play
space. Creation of communal gardens, play areas for children, cycle
parking and other associated alterations and improvements to
infrastructure. Creation of new pedestrian walkway to the east of the
site with stairs and platform lift to improve connections with
De Crespingy Park.
The Planning Committee considered the proposition that Maudsley campus
should be preserved in its entirety for medical uses only, and that
planning applications that would allow for parts of it to be sold for
other uses should not be considered. However, it was decided that the
Maudsley Hospital management team are best placed to know what they need
to do to secure the hospital’s future, including selling off part of the
campus for residential development to raise funds for other projects if
that is what is required. Residential development is also an appropriate
development for De Crespigny Park
There is much in this application that is welcome:
New north-south public pedestrian link to pathway running through the
Maudsley campus improves De Crespigny Park access to the wider area
including to Denmark Hill Station.
The scale and massing of the buildings is on the whole appropriate to
the surrounding area, with a residential density 600 habitable rooms per
hectare.
There is adequate space between blocks for communal gardens and
childrens’ play spaces.
There are equal numbers of social rented and private ownership flats.
There is to be an on-site children’s nursery.
The historic friezes from Michael Rutter Centre are to be re-purposed.
Some more controversial issues are:
The De Crespigny Park elevations of the three proposed blocks are
divided into 3 bays each to replicate the rhythm of the Victorian villas
elsewhere in the street, but the detail of the bays has introduced
jarring elements to the scheme:
The preponderance of dark grey bricks gives the buildings a forbidding
appearance in a street where every other building is yellow and white.
The 6th floor mansard roof extensions on the De Crespigny Park frontage
do not enhance the street scape, and would increase the height of the
building compared with the existing buildings adjacent. This might be
acceptable if they offered a more pleasing aspect, for example including
a landscaped roof terrace.
The double height ground and 1st floor openings contribute to the blocks
appearing as domineering elements in the street. Conversely the “polka
dot” brick patterning and the understated window surrounds and
rustications don’t have the impact they need in relation to the grand
scale of the elevation as a whole. Some rethinking of this elevation is
required.
It is not clear from the drawings provided whether the proposed
buildings follow the existing building line on the south side of the
street and how they relate to the height of the existing buildings. It
appears from the illustrations that the De Crespigny frontage is closer
to the pavement edge than the adjacent buildings, not an acceptable
feature in a street where there is an established building line.
The past year has reminded us of the importance of the NHS to us all and
the long hours worked by NHS staff at times of crisis. The committee was
of the opinion therefore that some of the proposed accommodation should
be reserved for medical staff working locally and that this should be a
condition of the planning permission, to be enforced by a section 106
notice.
The committee thought that 6 disabled parking places for the whole
development is a missed opportunity to provide a reasonable level of
residents’ parking as well as parking for visitors to the hospital. An
underground car park would be a useful facility. It was also felt that
there was inadequate provision for deliveries.
The Camberwell Society’s opinion is that the application has many good
points but considers that the De Crespigny Park elevation needs work,
some of the accommodation should be reserved for NHS staff working
locally and increased parking provision and delivery facilities are
needed.