Meadbank Care Home, 12 Parkgate Road, 2025/3651

The Battersea Society objects to this application which is an unneighborly and poorly configured over-development of the site with concerning plans for access, a likely underestimate of traffic and no mention of affordable housing provision, within a site formerly used by a Council facility. The redevelopment offered an opportunity to provide functional new facilities within a building better related to the site. This opportunity has been lost with a large building set too close to the pavements in Parkgate and Battersea Bridge Roads.

The proposed site plan poorly reflects the sunlight trajectory resulting in a north facing, shaded, narrow courtyard and with underwhelming, somewhat obscure, entrances to the two wings. These are not clearly visible from Parkgate Road and some way from the proposed drop off raising potential access problems for less mobile residents and visitors. These entrances should form a stronger element of the external elevation and a clearer focal point than suggested. The loss of some of the courtyard to the roof light from the basement pool also further limits the attractiveness and effectiveness of that area as usable open space and indeed also limits vehicular access into the heart of the site.

The cafe (which is suggested should be open to the general public) is tucked in a corner of the courtyard. If the layout had made better use of the southern elevation of the site with the cafe sited where largely service/staff rooms are proposed, it would be much lighter and, by being visible from Battersea Bridge Road, might actually attract in the general public.

Access:

The Design and Access Study (DAS) states that Parkgate Road will be the main access to the site but this appears to be for pedestrians only with drop-offs using space on a busy road close to traffic lights. The illustration on page 89 of the DAS is misleading in its view of Parkgate Road which is both narrower and more heavily trafficked than this shows, and is a major route used to avoid Battersea Bridge when travelling from the west and north. Even if restricted to pedestrians, this entrance area looks small. Complete redevelopment offered the opportunity for a more extensive front access and entrance from Parkgate Road including for some essential parking. A rear access could have been retained for emergency access only.

The entrance from Searles Close, a quiet residential side road, is far too narrow to be effective for the number and size of vehicles likely to be using it. The proposed loading area is of limited dimensions and even smaller than the existing loading area. While there are many diagrams covering different types of service vehicle access to this small rear service area it is not clear how two or more simultaneous deliveries or emergency service vehicles would be managed. We can envisage the risk of major disruption in Parkgate Road as ambulances and other vehicles seek to enter and exit this narrow road. It is stated that “the proposals for the site include the provision of 7 operational surface car parking spaces, of which 2 are allocated for disabled parking. The remaining spaces will serve staff, service vehicles, and the operational needs of the care village, including access for fire tenders, ambulances, bin lorries, and a concierge (driver) service.” Given the size of the space this seems optimistic and adds to concerns regarding access from Searles Close.

Traffic Projections

We consider the traffic projections are unrealistic and likely to be an underestimate. The applicant admits they are based on very limited comparable development, most in suburban locations with possibly rather different demographic and travel patterns to those likely in Battersea. They suggest there is likely to be a reduction in the number of movements in comparison with those for the former facility (and virtually none by cycle). This seems unlikely given the nature of the upgrading of the accommodation and the current travel patterns). The applicant should be asked to use a wider basis of data with projections from more relevant city centre based retirement and care facilities.

Affordable housing provision

The housing mix proposals do not meet the requirements of the existing Local Plan Policy LP3 B4 which states that proposals for supported housing will only be approved where affordable housing is provided in accordance with London Plan policies H4, H5 and H13. We cannot see any reference to affordable provision. This is a major omission and needs to be provided prior to any decision being reached on the proposed development.

This application should be rejected and the applicant asked to start afresh. This would hopefully benefit future residents and staff, those living, working and studying locally and offer a more appropriate addition to the surrounding area.