Agenda item

King's College Hospital (Herne Hill) 18/04058/VOC

Officer’s recommendations:

1.    Resolve to grant conditional planning permission.


2.    Agree to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport  and Development to finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes.




Case No. 18/04058/VOC (agenda item four, page 95 of the agenda pack and page 5 of the second addendum).


Members agreed that the officer’s presentation was not required.


The applicant then provided the following information in support of the application:

·         The application sought permission for 24 hour operation of the helipad.

·         Permission for the elevated helipad had been granted in 2013, and the helipad had been operational since 2017.  Since then, over 450 severely injured patients had been received by air.

·         One complaint had been received, relating to a landing in Ruskin Park.

·         It was estimated that there would be 1.6-1.8 additional landings per week.

·         The applicant had a charitable grant to fund the operation of the helipad for 12 months.

·         The noise levels and frequency would meet World Health Organisation recommendations.

·         The application would ensure that patients could


Officers, the applicant and the applicant’s advisor then provided the following information in response to questions from Members:

·         After the initial one year permission, any new application would be considered by the Committee, and evidence such as flight logs and complaints would be expected.  The one year permission was a trial period, and longer applications would be for longer periods.  The other helipads in London at Royal London and St George’s had permissions for five years.

·         Leeds and Southampton had 24 hour helipads.  London was the only capital city in western Europe without a 24 hour helipad.

·         The use of helicopters reduced the time taken to arrive to hospital. This was particularly critical in cases where the patient was further away from the hospital and severely ill or injured.

·         Officers expected residents making complaints to approach either the Council or the hospital.  Condition 9 in the second addendum required the applicant to provide a log of all complaints at the end of the permission period.  If a future application was made, a new public consultation would be done.  LB Southwark had been consulted during this application but had not provided comments.

·         The hospital had a dedicated complaints phone number.  When complaints were received, the hospital was able to check flight logs to verify if the helicopter was associated with the hospital.

·         If 24 hours operation was approved, there would be no advantage to land in Ruskin Park.  Ruskin Park was an approved landing spot and was used by police and army helicopters.

·         The Civil Aviation Authority set regulations on conditions that helicopters could fly.


The Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development advised that Condition 4 be amended to remove “without the permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority”.


It was MOVED by Councillor Kind, SECONDED by Councillor Masters, and


RESOLVED, unanimously


To GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions as outlined in the officer’s report and published addendum and the following:

i)             An amendment to Condition 4 to remove “without the permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority”.

ii)            An informative requesting that officers liaise with LB Southwark in order to collate complaints.

iii)           An informative requesting that King’s College Hospital add specific reference to complaining about helicopter noise on the website’s complaints page.


Supporting documents: