Agenda item - BH2022/02232 - Patcham Court Farm, Patcham - Full Planning

1.            The Case officer introduced the application to the committee.

2.         A deputation had been submitted regarding the application. The Chair considered the deputation should be heard after the introduction.

3.         The deputation was introduced by Paul Mannix on behalf of eight other residents. This Deputation is presented by lead spokesperson P. Mannix and is supported by J. Carr, A. Peacock, T. Mastoris, N. Herrmann, M. Stokes, E. Elton, G. Goliand and J. Carr We wish to highlight two new areas of concern on planning application BH2022/02232, the Royal Mail's depot on council owned Patcham Court Farm, Vale Avenue BNI 8YF. Firstly, we wish to highlight our significant concern to Brighton and Hove City Council of a new threat of contamination to the safety of the Patcham Aquifer which feeds the tap water for residents, businesses, schools, public buildings and NHS services which is very likely to be caused if Brighton and Hove City Council approve planning application BH2022/02232 for the Royal Mail depot in a wholly residential area in Vale Avenue. Brighton and Hove City Council are aware an email from Rachael Powys-Keck, Future Growth Planner of Southern Water dated 14th August 2024 to Ben Davies, Team Leader Development Management - West & Enforcement Team of Brighton and Hove City Council clearly states Southern Water has concerns that upon reviewing “the technical note dated 1st August 2024, which documents the developer's proposed winter working suggestions Southern Water notes that this would allow the development to commence during the winter period, when our source is most at risk from contaminating activities. Construction activities during the winter presents a heightened risk, even with the inclusion of the proposed mitigation measures.” Southern Water's email of 14th August 2024 goes on to state, “Therefore, our previous request that no winter working be conducted remains unchanged.” Southern Water’s email explains that the technical note of 1st August 2024 has errors in it and Southern Water very clearly state, “The on-site Amazon filters are designed to treat seasonal turbidity fluctuations only. The Amazon filters are not designed to absorb additional turbidity loading, which could occur during or shortly after the construction of external structures as a consequence of this specific development. The current presented mitigation plan for turbidity will therefore possibly not reduce the risk of the source going offline due to turbidity.” Southern Water states they “would like to highlight that Brighton A is a Strategic Water Source. Should this source be forced offline, we would not be able to source water from elsewhere to ensure a continuous water supply to our customers. Brighton A supplies approximately 139,000 properties in the area. Given the sensitivity of our groundwater abstraction, Southern Water is unable to remove our previous conditions for this planning application.” Southern Water’s email then clarifies that it is still a condition that “below-ground construction works are limited to the summer months, i.e. April to September of any given year.” It is clear from Southern’s Water’s latest concerns that Royal Mail is not adequately taking into account the previous conditions set by Southern Water to ensure the safety of the water of Brighton A which is a Strategic Water Source. There are many vulnerable residents in the area very close to Patcham Court Farm; children, elderly and younger adults who are immunocompromised who could suffer significant health concerns and even a risk of death if their tap water supply is contaminated. Brighton and Hove City Council must protect the water supply of its residents with a higher priority than any economic benefit it may gain from its lease offered to Royal Mail for the use of Patcham Court Farm after approving Royal Mail's depot Brighton and Hove City Council must therefore refuse planning permission for application BH2022/02232. Secondly, Brighton and Hove Bus & Coach Company Limited have stated in a letter dated 13th August 2024 to Alasdair Walmsley, Principle Transport Development Officer of Brighton and Hove City Council that they will only guarantee to divert the first bus of the day to accommodate Royal Mail’s workers at Patcham Court Farm for one year and, “This service will require a minimum of twenty passengers per day to justify the continued operation of the diversion. Should this threshold not be met consistently, we reserve the right to review and potentially discontinue the diversion after the initial year of operation.” Therefore, Brighton and Hove City Council would be badly advised to rely on a bus service that is only guaranteed for one year to Patcham Court Farm in order to approve application BH2022/02232. It is public knowledge that Royal Mail in Brighton and Hove are still losing more staff and having to heavily rely on agency staff. A high turnover of staff does not guarantee this bus service will get the minimum passenger numbers to continue the service after the first year of service which in turn will lead to more staff parking in residential streets around the site than anticipated by Royal Mail if the bus service is cancelled. Therefore, this planning application should be refused.

4.         The Chair noted the deputation and requested that the committee Members ask questions of Paul Mannix after the speakers had been heard.

Speakers

5.         Rebecca Fellingham addressed the committee as a resident and stated that they had clear and robust evidence regarding the second parking survey, contrary to the officer evidence, which is a material consideration. Rebecca Kimber addressed the committee as a resident and stated that the land was previously developed and therefore the claims of it being improve was weakened in the planning balance and should be considered along with the flooding issues. This type of development has not been permitted elsewhere in a conservation area. Philip Hardy addressed the committee as a Planning Consultant and stated that the this was within the setting of a conservation area and therefore protected; also, partially an Area of Outstanding Natural Beaty (AONB) and adjoining the South Downs National Park. Planning policy CP3 restricts the hard standing proposed for the site. The use class B8 excludes this type of development. The neighbouring National Park will be affected. The development will cause harm to the form and character of the area.

6.         Ward Councillor Meadows addressed the committee and stated that they noted the conservation area should be preserved or enhanced by the proposals. 20-tonne lorries would cause vibrations to the cottages nearby. The area must be protected, and the application therefore refused. The ground water aquifer provides water for 139,000 households. If the rainwater is not allowed to supply the aquifer, then there will be less water for residents. Flooding has taken place in the area in 2000, 2021 and 2023. Further flooding will taint the water supply. The Royal Mail will cause noise, light and air pollution affecting the neighbouring residents. The proposals will affect the residential and conservation area that should be protected.

7.         Paul Bridson addressed the committee as the applicant and stated that they were working with local residents. The proposals will replace two existing town centre sites and will be a flagship development and efficient workplace. To support the environment, electric vehicles will be used, and the site will be carbon net zero by 2027. The land is mixed use in the city plan and will have minimum effect by using an entrance next to the A27, away from residential properties. Acoustic fencing will be erected to reduce noise levels. The site will have huge environmental improvements. The committee were requested to approve the application.

8.         The case officer clarified that the new bus stop will be introduced near the site with usage of the revised bus service monitored to see if it should be retained. There are existing bus stops nearby. The second parking survey took account of the gas works being undertaken in July 2024.

9.         The Planning Manager noted that the site was not within an AONB and that the South Downs National Park was on the other side of the A27.

Answers to Committee Members Questions.

10.      Councillor Fishleigh was informed by officers that the allocated use class of the site under local plan policy CP3 was for B use – employment, with a supporting table indicating office use for the site. Marketing had taken place for some considerable time, however, need for offices in the city has reduced and those who want offices prefer the city centre. The proposals will include 360 jobs, which included those relocated from the exiting sites. The development is acceptable in principle.

11.      Councillor Nann was informed by officers that the van movement figures were based on existing movements at the post office sites. It was noted that night-time movements will be restricted to 10 movements between 11pm and 7am. There are no restrictions on general movements. John Lea-Wilson (the applicant’s drainage specialist) stated that industry standard modelling software had been used to assess the water impact.

12.      Councillor Theobald was informed that trees were being removed as part of the development to allow a new ramped access to the site. A 1:20 slope will be created to allow step free access to the site. The biodiversity net gains are to be north of the site within the South Downs National Park, as a compensatory habitat location. Reptiles will be relocated. The location of fire hydrants will be agreed through Building Regulations. An archaeological dig will be required by condition. Mark Taylor (the applicant’s transport specialist) stated that there was a 5-year travel plan with regular surveys.

13.      Councillor Shanks was informed that other Royal Mail sites are not to be considered by the committee. The Transport Planning Technical Lead noted there was no parking scheme in the area. The legal officer noted that the application should be decided on its own merits and not in the context of the other sites being redeveloped, though the planning manager noted that the reduced noise and disturbance to the areas around the Brighton and Hove depots was relevant.

14.      Councillor Sheard was informed that the site is allocated for B class uses, which includes B1 (now within class E), B2 and B8.

15.      Councillor Thomson was informed that no high-quality trees were found on the site frontage that were to be removed to allow a new access onto the site. Appropriate replacements would be planted by condition. The arboricultural officer has not objected to the scheme. A drainage strategy has been proposed with details to be secured by condition and no objections have been received from consultees. The case officer confirmed that only pre-commencement conditions need to be agreed by the applicant but are imposed if needed to make the development acceptable. It was noted that Southern Water have confirmed they can manage any extra water capacity, and the arrangements are adequate to deal with 1-in-100 years events. John Lea-Wilson stated that robust water mitigation was incorporated into the scheme to ensure that it would not increase run-off. Mark Taylor (transport specialist for the applicant) stated that staff at the existing sites were being surveyed regarding moving to a new site. Use of cycles and car sharing schemes are being encouraged. It was noted that there were trees with Ash Die Back and low-quality trees being removed. The landscaping would need approval by condition as would the size and species of the replacement trees. Mark Taylor for the applicant stated that the Royal Mail wished to make the site sustainable, and the target was for no overspill parking.

16.      Councillor Loughran was informed by Richard Lansley for the applicant that the applicant had worked with Southern Water on a hydrogeological survey. A construction risk assessment included mitigation measures and seasonal working. John Lea-Wilson for the applicant noted it was not possible for infiltration from the site into the aquifer due to the impermeable membrane proposed and other measures. It was also noted by the flooding officer that ground water source protection zone was identified by the Environment Agency and that most water in the city comes from the chalk aquifer with a zero-to-50-day extraction. Mark Taylor for the applicant stated that HGV lorries would only approach the site from A27, unload and return to A27. It was also noted that no red fleet vehicles would be allowed to use Church Hill. Staff would be working in shifts. Resident speaker Rebecca Kimber noted that previous applications for the site have been refused. The case officer noted previous applications had been approved but some time ago, and that the overriding consideration relating to the site was its allocation with CP3 City Plan Part 1 policy. The Principal Transport Development Officer noted the gasworks during the parking survey taken in July 2024 and considered the results along with the previous survey were sound. Mark Tayor for the applicant stated they were aware of the gasworks and the impact had been taken into account.

17.      Councillor Fishleigh was informed by Mark Taylor for the applicant that car sharing will be encouraged, and specific parking spaces provided, as will cycling and walking to the site. It was noted by Steve Tremlett (Planning Policy Team Leader) that the use class allocation was for B – employment use. The proposals are considered more appropriate than office use. Ward Councillor Meadows stated that the council could open up the sewers and soakaways. The Council flood officer stated that the council were the lead flood authority in the area and are responsible for ground and surface water flooding, and sewers are covered by Southern Water. A groundwater flood risk management scheme was established in 2014. Flooding is primarily caused by excess runoff from housing and buildings not connected to the sewers. Resident speaker Rebecca Fellingham stated that they had video evidence showing nine households had been able to access their homes due to gasworks so were parking on the street. Resident speaker Rebecca Kimber noted they had material showing that the site was within an area of outstanding natural beaty (AONB) and this was a material consideration for this and previous applications.

18.      Councillor Winder was informed by Paul Derry for the applicant that the design of the scheme was bespoke to the Royal Mail. The development is to be set back from Vale Avenue and the conservation area. It was noted that there is Ash Die Back on the site.

Debate

19.      Councillor Theobald considered the application to be very important and the site, next to a conservation area and listed buildings, should be for light office work only. It is noted that the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) objected to the application. The traffic will be considerable with 28 HGVs per day leading to congestion on the A27 roundabout. Parking is a concern as it will overflow. Water contamination is also an issue. The removal of trees will lead to the residents being exposed to light and noise, and the replacement trees will offer no screening. Flooding is an issue in Patcham each year. The neighbouring cottages will be affected by the traffic and there is no bus stop nearby. It is considered that the impact will be 24/7. It was noted that 1,176 objections have been received and all are upset about the application. The councillor objected to the application.

20.      Councillor Galvin considered Southern Water had given contradictory information for and against the application and the effect on the water supply. The Planning Manager noted that Southern Water did not object to the application and gave their support subject to the conditions and informatives.

21.      Councillor Allen considered the 46 conditions attached to the application had allayed their concerns regarding water and drainage. It was considered that the application would not exacerbate the existing flooding issues. The existing Royal Mail sites within the city were not good. The councillor supported the application.

22.      Councillor Nann supported the application as they considered the design to be good and the reduction of traffic into the city would be better. The site was considered suitable for the development.

23.      Councillor Thomson stated they were reassured by the answers given to councillor questions. The councillor supported the application.

24.      Councillor Sheard noted the flooding and the objections to the application. The councillor supported the application.

25.      Councillor Winder stated they saw the need to move sites, however, they considered more adaptations and mitigations were needed. The councillor considered that the Royal Mail should listen to residents.

26.      Councillor Shanks noted there had been a lot of mitigation and there were bus stops nearby. The councillor noted there was lots of opposition. The councillor supported the application.

27.      Councillor Fishleigh noted the site had been on the market for some years, however, other options were not explored. Issues on site need to be resolved. The councillor was against the application.

28.      Councillor Loughran noted the applicant had put in a huge amount of work and the public had been consulted with properly and clearly fully engaged, especially given the number of representations and people at the meeting. Adaptions and mitigations were in the conditions and informatives attached to the application. The parking on site seems reasonable and noted the 5-year travel plan which would give ongoing transport improvements. The design is good. The replacement trees are good, and it was considered that there was a less than substantial impact on the conservation area. The councillor was pleased with the biodiversity arrangements and lighting conditions. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

29.      A vote was taken, and by 7 to 2, with 1 abstention, the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

30.      RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement on the Heads of Terms set out in the report and the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before 27 November 2024 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 12 of the report.