Agenda item - BH2025/02142 - Patcham Court Farm - Removal or Variation of Condition

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

Speakers

2.   Rebecca Mintrim addressed the committee as a resident and stated they had serious concerns and noted 1500 people had objected to the application. The concerns raised in the objections needed to be listened to and the application should be refused. The amendments applied for are not minor. Royal Mail were putting profits over resident considerations. HGV will be loading 10m from the closest property, with an expected 28 deliveries a day, with some at night, which is against planning policy. The impact on residents would be like a torture method. The inconsistency by Royal Mail is alarming, with other sites receiving more consideration than Patcham Court Farm. Trees and boundary foliage are to be removed, which will worsen the scheme for residents. Transparency is requested in the public interest.

3.   Ward Councillors McNair and Meadows sent a speech, as follows: Residents in Patcham are very dismayed to see that the Royal Mail’s plans have been changed for the worse. We strongly object to the HGV operational yard being relocated to the south of the site. It will be significantly closer to residents, particularly 133 Vale Avenue and the residents in The Village Barn and along Vale Avenue. With at least twenty-eight movements of large HGVs per day, this will cause significant disturbance through noise and air pollution. It is also deeply disappointing to see the removal of the green roof, two of the swales and the wildflower meadows along the eastern boundary and the side of the building itself. The roof as it is will not be an attractive feature viewed from the South Downs. This quiet corner of Patcham is going to have significant air and noise pollution from HGVs. Water pollution and increased flooding is highly likely. The Royal Mail hardly conducted a thorough public consultation in the first place, and now the plans change – to the detriment of residents and wildlife. We hope the planning committee agree that these changes go too far and the Royal Mail should put up with the plans as originally approved.

4.   Paul Bridson addressed the committee on behalf of the applicant and stated that the Royal Mail would be retracting from two town centre sites, and the new site would improve deliveries. Paul Derry also addressed the committee as the agent and stated that they had been working on this project for years with Royal Mail and they considered the matters objected to, remained unchanged. The access and vehicle movements remain the same. The lowering of the ground level will improve residents’ views. Reversing alarms will be cut off by condition. There are no objections from consultees.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.   Councillor Shanks was informed that solar panels have been removed from the scheme. Councillor Shanks requested that other users be considered to use the roof space.

6.   Councillor Robinson was informed that the acoustic walls, submitted in the original planning application, were to be retained in the scheme. It was noted that sound increases would be the same as the original scheme application and that 4db was acceptable.

7.   Councillor Sheard was informed that Royal Mail were open to discussions regarding the use of the roof space by other companies as solar panel holders. The green wall is for screening and will face south. The green wall be maintained by condition. It was noted that the Environment Agency found the aquifer to be 15m below ground level and by condition there were to be no ground works. Royal Mail vehicles would be tested at the Gatwick distribution centre and daily tests were not required.

8.   Councillor Cattell was informed that the green wall will be planted in rows to assist growth, with details to be agreed by condition.

9.   Councillor Theobald was informed that condition 30 needs to be updated to include the new noise report. The green roof is part of the holistic design of the site, and the small front extension is no longer needed. The green meadows have been removed from the scheme following the realignment of the car park.

10. Councillor Earthey was informed that the access for HGVs would be directly from the A23/A27 junction, with the deliveries coming from the Gatwick distribution centre. It was noted that the loss of biodiversity was 59% in the original scheme and 57% now.

11. Councillor Thomson was informed that the bat survey was accepted by the County Ecologist. The agent stated the application was not a cost cutting exercise and the development would be below lower and behind a tree screen. It was noted that condition 47 prevented reversing noise from HGVs, and different sounds would be used when required by law.

Debate

12. Councillor Theobald considered that seven conditions to be amended was a lot. The moving of HGVs to the south part of the site was not good, as reversing vehicles make noise. The loss of the green roofs, and some screening was not good. The new frontage will be very visible and therefore worse. There will also be a risk of flooding. The councillor was against the application.

13. Councillor Robinson considered the site was now lower and less visible. It was a shame about the loss of the green roof. The noise levels have been explained; there is stronger screening and the HGVs will be safer. The councillor supported the application.

14. Councillor Sheard was concerned at the impact on the aquifer and the loss of solar panels. The councillor considered on the whole the scheme meets the levels of sustainability, and solar panels could be added to the roof later. The loss of the green roof was a concern. The councillor supported the application. It was noted that an informative could be added to the scheme, requesting that Royal Mail look into solar panels.

15. Councillor Parrott did not consider the changes to be significant. The councillor was disappointed at the loss to the solar panels. The councillor supported the application.

16. Councillor Nann considered the changes did not justify a refusal. The noise levels of 4db were acceptable. The councillor supported the application.

17. Councillor Shanks considered the Brighton Energy Co-Ops should be considered to place solar panels on the roofscape.

18. Councillor Earthey considered that the roof should support solar panels.

19. Councillor Cattell considered the details regarding the green wall were good and Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) was acceptable. The councillor supported the application.

20. Councillor Thomson regretted the losses.

Vote

21. A vote was held, and by 9 to 1 against the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

22. RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report, and subject to the S106 agreement for planning application BH2022/02232 which also applies to this S73 application.