Agenda item - BH2021/03056 - Royal Sussex County Hospital, Eastern Road, Brighton - Removal or Variation of Condition

1.       The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.       Julian Redpath addressed the committee as a neighbouring objector and stated that the roads to the hospital and within the grounds were steep and very busy and additional vehicles are not good. Stairs, posts and crash barriers have been broken by vehicles using the roads, which are also a threat to pedestrians. High levels of noise and pollution are encountered by residents who consequently can’t open windows, and this is unacceptable. The change of the North Service Road to one way was considered to be good for the site, however, not for residents. The hospital Trust negotiations have not been seen by residents, who have never opposed changes. Residents feel misled by the Trust. The health and wellbeing of neighbouring residents is being affected.

3.       The director of the development company addressed the committee and stated that the application had been submitted through the normal planning process for Member agreement. The Trust recognises residents’ concerns and there are regular liaison meetings. There will be no changes to the existing roads and no construction traffic uses the North Service Road. The impact of the change to one-way traffic may be higher than stated in the report. The lower (South) service road will remain two-way. The removal of the access ramp is designed to mitigate any issues. The unilateral undertaking has been signed.

4.       Officer clarification: The unilateral undertaking had been tabled at Committee, but the Council considers it needs more work at this time.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.       Councillor Shanks was informed that the unilateral undertaking did not confirm whether the road would be two-way or one-way as there are pinch points in the road layout, but they were looking into it. The director of the development company stated that the Trust are committed to returning the road to two-way. The hospital has lots of vulnerable patients and the Trust are taking surveys and looking at clash points, however, they believe the change can be made.

6.       Councillor Fishleigh was informed that the Trust were reluctant to have further delays and the unilateral undertaking would commit the Trust to investigating highway impacts. The councillor considered proposing a deferment.

7.       The Planning Manager noted that any delay would impact on the hospital which must be taken into account.

8.       Councillor Littman noted there were a number of other items on the application and considered whether the impact on the road system could be removed from consideration of the application.

9.       Councillor Theobald requested a car park sign indicating the number of spaces.

10.      The director of the development company stated that the car park would have modern signage.

11.      Councillor Moonan was informed that a S106 was the same as a unilateral undertaking by the council Lawyer and was just as binding on the development company. The case officer confirmed that a consultant would carry out transport surveys on behalf of the applicant and highways officers would be consulted.

12.      The Highway Agreements Officer addressed the committee and stated that the unilateral undertaking could be used to take control of the development and as such is a useful tool. The council need to let the developer progress; however, the residents also need protection. The signing of the unilateral undertaking by the development company shows intent and a S106 agreement would be the same. The highways surveys have not yet been carried out due to COVID-19 delays. Traffic flows need factorisation and surveys can be submitted by letter and any changes would come back to committee.

13.      Councillor Shanks was informed by the council Lawyer the committee should consider the application as submitted with the unilateral undertaking. The Planning Manager confirmed the surveys were requested by the council.

14.      Councillor Ebel was informed by the Highways Agreement Officer that the unilateral undertaking was the best way forward.

Debate

15.      Councillor Fishleigh considered that a condition requiring a two-way road was required. The council Lawyer stated that any conditions need to be necessary and reasonable and that this may not be achievable.

16.      Councillor Moonan considered that a traffic assessment was needed. The Highways officer considered the unilateral undertaking was the best way forward then the committee should approve the application.

17.      Councillor Littman considered that a deferment would not be the best way forward.

18.      Councillor Shanks seconded the proposal for a two-way condition.

19.      Councillor Ebel considered there would be a clash with the unilateral undertaking if a two-way condition was added.

20.      The Planning Manager noted that the unilateral undertaking allowed exploration of traffic impact issues.

21.      Councillor Littman considered it dangerous to put on such a condition.

Vote

22.      A vote was taken, and by 3 to 4 (the Chair used a casting vote) the proposal to add a two-way condition was refused.

Vote

23.      A vote was taken, and by 4 to 1, with 1 abstention, the committee agreed to granting planning permission.

24.      RESOVLED: 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 Deed of Variation to the S106 agreement for planning permission BH2011/02886, the securing of a Unilateral Undertaking relating to transport issues, and the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report SAVE THAT should the Deed of Variation not be completed on or before 1 June 2022 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 11 of the report.