Agenda item - BH2014/00310 - Woollards Field, Lewes Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Construction of a 2no storey Ambulance Make Ready Centre (MRC) building incorporating the provision of 82 car parking spaces, 5no disabled car parking spaces (total of 87 spaces) and 34 ambulance bays including access works, landscaping and other associated works. 

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Construction of a 2no storey Ambulance Make Ready Centre (MRC) building incorporating the provision of 82 car parking spaces, 5no disabled car parking spaces (total of 87 spaces) and 34 ambulance bays including access works, landscaping and other associated works.

(1)             The Senior Planning Officer, Sue Dubberley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings, and drew attention to matters on the Late List. It was also confirmed that a revised landscaping plan had been received. The application site was located on the southern side of Lewes Road and was adjacent to the new regional records office – known as The Keep. The application sought permission for a two-storey ‘make ready’ centre with 87 car parking spaces. The function of the centre was a base for the ambulance service to begin and end shifts, and to prepare for service. The site would also include storage for medical supplies and office space for 246 staff; however, it was clarified that the site would not be a base for emergency calls and there would be no blue light or siren call-outs from it. The ‘make-ready’ site was a means to consolidate 6 existing sites around Sussex.

(2)             In relation to the height the highest point of the proposals would be still be lower than The Keep, and lower than the surrounding tree levels. The application had been the subject of consultations, and whilst the centre would be a departure from policy the report identified several reasons why this was considered acceptable. The site was designated for office use; however, there was a lack of demand for this in the location and the provision of the site would retain employment in the city. The need for the facility was also a consideration and the lack of alternative sites within the city. The design and landscaping were considered acceptable and there would be little impact on amenity as the nearest residential properties were some distance from the site.

(3)             There had been some concern in relation to the proposal of a generator at the site; however, it was considered this could be properly mitigated through condition. In relation to the high number of parking spaces on site it was noted that this was acceptable given the 24 hour operation of the site and the 8 or 12 hour shifts patterns of staff; the high number of spaces reflected the unique nature of the model of operation. In relation to ecology there was a presence of reptiles in the area and since the construction of The Keep there had been an exclusion fence which would be maintained along with the reptile habitat area. The building would have BREEAM ‘very good’ and it was noted the rating was restricted by the 24 hour nature of operation and the level of staff parking. Policy made reference to this type of beneficial development for both the city and the wider region, and the application was recommended to be minded to grant for the reasons set out in the report.

Questions for Officers

(4)             In response to Councillor Duncan the Case Officer explained that there were no objections from the traffic engineer; the application sought contributions for sustainable transport and there would be a travel plan.

(5)             In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was clarified that the single objection to the site was in relation to traffic and noise pollution, insufficient parking and overlooking of the nearby park.

(6)             Councillors Robins and Gilbey and the Chair made reference to the materials used on the site, and it was suggested that the materials be agreed by the Head of Development Control in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

(7)             Councillor C. Theobald noted the concerns raised by the Fire Authority, and it was confirmed that these related to Building Control matters which formed a separate regime.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)             Councillor Cox welcomed the innovative approach by the Ambulance Service and was pleased that such a service would be located in the city.

(9)             Councillor C. Theobald also noted that she would support the Officer recommendation; the use was appropriate and would be fully fit for purpose.

(10)          Councillor Hyde noted this would be a ‘first-class’ facility.

(11)          Councillor Duncan noted that he fully supported the application, and like Councillor Cox he welcomed this in the city.

(12)          Councillor Carden stated that he fully supported the Officer recommendation, and was in favour of good emergency services.

(13)          In response to the Chair it was explained that the removal of conditions, as outlined on the Late List, was due to the late comments received by the County Archaeologist and Arboriculturist.

(14)          A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant the application was unanimously carried.

201.2    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a S106 agreement, conditions and informatives and with details of materials to be agreed by the Head of Development Control in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.