Agenda item - BH2015/01434,Royal Sussex County Hospital, Eastern Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing single storey double stacked modular units (C2) and single storey brick store and construction of a 3 storey building (C2) situated at the junction of North (Service) Road and Bristol Gate to provide clinical offices, workshops, storage and plant with associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: East Brighton

              Demolition of existing single storey double stacked modular units (C2) and single storey brick store and construction of a 3 storey building (C2) situated at the junction of North (Service) Road and Bristol Gate to provide clinical offices, workshops, storage and plant with associated works.

(1)          It was noted that this application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Mick Anson, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs, sectional and elevational drawings and floor plans showing perspectives across the site from various locations. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of existing double stacked modular units and the single storey brick structure and the erection of a three storey building (Use Class C2) and associated works. The proposed building would enable staff to be relocated as part of the decanting operation in preparation of the main redevelopment of the front part of the Royal Sussex County Hospital site, known as the 3T’s (Trauma, Teaching and Tertiary) development. Implementation was subject to final approval of the Full Business Case by the Treasury. The north east corner of the proposed new building would accommodate a new sub-station, transformers and generators to serve the new building and other buildings on the hospital estate. The remaining rooms in the building would be for administrative purposes and would accommodate approximately 80 members of staff. It was explained that “Minded to Grant” permission was now recommended in order to allow for final agreement of the submitted details of the CEMP. Samples of the proposed materials were also displayed and it was explained that it was proposed that the window frames would be grey with aquamarine powder coated fascias.

(3)          The main considerations in determining the application related to the scale and design of the proposed building. The use of the building and its relationship to the decanting phase of the main 3T’s RSCH hospital redevelopment scheduled to start in 2016 was another issue as well as any potential impacts on residential amenity due to loss of outlook or noise or emissions from the building.

(4)          The proposed development would provide a key component in the decanting operation required for the 3T’s development by providing permanent and replacement accommodation for the temporary buildings in situ. Minded to Grant permission was therefore recommended.

              Questions for Officers

(5)          Councillor Morris enquired regarding treatment of the proposed cladding material, citing concerns that dependent on the surface treatment used timber cladding  (if this was to be used) did not always wear well and in such instances detracted from the appearance of the building.

(6)          Councillor Gilbey also asked for clarification of this matter, expressing concern that one of the circulated material samples was chipped and was already showing signs of wear. It was explained that a long lasting easy to clean treatment was proposed similar to those recently approved for a scheme in Preston Road. If permission was granted final an informative could be added advising that final approval of materials was to be taken by the Planning and Building Control Applications Manager in consultation with the Chair.

(7)          It was further explained that the scheme had been designed such that individual panels could be replaced.

(8)          Councillor Robins referred to the fact that in addition to this scheme several others which were significant had been agreed for East Brighton. He asked whether measures were in place to encourage the applicants to co-ordinate deliveries etc., in order to minimise impact in the neighbouring area. It was confirmed that the management plans for each took account of this. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager, Steven Shaw, confirmed that the Traffic Management and Highway Authority would also be overseeing the process.

(9)          Councillor Gilbey referred to the pedestrian walkway which was adjacent to the car park, asking whether it would be clearly demarcated. It was explained that it was understood that it would have a raised surface which would set it apart from the roadway.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)       Councillor Miller welcomed the scheme including the proposed access improvements, especially those for pedestrians.

(11)       Councillor Janio also welcomed the scheme stating that he hoped work would commence very soon.

(12)       Councillor Morris supported the scheme which he was aware would bring to fruition proposals which had been developed over a period of time.

(13)       Councillor Mac Cafferty expressed his full support for what he considered to be an exciting scheme which he understood could start imminently.

(14)       A vote was taken and members voted unanimously that minded to grant planning permission be granted.

94.3       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to agreement on the details of the CEMP and the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11.

              An additional informative to be added:

The decision on the details to be submitted in accordance with condition 6 shall be taken by to the Planning and Building Control Applications Manager in Consultation with the Chair of Planning Committee.

              Condition 9 to be amended as follows:

Delete the first 6 lines

              MINOR APPLICATIONS