Agenda item - BH2015/03148 - St Mary's Hall, Eastern Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of 3 storey modular building on existing tennis court and car parking area for use as construction site offices for the 3Ts hospital development for a temporary period of up to eight years.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Erection of 3 storey modular building on existing tennis court and car parking area for use as construction site offices for the 3Ts hospital development for a temporary period of up to eight years.

              Officer Presentation

1)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application sought permission for the erection of a three-storey modular building for temporary use for up to 8 years; an additional letter of objection in the Late List was also highlighted. The current car park was used as B1 offices and doctors residential accommodation; parking was restricted to hospital staff only. The two top tiers of the building would be visible above the listed flint wall; all of the south facing windows would have obscure glazing, and there would be no windows on the ground floor or east elevation. It was highlighted that condition 7 was to be deleted, and the report was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

2)               Ross Sully spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a local resident. He was of the view that the temporary permission could lead the establishment of permanent building on that location. The area was already very congested and dangerous, and the majority of pedestrians used the road rather than the footpath. Little consideration had been given to how the proposed 400 workers on site would park and how they would access the site as there was already insufficient parking. Neighbours were already affected by inappropriate parking around the site, and this proposal would make the situation worse. Insufficient consideration have been given to alternative locations around the site; with no examples given or why they had been rejected.

3)               Mr Sean Collins spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the applicant. He responded to the points raised in objection and stated that no vehicles would be parked on the site; the location of the park and ride was currently being finalised. The windows on the southern elevation would be obscurely glazed and have no impact on privacy. In relation to the loss of the tennis court arrangements had been made to re-provide the facility elsewhere. The structure was temporary and the full intention was for use only associated with the hospital redevelopment; after three years it was intended to scale down the building from three-storeys to two.

4)               In response to Councillor Barradell the Speaker explained that staff would arrive at the between 0630 and 0700 hours and leave at around 1800 hours; this would be outside of school drop off and pick up times.

5)               In response to Councillor West the Speaker explained that there would be 375 employees on site by late 2018; with around 250 of these coming into the city daily; the applicant was currently in negotiations to allow staff to park at the former gasworks site on Eastern Road and walk down to the site.

6)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was clarified that the trust would prefer not to have parking on the site.

7)               In response to Councillor Hamilton the Speaker explained that the only other site that could be appropiate was the restaurant roof; however, this was logistically difficult, it was highlighted that the whole southern footprint of the site was being excavated. 

8)               It was confirmed to Councillor Miller that the former gasworks site had not been seen as a possibility as it was too far from the main construction site.

Questions for Officers

9)               In response to Councillor West it was explained by Officers that there was a Construction, Environmental Management Plan as part of the whole 3Ts redevelopment which sought to regulate and manage all traffic movement, and this was the correct mechanism to monitor and manage any additional movements.

10)            In response to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner it was confirmed that the Heritage Team had commented the building would cause substantial harm if it was permanent, and was very unlikely this type of building would be granted permanent consent.

11)            It was confirmed that works to the flint wall and extending the pavement were due to take place once the weather improved.

12)            In response to Councillor Barradell it was clarified that smoking off the site was not a material planning consideration, but this matter could be taken up by the hospital and residents liaison group.

13)            In response to Councillor Wares it was clarified that the date between the removal of the temporary buildings and the reinstatement of the site was to give a long stop date to clean up the site.

14)            In response to Councillor O’Quinn it was explained that the access shown in the photo by the Objector was too narrow for a footpath; instead pedestrians could be encouraged to use other access points.

15)            In response to Councillor Barradell it was confirmed that the tennis court would be open to the public. It was also explained that it was proposed to remove Condition 7 as this could be better managed through the s106 agreement.

Debate and Decision Making Process

16)            Councillor C. Theobald noted that the scheme was temporary in nature and part of the wider 3Ts development. Whilst she didn’t welcome the loss of parking she would support the Officer recommendation.

17)            Councillor Wares proposed amending Condition 4 to reflect the restoration of site to be completed within 6 months; this was seconded by the Chair.

18)            Councillor Hamilton noted that the current hospital buildings were no longer fit for purpose, and this building was a necessary element of enabling that development. For these reasons he would support the Officer recommendation.

19)            Councillor Barradell noted she had some reservations, but would support the Officer recommendation. She highlighted her concerns in relation to additional vehicle movements; additional noise and pollution and problems during school drop off and pick up times. The Chair commented that there were other regulatory regimes that would help to monitor the situation.

20)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner noted the position of the objectors, but he recognised the necessity of the new hospital and the temporary nature of the consent.

21)            A vote was taken of the  eleven Members present, together with the amended Condition 4, and deleted Condition 7 and the Officer recommendation that permission be minded to grant was carried unanimously.

142.1    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 to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement and the conditions and informatives set out in section 11, and the amended Condition set out below:

Condition 4: Wording to be amended to require the existing land and facilities to be restored  to the satisfaction of the LPA prior to 01 October 2024.

Note: Councillor Mac Cafferty was not present at the meeting.