Agenda item - BH2017/02256 - Royal Sussex County Hospital, Eastern Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of a 4no storey extension to existing Emergency Department building with associated alterations.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: East Brighton

Erection of a 4no storey extension to existing Emergency Department building with associated alterations.

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

Officer Presentation

2)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings and noted that the development would accommodate 70 short stay assessment beds for the Accident and Emergency department. It was explained that the ambulance and emergency police parking spaces would be retained.

3)               The main considerations for Members were: the design and appearance, including the impact on the neighbouring conservation areas; the introduction of a tall building and a different architectural style; the highly contemporary design, including the use of metal; the impact to the amenity of nearby residents; and the sustainability and infrastructure demands.

Questions for Officers

4)               In response to Councillor Miller the Officer explained that they had consulted with the applicant regarding the material and it had a lifetime guarantee and would not rust.

5)               In response to Councillor Morris the Planning Manager explained that the Artistic Influence sort was a broader terminology used for an art contribution.

6)               The Principal Planning Officer clarified to the CAG representative that there was less metal mesh in comparison to the designs at the pre-application presentation as the Planning Department felt it was important to have more windows.

7)               In response to Councillor Hyde it was noted that the applicant wished to have a contemporary building with its own identity and for it to be a statement that the NHS was modernising.

8)               In response to Councillor Yates it was explained that there was a suggestion for an enhancement scheme to improve the wall adjacent to Bristol Gate.

9)               In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was noted that the two listed posts at the bottom of Bristol Gate were to be removed during construction of the 3Ts project and replaced after the work had been completed.

10)            The Development and Transport Assessment Manager responded to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner and explained that the reflection of light from the building would not be a highways concern as the development was higher than street level. It was also explained that the access would be retained to the Accident and Emergency department.

11)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained that the metal mesh material would not cover the windows.

Debate and Decision Making Process

12)            Councillor Yates stated that it was a much needed building; however, he did not like the design and it was not in keeping with the area or the other hospital department buildings. He noted that despite this he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

13)            Councillor Hyde agreed with Councillor Yates regarding the design of the building. She noted that the facilities the building would provide were good and needed for the city; however, the design of the building would impact hugely on the neighbouring conservation area. She noted that she would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation. 

14)            Councillor Littman noted that he was undecided if he would support the Officer’s recommendation as the design was not in keeping with the surroundings.

15)            Councillor C. Theobald noted that she believed the design would look good once the building had been completed. The facilities were needed for the city and she was pleased about the proposed building.

16)            Councillor Mac Cafferty noted that the building should be easily identifiable from the outside and the design was bold and would complement the buildings in the area.

17)            Councillor Hill explained that the wall adjacent to Bristol Gate needed to be improved and the scheme would provide this. There was a mix of design in the area and the proposal would be an interesting contribution; therefore, she would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

18)            Councillor Miller stated that he liked the design and was pleased to see more investment in the NHS. He noted that the public art contribution may not be necessary due to the deficit of the NHS.

19)            Councillor Morris noted concern for the lack of overall design strategy for the hospital and stated that there were other visual ways to differentiate departments. He explained that he wanted to support the application due to the facilities it would provide; however, he was mindful to refuse the application due to the design.

20)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner agreed with Councillor Morris and noted that the facilities were needed for the city; however, a design strategy was needed for the hospital. He noted that he would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

21)            The CAG representative noted that CAG had not raised any objections because the views from the conservation areas would not be affected. He explained that the conservation officers had worked hard to ensure there wasn’t an impact and CAG were overall happy and supportive of the design.

22)            The Chair noted that she liked the design of the building and that it would be bold and modern. She noted that she would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

23)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be minded to grant was carried by 8 votes in support, 2 refusal and 1 abstention.

44.5       RESOLVED – 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 s106 agreement, conditions and informatives  as set out in the report.

Note:  Councillor Bennett was not present for the consideration and vote on the application.