The Royal Mail’s plans to build a distribution centre in Patcham have been approved to shouts of “shame on you all” from the public.
Councillors voted seven to two in favour after hearing from residents and a Royal Mail property director during a three-hour session at Hove Town Hall this afternoon (Wednesday 4 September).
Patcham residents protested outside the town hall before the Brighton and Hove City Council Planning Committee meeting and filled the public gallery to show their opposition to the plans.
The Royal Mail wants to demolish the existing farm buildings, in Vale Avenue, and build a distribution centre with “associated access, parking, landscaping and infrastructure”.
There were 1,179 individual objections to the application as well as representations from Brighton and Hove Wildlife Forum, the Brighton Society, Patcham and Hollingbury Conservation Association and the Patcham Local History Group.
Patcham Against Royal Mail campaigner Paul Mannix led a deputation and spoke against the application at the start of the meeting.
Mr Mannix, of Highview Avenue, cited Southern Water’s concerns about the strategic water source known as Brighton A which supplies 139,000 homes in the area – or more than 200,000 people.
Mr Mannix said that Southern Water had objected to Royal Mail’s proposals for winter working, saying that “no below-ground construction work” should take place from September to April.
He said: “Construction activities during the winter present a heightened risk, even with the inclusion of the proposed mitigation measures.
“Southern Water’s email of (Wednesday) 14 August 2024 goes on to state: ‘Therefore, our previous request that no winter working be conducted remains unchanged.’
Another resident Rebecca Fellingham told the Planning Committee that the Royal Mail’s parking survey carried out in July in Highview Avenue North was “misleading” and “not robust”.
She said: “The applicant has attempted to mislead the Planning Committee with this survey.”
The committee was told, however, that gas works taking place while the survey was carried out had been taken into account.
Rebecca Kimber also spoke against the application, raising the potential flood risk during high rainfall.
She said: “When the sewer is at capacity, filled with groundwater, where will this extra 16,200 tonnes of water per hour be going?
“Will it back up and start appearing on the surface, contaminated with sewage in residents’ gardens or in their homes?”
Conservative councillor Anne Meadows raised concerns about the impact on the neighbouring conservation area, particularly the 12th century church, All Saints Patcham, which is recorded in the Domesday Book.
Councillor Meadows, who represents Patcham and Hollingbury, said: “Unfortunately, the building regulations of the day did not envisage 20 lorries passing by every day.
“The vibrations of such heavy traffic just metres away will have grave implications for the church but also the cottages that equally don’t have great foundations.
“Why have conservation and heritage sites if we are not going to protect them.”
She said that the increased flood risk would end up costing the council more than the money it might make from selling a long lease on the site.
The Royal Mail’s director of real estate Paul Bridson told councillors that the two existing sorting offices in Denmark Villas, Hove, and North Road, Brighton, were no longer suitable for the business.
Mr Bridson said: “After years of searching for a suitable site, this (Patcham Court Farm) is the only site in Brighton and Hove that will allow us to keep around 360 jobs in the city and give substantial environmental benefits.
“Patcham will be a flagship development for the Royal Mail, on a sustainable site in the UK, and represents a long-term investment in Brighton and Hove which will ensure a consistent and efficient mail service across the city.”
The move will free the two existing sites for housing.
Royal Mail drainage expert John Lea Wilson, a civil engineer from consultants Mott MacDonald, said that the drainage strategy was sustainable and run-off would not infiltrate the aquifer because the site would be lined with an impermeable membrane.
He told the committee that the drainage and flood risk plans would improve the situation in Patcham where there have long been problems with flooding.
Councillors shared concerns about transport and traffic, asking about a proposed plan to divert the early-morning 5 and 5A bus services for a year.
Brighton and Hove Buses would require at least 20 passengers a day to use the early services for the company to regard them as viable beyond the first year
Mott MacDonald’s principal transport planner Mark Taylor told councillors that there was a five-year transport plan and that car sharing would be encouraged if the bus did not work out.
He said that the company had not spoken with Beryl Bikes, the operator of the bike share service.
Conservative councillor Carol Theobald said that the application should have been the subject of its own meeting as happened with the gasworks scheme in east Brighton.
She said: “This area should be for light office work or something similar. This is a conservation area, with many listed buildings, some with front doors that are right on the street. There’s the Dovecot and the Saxon church and it could cause significant harm to the area.”
Labour councillor Ty Galvin agreed with Councillor Theobald and Mr Mannix about the worrying prospect of potential harm to the main drinking water source for Brighton and Hove.
Councillor Galvin said: “Southern Water have said it could affect the supply to 139,000 homes in the area – then Royal Mail says Southern Water is happy. This needs to be further discussed because we have contradictions here.”
Labour councillor Jacob Allen said that he was content with the proposed conditions attaching to the planning permission which would make a better workplace from a brownfield site.
Councillor Allen said: “There’s been a lot of talk by the objectors about Patcham’s flood issues. I don’t disagree they happen and they are devastating when they happen.
“I don’t think they (the plans) exacerbate that but I am content this is a conversation for another time.”
Green councillor Sue Shanks said: “From a planning point of view, I know we have to support it because of planning law.”
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Bridget Fishleigh said that nothing should be built there until the questions about flooding were resolved.
Councillor Fishleigh said: “We have told been told frequently this site has been marketed but it hasn’t been marketed for years.
“There are thriving local businesses in the gasworks that are desperate to find somewhere to go.”
The committee voted by seven to two for the scheme while Councillor Galvin abstained.
Watched online. The bit where 3 residents were forced to summarise the objections of over 1,000 residents in just 3 minutes (timed) showed the meeting for what it was, a farce. The chair should never have allowed that, and should have acted reasonably and let residents be properly heard.
Royal Mail also seemed to be manipulating facts – they suggested that they were creating jobs, but they’re just relocating 2 existing offices with existing staff to a new site. They shouldn’t be allowed to state half-truths and mislead in this way – but it’s what they’ve done from the off and unfortunately the council has not properly scrutinised or challenged Royal Mail on the things they present as “fact”.
Those 1,000 plus objections were summarised in the planning officers report.
The applicant also only got 3 minutes as did the ward councillors,
Those are the long standing rules.
Obviously you weren’t there.
Planning officer rambled for nearly an hour, Royal Mail were repeatedly invited by the chair to justify every step of their plans.
Multiple Council departments inc same planning officer spoke at length in their support, residents were not allowed to raise a question or clarify and were repeatedly shut down.
A Farce.
No I wasn’t but I know how planning committee works.
This is a formal meeting of councillors on the planning committee not a public meeting wherfe the public can chime in when they like.
Planning officers present their report. Councillors then get to ask questions of both the plannong officer and the applicant to inform their decision making process
You don’t like the decision and I get that but it does not make the process a farce
If you think anything was legallt amiss with the decision making process then find (and pay for) a Barrister and take the council to court for a Judicial Review.
It is now very difficult to arrange redelivery of parcels if one is not in. This far-flung set-up will make it all the more so.
I thought the plan was to have a small “shop” in the centre of town where people could collect parcels from rather than go to this depot.
Yep they are, with the ease of finding Information it’s a shame people just knee jerk rather than actual read.
Lol far flung
Objections show a total misrepresentation of general enviro issues, for a self serving NIMBY cause. If it’s really about traffic volume, stick to that. If it’s about groundwater quality and aquifers, why not campaign outside the 3x petrol stations with 100s of tonnes of fuel in below ground tanks, in a groundwater flooding area. Or perhaps the absence of spill pollution control on A27, or perhaps the endless slurry spreading and pesticide spraying on farm lands to the north… Join Stop Oil if you have pollution and CO2 concerns.
This is not a Distribution Centre. It’s Brighton and Hive Deleivery offices amalgamated into one. Public enquiry needs to happen to get this stopped.