The Royal Mail is waiting to learn whether it can make a series of changes to its plans for a new depot in Patcham.
It wants to move the loading bays for lorries from the northern end of the proposed distribution centre to the southern end – nearer to neighbours’ homes, in Vale Avenue.
But the postal business has included a proposed “green wall” to screen the loading bays and minimise any nuisance to people living closest to the site.
Royal Mail also wants to reconfigure the parking area, lower the site, put in retaining walls, realign pedestrian access and relocate a substation from the western side of the building to the eastern side.
The proposed changes would mean that the height of the distribution building would be lower and it would have a simpler design with a pitched roof.
The roof lights and an external staircase would go. The internal layout would also change so that all operations would be on the ground floor.
The amendments – to the planning permission that was granted in September last year – are due to be decided by Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee next week.
More than 1,100 people objected to the original scheme. This time, neighbours have sent seven objections, citing concerns about moving the lorry loading bay closer to homes in Vale Avenue and the Village Barn.
Objectors have also criticised the revised design, saying that it had been stripped back and would be more visible from Vale Avenue.
One anonymous objector, whose details were redacted by the council, said: “Shifting operations towards the southern boundary makes the depot highly visible from Vale Avenue and increases harm to the setting of the adjacent AONB (area of outstanding natural beauty).
“The removal of the green roof and other mitigation measures represents a clear regression in design quality and environmental performance.
“The ‘design and access statement’ depicts an unapproved painted crossing at the top of Church Hill, where sight lines are poor and vehicle speeds are high.
“This creates a misleading impression of pedestrian safety and does not reflect actual highway conditions.”
Conservative councillors Alistair McNair and Anne Meadows, who represent Patcham and Hollingbury ward, have also objected to the amendments in a joint letter.
They said: “Residents will be disappointed in the HGV operational yard being relocated to the south of the site, significantly closer to the resident in 133 Vale Avenue and the residents in the Village Barn and along Vale Avenue.
“With at least 28 movements of large HGVs per day, this is likely to cause significant disturbance through noise and air pollution.
I see that the planning officers have recommended that the application be granted
But I do think that this really isn’t on to make changes such as these so soon after the orginal application had been approved and to remove some of the ameleoration elements – green roof, flood prevention amongst others. It’s virging on bait and switch by Royal Mail.
Pretty common tactic we’ve seen in planning applications over the past several years. Promise more, than cut back when it “further analysis” states it cannot be delivered.
Let’s face it, this is all about cutting costs. Now it is just another private company, I don’t think that the original plans would have been approved.
Just another example of the council agreeing planning that works in their favour financially & totally disrespects the residents, we thought the local council was unbiased and there to protect us. It’s not! I am not the least bit surprised the council is recommending accepting amended proposals that would never have been initially acceptable, and brings this industrial depot and its HGV’s 24/7 right outside our windows in Vale Avenue. One of the mitigating parts of the plan was the Lorrie’s unloading at the North of the site! Now they can’t be bothered to do that either?
The broader issue is the one Chris raised. This kind of behaviour has become very common over the past decade in major schemes. Once outline permission exists, applicants often return with amendments that technically fit the framework but water down mitigation that helped get the original approval over the line.
Simply outrageous. How do we object?