Concerned Patcham residents plan to take advantage of a little-used right to make a speech to councillors when they consider a planning application on Wednesday (4 September).
They want to bring a deputation to highlight risks to the water supply for much of Brighton and Hove posed by the Royal Mail’s plans for a distribution centre at Patcham Court Farm, in Vale Avenue.
Their representative, Paul Mannix, of Highview Avenue, intends to speak in particular about the risk to groundwater posed by winter working when Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee meets.
Council planning officials have given their support to the scheme, advising the committee to be “minded to grant” the planning application, subject to conditions.
A report to the committee set out details of the deputation’s case. Mr Mannix cited an email sent from Southern Water to planning officials a fortnight ago.
The email said that Southern Water would not want construction taking place during the winter because this would put Brighton and Hove’s water supply “at risk”.
The site is above a strategic water source known as Brighton A which supplies 139,000 homes in the area – or more than 200,000 people.
Mr Mannix said: “It is clear from Southern Water’s latest concerns that Royal Mail is not adequately taking into account the previous conditions set by Southern Water to ensure the safety of the water of Brighton A which is a strategic water source.
“There are many vulnerable residents in the area very close to Patcham Court Farm – children, elderly and younger adults who are immunocompromised who could suffer significant health concerns and even a risk of death if their tap water supply is contaminated.”
Transport is also a concern. Brighton and Hove Buses wrote to the council a few weeks ago, saying that it would divert buses on the 5 and 5A routes to help Royal Mail staff get to and from work.
But this would only be for a year and would require at least 20 passengers a day to justify continuing with the diversion beyond that time.
Mr Mannix said: “It is public knowledge that Royal Mail in Brighton and Hove are still losing more staff and having to heavily rely on agency staff.
“A high turnover of staff does not guarantee this bus service will get the minimum passenger numbers to continue the service after the first year of service which in turn will lead to more staff parking in residential streets around the site than anticipated by Royal Mail if the bus service is cancelled.”
Mr Mannix has also asked for the application to be called in by the secretary of state – the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary, Angela Rayner.
Deputations are more common at meetings of the full council but rare at Planning Committee meetings and speakers are due to have three minutes to make a statement at the committee meeting.
The Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, Siân Berry, said: “Residents are concerned about multiple discrepancies they have identified in the supporting documents Royal Mail have submitted to support their planning application.
“And I agree with many of my constituents in Patcham that this application should not be considered by the Planning Committee until errors and omissions are addressed.
“I submitted an objection setting out my concerns and I have since been back to the council to raise further concerns on behalf of my constituents.
“It’s a complex application and, while I recognise that the council may feel under pressure to bring it to committee for a decision, I am concerned that this may be being done prematurely when further questions are being raised about the accuracy of recent documents the applicant has submitted.
“Clarity is needed on comments which suggest Royal Mail is already trying to push back on conditions which Southern Water put in place to mitigate water contamination risks.”
The campaign group Patcham Against Royal Mail has also asked the council to allow its representatives to speak for three minutes and take questions from councillors at the meeting on Wednesday.
Conservative councillor Anne Meadows, who represents Patcham and Hollingbury ward, is also expected to have three minutes to speak on behalf of residents.
She is concerned about the way that the proposed distribution centre would affect neighbours, citing the Royal Mail’s own objections to housing schemes proposed near its depots in Aberdeen and Belfast.
Councillor Meadows said: “I find it frustrating that this council are still forging ahead with this planning application for a 24-hour operational depot despite the Royal Mail itself claiming that it is too noisy, adds too much light pollution and should not be next door to residential properties.
“The Royal Mail has already put in objections to two other planning applications across the country where residential properties are proposed to be built, using those words to get the applications overturned. You can’t make it up!”
The council’s Planning Committee is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 2pm on Wednesday (4 September). The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
The 1,000+ residents who made objections are being allowed just three minutes to outline all their objections, which is why residents have requested longer (an extra three minutes). So far, Labour’s Planning Chair has refused to allow it – can’t help but wonder why they are so against letting Planning Committee councillors hear residents’ views in person. All we’re talking is an extra THREE minutes. Why the council are digging their heels in on letting residents feel heard is anyone’s guess!
I’m not a fan of deputations personally; in my experience they can get easily tangential. I feel if you can’t make your point within three minutes, either because of articulation or the complexity of your point, I feel you’d be better off submitting a written piece which can be leisurely read, referred to, and absorbed.
Having said that, I feel there are other channels that already exist for participation that are underutilised.
It’s not an articulation issues. It is a complexity problem. That’s the point – nearly 1,200 residents have submitted written objections, but not even the most contientious of councillors will read them all, that’s why campaigners want to speak and have an extra three minutes.
All of the residents objections are summarised in the officers’ report in about 600 words, with the just 13 comments in favour more accurately reflected in several hundred words. It is not a balanced report. It does not go into any detail on many of the key objections residents have, so what you’ve already suggested about residents submitting written comments, is something they have already done, and their comments are not being put before councillors on the Planning Committee as many of the concerns are not properly reflected in the officers’ report. This is just one reason why more time is needed. You’re living in fairy tale land if you think the officers’ report is reflective of the volume and specific concerns residents have about risks.
For whatever reason, BHCC is stifling the community having a proper say. Whatever the outcome, the council should let residents speak. Not only are they not allowing an extra three minutes speaking time, they refused residents’ request for more time to scrutinise technical documents submitted a few weeks ago. Whoever the committee chair is, I don’t think it’s good leadership on the administrations’ part to bar residents’ requests like this. They should try to facilitate communities having a say, but they are choosing to refuse their requests.
Labours Planning Chair and the Planning Committee don’t want to hear what the citizens of this City think and need because THEY DON’T CARE………
This limit has been in place for many years. The applicant also only gets 3 minutes. Ward councillors get 3 minutes as well.
The people against the gas works application got 3 minutes and didn’t ask for more time.
The gas works campaigners could have asked for extra time though, it’s at the chair’s discretion. Just because they didn’t, it doesn’t mean that this group of residents should have their request refused. It’s just 3 minutes – what are the council scared of – that residents might have evidence to make a powerful case and convince residents that their concerns are valid. That’s the only obvious answer for the chair of the planning committee refusing surely?
There were three residents speaking at the gasworks planning decision. They were given five minutes each by the chair and the timer was on for 15 minutes.
NIMBYism at it’s very best.
Well done to all concerned.
The same sort of people that don’t want Gatwick airport expanded, but still want to fly away on holiday
The sort of people who want good mobile phone connection , but don’t want a mast anywhere near them
You seem to have nabbed the name I’ve been using for ages on this site (I’ll take that as a compliment). We might share the same name, but not the views.
I’ve heard residents for a long time talk about being open to the site being developed, but this application from Royal Mail is riddled with errors – the frequency of them does start to look as if some information may have been misrepresented by them purposefullyn – like submitted traffic data on a date when there was heavy snowfall on the roads. Think early on RM said that they had been discussing public transport options with the bus company, but when the MP check with them the bus company gave a different picture.
Personally, I don’t trust Royal Mail any more that the Post Office, and we’ve all seen how dreadfully they acted. Until Royal Mail present accurate supporting information, the council should refuse this application. The council has been so hung up on selling this land to them for years I don’t think they’ve considered alternatives properly – they need to address that too.
The council isn’t selling the land. It is leasing it. Council will still retain ownership.
But it appears there has been no interest from anyone else in using this land.
Looking at using for much needed social housing would surely be better than leasing it to a company with such a poor record for honesty and transparency in recent years as Royal Mail.
You’re assuming a developer wants to build social housing there.
I don’t think the council has actively tried to lease the land to anyone else for around the last 6 years or possibly more, as they’ve been in talks with Royal Mail for that length of time from what I understand.
Perhaps if they had explored other options, rather than getting hung up on the Royal Mail proposals, alternatives would have come forward. Social housing is still a potential option, and nothing to stop the council using their own land for something they want to take forward if they wanted to.
I take it you haven’t read the Southern Water response or any of the other objections. If you live near Preston Park and this goes wrong, the effects are in your back yard! Surrenden Fields Water source was out of action for ages. If Patcham pumping station suffers the same fate, you may get a lovely outdoor swimming pool but only in the winter but your drinking water will be bottled!
Complexity of an issue is a well made point, and the quality of comments submitted can vary greatly, just like a deputation, I would personally weigh a deputation the same as a single comment, but takes a lot longer to get to the point.
Comments not reaching later stages could potentially be a concern, however, without going into specific examples it can be difficult to speculate – are things being filtered because they are outlandish or unfeasible, for example.
There are too many examples of where the officers’ report doesn’t give enough information to properly summarise residents concerns – eg one line says: “Comments submitted by National Highways and the Local Highway Authority are inaccurate or incorrect.” there is no information included to say why or how residents think these reports are not correct, so it’s impossible for councillors on the Planning Committee to know whether there is any validity to their views.
Residents submitted quite a bit of info and data on air pollution, and there’s no reference to facts or data in the summary – just one line that says objections included: “detrimental impact on the environment including the ecology of the site; air, light and noise pollution; loss of a green space.” An officer just saying “air pollution” in a summary without any example is meaningless.
It’s not a summary of residents’ views, it’s a silencing.
Councils house building partnership is in negotiations to buy and build at North Road Sorting Office.
Officers can’t promise Patcham development. Councilors can vote against it to win votes. Goes ahead anyway on appeal to Inspectorate.
Five years time councilors claim they tried or have moved on. Officer and developers clink champagne flutes
Residents pay costs of appeal
Dirty business
This development must not happen. Will be a tragedy for Patcham. Where are all the 500 Posties from Brighton Delivery office and Hove Delivery going to park? There has been no thought for residents in this matter. It’s all about someone making a fortune redeveloping the North Road and Denmark Villa sites. Wake up Brighton and Hove Council and turn this application down.