Campaigners who spent three years fighting a proposal to build a new Royal Mail depot on a former farm site have spoken out after planning permission was granted for the scheme.
Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee was “minded to grant” the application to build a new depot at Patcham Court Farm after three hours of deliberations on Wednesday (4 September).
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”.
Campaigners fear that flooding will become more frequent and worse. Heavy rain the next day (Thursday 5 September) brought flooding throughout the village, angering campaigners who highlighted the issue to the Planning Committee.
Patcham resident Rebecca Mintrim said: “People are incandescent that Mott MacDonald (Royal Mail’s water engineering experts) and the council’s flooding team failed to mention that their own survey shows the development will more than double the flood risk in the area.
“The membrane they will put down to protect the aquifer will mean the current water that is absorbed into the ground has nowhere to go but flood.”
Patcham Against Royal Mail campaigners have staged multiple protests outside council meetings for the past four months.
Co-founder Rebecca Kimber was among the protesters outside Hove Town Hall before the meeting on Wednesday.
She said: “This decision is a betrayal. The council has ignored the voices of its citizens, silenced the expert advice of environmental and heritage agencies and ignored planning policies, just to put parcels over people.
“A century ago, the council went to Parliament to protect Patcham Court Farm for its critical role in our water supply.
“Residents are not against development on the site. They just want it to happen responsibly.”
Fellow campaigner Mike Howard said that Patcham’s fight was not over because a request had been sent to the Secretary of State Angela Rayner asking her to “call in” or review the application.
He said: “It is clear that the council wants Royal Mail’s existing depots to become housing and that has been a big motivation for this deal.
“But that doesn’t mean that Royal Mail has to go to Patcham. Other more suitable sites are available.
“We are pro-responsible development. For over a year, residents have been calling on the council to pursue alternative regeneration ideas for Patcham Court Farm that will enhance the city and respect the environmental sensitivities of the land. Royal Mail’s plans are an abomination.”
So how is it Royal Mail’s fault that the water company can’t deal with the flooding correctly? Surely this will now force the hand of the water company and make them sort out their drainage problem.
I also confused – this location is on the edge of the A27. So how much water used to run off the hills before they put the cutting in?
The development is at the top of the hill, in place of an old farm with concrete hard standings. The news article is showing flooding in the middle of Patcham which is partially caused by the underground river. I don’t see how the two are connected.
The underground river which is really the groundwater is about 70ft below so has no bearing on this flooding. There is already too much water, sewage and surface water, going down the London Road. This stops the water trying to join from the Hollingbury and Patcham estates from joining the main sewer route at a rate that it needs to in order to prevent this surcharging. If you add even more to the London Road route, this will get even worse. Bring the groundwater into the equation during the winter months and this will be even worse
There is no underground river. It’s groundwater, just water filling fractures and cracks in the rock. The water table is often near ground level in winters. Please use metric units. IF sewer capacity is an issue it needs a planning condition to rectify it.
Flooding is not going to worsen because of this development.
The nimby’s should stop whining like spoilt children that can’t get their own way.
This much-needed development is a necessity and will go ahead regardless.
Sounds like there are a number of options that should be explored alongside this development, such as SuDS, levees, and enhanced drainage systems. I think the argument against any development here is flawed, because the problem isn’t what’s being developed, it seems to be the underlying structure that needs upgrading from a lack of development over the years?
Yes agree there are many ways to mitigate. SUDs will help. Unfortunately contradictory protest views stifle best solution ….if it’s said put in SUDs protestors say (without evidence) say it’s a risk to groundwater. If it’s said route it to sewer they shout sewer flooding .. . Hilarious really. … And let’s ignore the huge motorway drainage and balancing ponds on the other side of the road…and all other existing issues. This new building is negligible additional risk.
1. Who owns the land that the current sorting office stands on.
2. Who stand again from its sale?
3. Are any Counsellors associated with the owner or company?
For the sake of balance, you should also consider similar questions relating to the new site and who may’ve benefitted financially from the development not being approved – it risks a biased narrative otherwise, rather than a full consideration of the complete facts.
The flooding in this area is due to the council’s total failure to empty the gullies. Drains are even being surfaced over as they are so full that they cannot be seen.
Note this is a council responsibility not the water company!
I would say a mixture. The Councils lack of maintenance is definitely adding to the problem but is there is a deficit in sewage capacity which will only be solved by completing upgrading the system starting from the seafront and working backwards. This was ruled out due to the cost benefit ratio
Sewers by the old farm are routed down to old london road, by the COOP. So affect a different location to the drain in video in the report?
Yes generally the combined sewer capacity under excessive rainfall (months worth in 48 hours) is an issue that needs consideration, in many places. But there are far bigger existing risks all around to drinking water quality …Petrol stations, allotments, long duration groundwater flooding with sewer flooding in some winters, rail line, multiple roads with large ‘ponds’ recieving motorway drainage directly, catchment wide slurry spreading on farmland to north.
Scaremongering about water quality risks due to this development is disingenuous at best. At worse it’s clear twisting and misrepresentation of relative risk and issues for protest objectives.
The petrol storage is above ground, the surrounding land in the water source protection zone 1 is only used for non turf breaking farming so no slurry spreading. The roads have certainly contributed to the need to install a denitrification plant as safe limits have probably been well exceeded. Notices have been served on Southern Water for being at risk having already or potentially supplying water with above the sade limits of nitrate and more recently, e coli. I am glad you acknowledge that the existing sewers already surcharge and flood surrounding roads when the naturally high water table reaches the surface so I am sure you can appreciate why residents are not too enamoured with the idea of potentially another 16.2 tonnes of water per hour descending upon the village on top of this! As far as protesting about the existing risks of e coli etc, have you not read the stories in the Argus? The surcharging is constantly being reported to the council and Southern Water. There is already too much running down the London Road sewers which makes it difficult for connecting sewers to join yhe flow, hence the surcharging which is particularly worrying outside the schools.
As far as the risk to the groundwater is concerned from the actual site, we and the Council, the EA and Southern Water know that the land is contaminated with various known and some unknown pollutants. Some of these are locked over a possible and likely perched groundwater system. Excavation could potentially release these and if not removed in a timely manner, ie before it rains, could contaminate the source. It is known that contaminants can reach the drinking water within hours at this location.
You really do sound like a councillor or council employee as they seem to have the same level of knowledge as you.
Same reply as per your other equally misinformed post in the other local news paper. Try contacting the Patcham and Hollingbury Conservation Association. They would be happy to explain anything you don’t understand about residents objections..
Ok. The Fuel storage tanks are below ground at both petrol stations. Slurry spreading is common across the whole downs north of A27. And That’s all the chalk aquifer. It’s everywhere. Farming has the biggest impact on drinking water quality. Nitrate comes from farming fertilisers ( not roads), along with pesticides and herbicides… And ecoli often comes from slurry spreading, and the sewer risks already exist in all urban areas. It’s an existing risk in a town/city.
If the farm site is contaminated as you say then it needs urgent remediation, as it’s risk to groundwater. There is no perched aquifer. So any contamination is unlikely to hydraulically constrained? And Isn’t just leaving contaminated land bad, normally? Protestors describe the site as both a contaminated derelict risk, and as an environment benifit? Which is it.? I suspect it’s neither. As I said before, not sure why I try to have a logical argument in these situations, as protesters are just fixed in their position, cherry pick issues and want to interpret everything in a way to support their objective.
the proposed site of the new royal mail sorting office is over an aqafier, which has a large underground cave. Its actually protected by a 1956 act of parliament. they have to remove farm buildings with concrete asbestos fistly. Then they would have to build a large concrete raft/support over the aquafer cave. if they get this wrong (or cut corners) they could contaminate brightons drinking water. If they do this we know ho is to blame, the labour council and the post office.
It’s not a conspiracy. The aquifer is the chalk, it’s the whole of the South downs. The aquifer extends under all of Brighton and northwards.There is no cave, no underground river. These are old cliches. Water moves through natural cracks and fractures in the chalk, same fractures that you see in the cliff face on the coast. Asbestos is a solid and does not dissolve, it does not percolate downwards to groundwater it’s not a risk to groundwater. And asbestos risks are with all old buildings anywhere? Aquifers are protected under the 1991 Water Resources Act, and under later Environment Acts. They were protected under the Water Framework Directive, until we left the EU .
There is no additional additional risk to groundwater… What about the 2 petrol stations, the allotments… etc.. if so concerned about the aquifer join Stop Oil?
There is a collapsed cavern on the site! There are pictures online if you don’t believe me. It is likely that another was hit when the tunnelling under the bypass ran into problems to connect the traveller site. There was another part of a flyover that collapsed when the bypass was built and had to be built in a different place and thet couldn’t, as originally planned, reconnect this piece of land to the farm with a road bridge hence the foot bridge much further up instead. The Patcham fault and cave system cited is from the EU funded International research in conjuction with Brighton University, Flood 1 and the Climawat project. I understand that they chose and studied this land due to its unique features. Some parts of an spz1 are more vulnerable than others and this area has probably the highest risk.
The contaminants are not simply asbestos and some are currently unknown.
It is not normal to have as many conditions added to a planning application so at least they acknowledge that there is a risk. The EA and Southern Water are passing that risk to the Council. The allotments are in an spz2 not 1!
If you owned this land and wanted to build a house, I am sure your application would be refused!
There are around 40 conditions placed on this application.
There are a similar number on the Lidl application considered and approved at the same meeting.
And many of the conditions cover the same issues.
Look at any major application and you’ll see a large number of conditions so the number placed on this application is not annormal.
There is no collapsed cavern. The old photos show a shallow chalk solution feature. Very common general feature in the chalk. I’m a professional geologist😕 If, as some protestors say in this thread, the existing farm has residual contamination on site, then surely the site should benefit from cleanup and improvements. An issue is that these protests have an increasing conspiracy mindset, and are happy to interpret anything in way to support an objection? Often taking contradictory positions. Sewer capacity is often a valid argument, but then stretching out to under increased drinking water risks is not valid… Given the existing risks across the whole area.
Ok the fuel storage tanks at petrol stations are below ground. Nitrate pollution comes from farms across the South downs, it effects nearly all water works. If the land is contaminated in a source protection zone for public water supply, then it needs cleaning up ? Not being used as an excuse to do nothing ? .. and there is no ‘perched aquifer’ there. Check a geology map. Dig down a few meters, it’s straight into chalk everywhere.
nitrites kieth, those are the ones that cause problems.
also chalk everywhere but the drinking water comes from the aquafier its not sourced from the middle of brighton
Protest arguments make no sense. Earlier it’s said there’s a collapsed cave, a pathway to groundwater, and any activity on site is risk to drinking water. Then it’s said there is existing contamination locked up in soils … Contradiction ..contradiction..
Yes nitrate NO3 ( no s required). Yes, the drinking water comes from the the chalk rock all under the chalk downs… Just saying ..as this 50m by 5Om plot is negligible additional risk.
Not sure why I’m bothering as protesters have set minds and selective truths…. But it’s entertaining me for a bit.
The proposed site is situated in an area termed the Patcham Fault and Cave System. It is indicated on an E/W section of the Patcham valley in the CLIMAWAT PROJECT. This was a project that involved several Universities from both France and England and was funded by the EU. On the western flank of the site are the remains of a collapsed cavern named as such in the BGS publication The Chalk aquifer of the South Downs. There is also a document indicating a direct link between the site and a nearby major abstraction adit. What happens on the site could be crucial to the city’s water supply.