Nicola Hurley - Interim Head of Planning

Brighton and Hove City Council

30 April 2024

Dear Nicola,

Re: BH2022/02232 - Patcham Court Farm, Vale Avenue, Brighton, BN1 8YF

I submitted an objection to this planning application in July 2023. Since then, I have looked through recent documents submitted by the applicant, Royal Mail, and I remain concerned about multiple discrepancies in the supporting assessments and information they have provided. I am therefore writing to submit further comments, as follows:

Royal Mail’s proposal is “not in accordance with the allocated use” in City Plan:

Royal Mail’s application is for a B8 storage and distribution facility. The classification of the Patcham Court Farm site in the local authority’s City Plan Part 1 is B1: “The site is allocated in Policy CP3 of the City Plan Part 1 for 6,500 sqm of employment use floorspace within Use Classes B1(a)(office) and B1(b) (research and development) (both now within Use Class E).

The local authority does appear to recognise that the planning application falls outside of allocated use, noting that: “As the proposed use for storage/distribution is not in accordance with the allocated use, the planning application will be carefully assessed against this policy and other policies in the City Plan Part 1 and 2.”. 

I understand that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) needs to consider planning proposals put forward, but I am concerned that serious consideration is being given to an application outside of the City Plan classification and on such environmentally sensitive land. Patcham Court Farm sits above the Brighton aquifer, which plays a vital role in drinking water quality in the city.

City Plan (3.169) recognises that “The chalk under the downland around the city is the aquifer or groundwater storage that supplies the city. It is therefore important that it is protected from any development or land use that could cause harm by polluting or affecting the water supply held in the chalk.”

Patcham Court Farm’s location should mean that the specific environmental sensitivities of the site are properly taken into consideration in planning decisions, and also local plans for proposed use. The Brighton Downs Alliance highlight that:

 “Our aquifers are the most polluted across the whole of the South Downs, mostly by nitrates from fertilizers leaching into groundwater. Seven out of thirteen boreholes have nitrate-levels that exceed drinking water standards.”

“With the lack of awareness of groundwater protection, we need a comprehensive, holistic approach to the particular challenges posed by contamination of our water supplies. For this to happen we need a thorough mapping exercise to pool information to determine what lies beneath.”

The Brighton Chalk Management Partnership (CHaMP) highlight that the third highest cause of pollution in the UK is from highway run-off from fuel and oil leaks that happen as a result of issues such as brake pads and tyres wear down. With so many gaps in knowledge and understanding of the aquifer serving the city, every effort should be made to apply the precautionary principle to ensure that developments that sit on top of aquifer land do no harm.

“5. To protect sensitive aquifer protection zones and address catchment flood management issues”

Although Patcham Court Farm is not within the national park itself, it neighbours the SDNP, and the site is also specifically named within the Brighton Corporation Water Act 1924  (see below). The Act highlights particular sensitivities in relation to the aquifer and therefore the same priority should be given to Patcham Court Farm as to SDNP land in relation to development. Moreover, it should receive the appropriate protection accordingly.

The Brighton Corporation Water Act 1924:

This Act of Parliament was designed to afford greater protection to the city's water supply against contamination risks from human activity and potential development on the land which sits on the aquifer. When the legislation passed through Parliament, the powers afforded were described as:

"to enable the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Brighton to purchase lands and exercise further powers for the prevention of contamination of their water supply; and for other purposes of their water undertaking,"

My understanding is that Patcham Court Farm land is now owned by the local authority, and sold via lease agreements for use. In section 9 (2) of the Act, it states that:

"the necessity for obtaining consent of any Government department to any sale lease exchange or other disposal of any lands of the Corporation in any case in which such consent would be required if this Act had not been passed or authorise the Corporation to use any lands so acquired aforesaid for any purpose which in the opinion of the Ministry of Health would or might cause or lead to the contamination of any waters which can or may be intercepted taken or pumped by means of any pumping station of the Corporation or any well collecting chamber adit or other work connected with any such pumping station."

I believe the motivation for the Act being introduced, and its wording, means that the local authority has an additional legal duty when considering the future use of this land. Given the specific sensitivities of the site, I question whether it is acceptable for the local authority to give consideration to a planning application which falls outside of its allocated use classification in the City Plan.

The validity of the baseline figure used in the Mott MacDonald transport assessment:

I have concerns about the validity of the transport assessment / supporting documents because the surveys were undertaken during a time of tight Covid controls in late 2021. The Mott MacDonald report states that  the traffic counts, which they use as a baseline for their assessment, were undertaken on Tuesday 30 November and Wednesday 1 December 2021. Whilst the UK was moving out of very restrictive Covid measures throughout much of 2021, in the early winter of 2021 the growing threat of the Omicron variant was very real and was being felt in our communities. Tuesday 30 November was the date on which face covering rules were re-introduced and caution was being urged.

Just a rudimentary check of national data suggests that car use nationally was around 10% lower than pre Covid figures on the 30 November 2021, and that bus volumes were around 17% lower.

In the updated transport assessment submitted in April 2024, Mott MacDonald refer to undertaking more recent data comparison in order to dispel concerns about the validity of the data from 2021. However, with the comparison data collected over two 24 hour periods, Wednesday 8 March and Thursday 9 March, when parts of Sussex had experienced significant snowfall and amber weather warnings were in place, I would suggest that data captured on those dates wlll also reflect a significantly reduced volume of traffic, and thus be unreliable.

A Sussex World article from 8 March 2023 refers to “Snow on Ditchling Road, by Hollingbury in Brighton, has also been deemed ‘impassable’ both ways from Underhill Road to Coldean Lane.” confirming that the road network in the city was impacted by snowfall. ITV Meridian news reports from the 8 March 2023 state that: “Snow has hit parts of the South following the coldest night of the year so far. The conditions, which have been attributed to an Arctic blast, are expected to bring more snow and ice throughout the UK, according to the Met Office. Yellow weather warnings for snow and ice are in place for the south and east of England, south Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland until early Thursday.”

The baseline figure being used by Mott MacDonald for its assessments cannot be treated as reliable and raises questions about the validity of the document as a whole.

Transport volume:

Of the 246 staff Mott MacDonald say will be travelling to work from the depot each day, they anticipate that 108 of these journeys will be made by either car or motorbike, generating 216 daily journeys to and from the depot. The report also forecasts that there will be 360 red fleet trips on an average weekday, and 28 HGV trips back and forth. This is a total of 604 trips to the Royal Mail site on a typical day via a combination of car, Royal Mail’s red fleet, and HGVs. However, the total arrivals and departures in the report is given as 570, with no explanation of how this was reached. Royal Mail have not accounted for the multiple discrepancies in the figures it has cited across multiple reports.

It is worth noting that information on Royal Mail’s website also still contains conflicting data and information. This makes it difficult to rely on the accuracy of the information Royal Mail is communicating publicly.

Furthermore, constituents have raised with me that staff figures referenced in several documents differ. The staff survey undertaken by Royal Mail to get a sense of how staff would travel to Patcham referred to 362 staff, more than noted in the Mott MacDonald report, and that there had only been a response rate of 49.7%. Given such a low response rate, it is difficult to be clear on the accuracy of this data or be sure that the staff survey was effectively communicated to different cohorts of the current Royal Mail workforce.

The access to Vale Avenue via the A23 / Patcham interchange continues to be problematic, and my constituents are anxious that this junction, which can struggle at present with traffic volume at peak times, is not sufficient for the increase in traffic that the development will create.

My constituents also note that data around car parking arrangements may be misleading because surveys were not carried out at peak times. Figure being used are based on car parking spaces available at 6.15am and 11am, which do not give a full picture of constraints in the area. 

I have also not seen evidence that Royal Mail has submitted the trip sensitivity tests suggested by National Highways. These included a test with 70% of staff trips in each shift being car driver trips, and a test where the number of staff car driver trips is adjusted to match the available staff car parking spaces. It is vital for trip data to be accurate, and Royal Mail should be making every effort to provide this.

I cannot see reference in Royal Mail’s updated Transport Plan to the automatic redelivery policy the company adopted on 2 May 2023. This new approach means that Royal Mail will automatically attempt a second delivery, compared to the previous arrangement whereby people would need to collect the item from a customer service point, or choose to arrange a redelivery. It is surprising that there is no reference to any impact this may have on transport volumes.

In planning documents, Royal Mail say that “shifts run at different times to peak. For example, the majority of delivery staff would arrive to start a 06.30am shift and would likely leave the site in fleet vehicles at 09.00-10.30am with their delivery post. On average, they would arrive back at the site at between 14.00-15.00pm to finish duties, and generally finish their shift at this point.”. There is no comment in any of the updated details provided by Royal Mail to confirm if national remodelling of their operations will impact on local shift patterns.

Royal Mail’s future business modelling:

If speculation is correct that Royal Mail prioritises parcels and is increasingly moving towards a parcel distribution business model, I am concerned that there is no reference to this in its transport assessments, or any modelling or forecasting about potential additional trip generation this new RM business model may create.

The volume of letters has fallen from 20bn to 7bn over the past 20 years and is predicted to shrink further. In contrast, between 2018/19-2022-23 Royal Mail’s parcel deliveries have increased from 2.6 billion to 3.6 billion. Royal Mail is currently in a state of flux, with the company unable to meet its universal service obligation to deliver letters on time, and haemorrhaging money at an alarming rate. I recognise that change within Royal Mail may be needed, and that the mail delivery office in North Road may no longer be fit-for purpose. However, Patcham Court Farm is an environmentally sensitive site, and it would be wrong for the Local Planning Authority to gamble on allowing a company in crisis to be custodian of such an important piece of land in the city.

I visited the Royal Mail’s North Road delivery office in November 2023, and it was clear to see that parts of the vast building have been allowed to fall into disrepair over a considerable period of time, rendering them unusable. The disrepair means that water frequently comes through the ceiling in bad weather, and this can, and does, pose an electrical safety risk due to water dripping through fittings. Furthermore, the vast basement, which used to be in constant use, has not been used for the past year because of significant flooding, and also due to a lift being “condemned”.

Royal Mail’s failure to prevent the serious deterioration of the North Road site raises serious questions about the company’s ability to maintain a site of more environmental and ecological importance in the city.

In November 2023, Royal Mail was fined £5.6 million for its failure to meet its delivery targets and statutory duties. I accept that the current Royal Mail site is problematic, and that a move to a safer and better maintained premises would be beneficial for the many postal workers in the city who do a great job. However, it is misleading for Royal Mail to suggest that the condition of the current premises is an overriding factor in local delivery target failures, given the wealth of national evidence on service failures.

To conclude:

Royal Mail is a company in crisis and the Patcham Court Farm site is the wrong location for the distribution centre Royal Mail is proposing to build.

As set out above, I believe that it would be wrong for the Local Planning Authority to grant planning permission outside of the classification in City Plan for Patcham Court Farm due to the environmental sensitivities of the site. Whilst I am aware that many postal workers in the North Road site will be keen to relocate, Royal Mail’s failure to maintain its current premises should ring alarm bells about allowing the company to be custodians of land which plays such an important role in the city’s water quality.

I also believe it’s inappropriate for the Local Planning Authority to shoehorn a B8 classification distribution centre into a site classified within City Plan as B1 use. Furthermore, there are serious question marks over the validity of the transport assessments, making it difficult to fully gauge the environmental impact of the development.

Planning permission should be refused on this basis.

Yours sincerely,