STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION4 22 Brighton 3Ts: CONSULTATION STATEMENT Stakeholder Consultation

Stakeholder Consultation 4.2 In addition to one-on- members on 15th July 2011 to provide Members of Parliament one meetings, a large number of an update on issues such as design, 4.1 Pre-application consultation stakeholders have been identified transport and sustainability in advance 4.7 A number of local MPs have has taken place with a range and invited to the public exhibitions. of submitting the planning application. been consulted and individual meetings of statutory and non-statutory To further engage with these groups have been held to explain the proposals stakeholders since the process began. at exhibitions ‘focus’ days were and provide opportunity for comment. Key stakeholders consulted through advertised where specialist consultants The following MPs have met with BHCC Council Officers direct correspondence or one-on-one from different fields were present on BSUH to discuss the redevelopment: meetings include: alternate days to engage with key 4.6 A number of pre-application ƒƒ September 2009 - Andy Burnham stakeholders on their most relevant planning meetings have been held (MP for Leigh and Health Secretary) ƒƒ Brighton and Hove City Council issues. Focus days included transport, with BHCC officers to discuss a range visited the hospital to assess the Members heritage, sustainability, design, of topics including planning process, need for redevelopment and offered ƒƒ Brighton and Hove City Council construction, and clinical planning. sustainability, transport, design and his support. Officers, including Transport, heritage issues. These meetings BHCC Members th Planning, Ecology, Environmental have been an invaluable source of ƒƒ 10 September 2010 - Mr. Mike Health, Regeneration, Design 4.3 A meeting to present the draft information in guiding the planning Weatherly (MP for Hove and and Conservation, Highways, design proposals was held on 21st process and ensuring that all of the key Portslade) Sustainability issues are addressed adequately prior September 2010 to brief members ƒƒ 1st October 2010 – Mr. Simon Kirby on progress and the latest scheme to submission of the application. ƒƒ Members of Parliament for Brighton (MP for Brighton, Kemp Town and designs. The meeting was attended and Hove (MPs) Peacehaven) by full council and took place at ƒƒ English Heritage (EH) Hove Town Hall. The meeting was ƒƒ 26th November 2010 – Mr. Nick ƒƒ Kemp Town Society an opportunity to present the draft Herbert (MP for Arundel and the proposal to members and provide an South Downs) ƒƒ Brighton and Hove Conservation opportunity for members to ask the Advisory Group (CAG) design team questions. ƒƒ Caroline Lucas MP met with the Chief Executive of BSUH to discuss ƒƒ The Regency Society 4.4 Members were further the proposals ƒƒ The Commission for Architecture consulted through the wider public and the Built Environment (CABE) consultation event held in October ƒƒ Friends of the Earth (FoE) 2010 with a specific focus day held on Thursday 21st October. ƒƒ Brighton and Hove Bus Company 4.5 A further meeting was held ƒƒ SAVE Britain’s Heritage between the design team and BHCC

Brighton 3Ts: CONSULTATION STATEMENT 23 English Heritage (EH) and refinements to the design.The Brighton and Hove 4.12 These concerns been latest version of the scheme was Conservation Advisory Group taken on board during the design 4.8 A number of meetings have presented to EH 18th April 2011 which (CAG) process and have resulted in a been held with English Heritage to included a number of significant design number of changes and refinements 1 discuss the design of the new buildings. changes including: 4.11 CAG is an umbrella group to the design. The latest version These have been one-to-one, and in representing 24 conservation and of the scheme was presented to ƒ collaboration with BHCC, CABE and ƒ re-location of helipad from Stage 1 heritage groups across Brighton and CAG 19th July 2011 this discussion BSUH’s heritage consultant, PMT. The Building on to the TKT; Hove. It acts as BHCC’s advisor on involved presentation of a number of main issues raised during meetings heritage issues. The first meeting ƒ significant design changes, including: included: ƒ removal of “gull wing” roof; and between the design team, BHCC and th ƒ CAG was held 13 September 2010 ƒƒ re-location of helipad from Stage ƒƒ the height and bulk of Stage 1 ƒ extension of 3 storey plinth along Eastern Road. where a set of early stage designs were 1 Building on to the TKT; buildings; presented to the group. The feedback ƒƒ removal of “gull wing” roof; ƒƒ visual impact of the proposal on A full summary of the changes is from CAG at this meeting can be heritage assets especially the view of presented in section 5. summarised as: ƒƒ reduction in height of Stage 1 the proposed buildings from Lewes 4.10 As a result of the extensive ƒƒ concern at the possible loss of the Building; Crescent; consultation process carried out with Barry Building and the need for a ƒƒ extension of 3 storey plinth along ƒƒ the impact on strategic heritage EH the final comments received on the clear and convincing justification for Eastern Road; views, such as from Palace Pier scheme (August 2011) stated that: its loss; ƒ and from the adjacent Conservation ƒƒ concerns that Stage 1 was ƒ introduction of Paston Place “We are pleased to inform you that rotunda; Areas; we have assessed that the scheme overdeveloped and that both stages required further architectural ƒ ƒƒ the relocation and methodology for has achieved an overall form and ƒ more locally distinctive design; design expression that, in our view, development; reproviding the listed Chapel; A full summary of the changes is outweighs the degree of harm that ƒƒ concerns regarding details such as presented in Section 5. ƒƒ design of the Stage 2 building, may be caused to designated heritage proportion, vertical emphasis and particularly the termination of Paston assets in proximity to the site and in the choice of materials; 4.13 As part of the consultation Place view; and wider urban area” (EH pre-application ƒƒ concerns over the mass, density process the CAG members were feedback) ƒƒ justification for the impact on heritage and form; invited to take part in a tour of the Barry Building (4th August 2011) assets in line with PPS5 ƒƒ concern regarding detailed design to inform the assessment of the issues such as architectural 4.9 These points have been taken scheme. expression, arrival experience, on board during the design process and facade and fenestration modelling have resulted in a number of changes 4.14 In the latest CAG discussion etc. of the scheme, opinion amongst 1 http://www.roundhill.org.uk/ 24 Brighton 3Ts: CONSULTATION STATEMENT members was split, especially ƒƒ the distribution of floorpsace over ƒƒ omission of sail-like roof forms and Kemp Town Society regarding the Barry Building. In the the two stages of development; stainless steel-clad elevations from absence of a clear consensus view, the Phased 1 building, coupled with 4.19 A one-one-one meeting was ƒ the group were asked to vote, and by ƒ the scale and massing of the Stage the more refined colour scheme, held in June 2010 between BSUH and a majority decision (9 for, 4 against, 1 Building; has lent the building a calmer, less the Kemp Town Society to discuss the proposals. The key points discussed and 3 abstentions) the group accepted ƒƒ the integrity of the architectural imposing appearance; the principle of demolition of historic include: expression of the Stage 2 facade; ƒƒ query whether the scheme should buildings on the site. With regard the ƒƒ concerns regarding the impact of ƒ be referencing some of the poorer new development the group recognised ƒ the height, including the helipad; Stage 1 on the Kemp Town Grade I the improvements made to the quality buildings in Brighton through ƒƒ the inclusion of contextually its use of colouration and tone of Listed Estate and in particular views scheme, but noted that harm would from Lewes Crescent; nevertheless be caused to the setting appropriate designs; and materials; and of the adjoining conservation areas, ƒ ƒƒ the need for further refinement of ƒƒ positive reaction to wider pavement, ƒ recognition of the need to demolish because of the height and density of landscape and open spaces. which has provided space for the Barry Building; the development. Nevertheless by the seating, planters and trees while still ƒƒ concerns regarding the loss of the same majority, the group on balance 4.16 After this initial design review, allowing for the new lay-by. was content to support the Trust’s significant changes were made to the Barry Building and the potential development approach. (CAG minutes design, and a resubmitted scheme was 4.18 These points have been taken retention of it or its facade; and 9th August 2011) presented to CABE in July 2011. on board during the design process and ƒƒ concerns regarding the loss of, and have resulted in a number of changes relocation of internal fixtures of the 4.17 The latest feedback received and refinements to the final design. A from CABE (10th August 2011) noted listed Chapel. Commission for Architecture summary of the changes is presented that: and the Built Environment in section 5. 4.20 Further meetings involving the (CABE) ƒƒ the revised approach to the Eastern Kemp Town Society have since been Road frontage, coupled with the held with representatives through their 4.15 An initial site meeting was new proposals for the helipad, involvement with CAG and through held on 18th November 2010. This has produced a calmer, more wider public consultation. was followed with a full panel Design contextually appropriate design; Review on 8th December 2010 chaired by Piers Gough (CABE / Design ƒƒ feeling that the relationship between Council Chairman), and attended by the spine block and Children’s BHCC and EH. The main issues raised Hospital could be more sensitively in the design review feedback (5th handled; January 2011) were:

Brighton 3Ts: CONSULTATION STATEMENT 25 Save Britain’s Heritage Brighton and Hove Regency Friends of the Earth (FoE) Brighton and Hove Bus Society Company 4.21 SAVE Britain’s Heritage 4.25 A meeting was held between contacted BSUH directly by letter 9th 4.23 The Regency Society has been BSUH and FoE on 30th September 4.27 A meeting was held between August 2010 to discuss: in contact with BSUH to offer feedback 2010 to discuss the sustainability the Bus Company and BSUH on 6th on the draft proposals which includes: initiatives to be implemented as part December 2010. The meeting was held ƒ ƒ concerns related to the loss of of the scheme. Various initiatives were after the Bus Company raised concerns ƒ the Barry Building and potential ƒ concerns regarding potential over- discussed including: over the public transport proposals put retention options. development of the site based on forward during the October 2010 public visual impact from the locality and ƒƒ potential measures to reduce carbon 4.22 BSUH responded directly, and consultation event, on the transport the wider area, particularly of Stage emissions such as CCHP and photo specialism day. The December meeting their comments have been included 1; voltaics; within the design process. SAVE has was used to discuss these concerns, since been consulted directly through ƒƒ concern over the treatment of the ƒƒ biodiversity measures and strategy which included the following topics: the wider public consultation. Stage 2 facade and the view from to be implemented such as green ƒƒ concerns over a perceived focus Paston Place; and roof, new tree planting and species on private vehicle access at the choice, drainage etc.; ƒƒ to express their support of the expense of public transport; ƒ principle of redevelopment (which ƒ reducing the need for people ƒƒ concerns that priority given to 40X accepts the loss of the heritage to travel by private car and bus service; assets on site), but concern that a encouraging more sustainable suitable replacement in design had modes of travel; ƒƒ concerns regarding the focus not yet been found. on mainstream public transport ƒ ƒ minimising waste during operation services; and 4.24 Since being consulted the and minimising and recovering Regency Society has also been demolition waste; ƒƒ concerns regarding the involved as part of CAG. encouragement for modal shift. ƒƒ re-use of food waste for composting; and 4.28 At the December meeting new proposals were presented which the ƒ ƒ rationale for discounting other Bus Company found acceptable. The options, such as wind turbines, grey Bus Company also noted that they water recycling etc. felt real time passenger information 4.26 Their comments directly should be included within the hospital influenced the sustainability strategy on to provide passengers with travel site, which was expanded to cover the information inside the building. whole existing BSUH campus, not just 26 Brighton 3Ts: CONSULTATION STATEMENT the applications site. 4.29 The bus company has since Brighton and Hove Local Access • Consulting and examination rooms been consulted through formal pre- Involvement Network (LINk) application discussions with BHCC 4.35 There has been a strong focus • Toilets 4.32 The latest redevelopment on the issues surrounding access and transport and highways department. • Changing facilities This has included discussions around plans were presented to the Brighton disability, and how buildings themselves th temporary re-location of one of the and Hove LINk at their meeting on 16 can serve to enable or disable the • Temperature, noise and Eastern Road bus stops during the December 2010. The members of people who use them. A Patient environment construction process. LINk shared both personal experiences Experience Team assisted patients and comments they had received visiting the RSCH between January 4.37 These comments fed directly Black and Minority Ethnic from members of the public about the and May 2010 in completing the Patient into the design process, and have Community Partnership hospital. Experience trackers in two quarterly influenced the arrangement of buildings (BMECP ) Health Forum sweeps. The Patient Experience and spaces on site. Further details 4.33 The majority of the discussion Tracker asked questions specifically of this consultation is available within 4.30 A presentation and consultation focused on parking, public transport about way finding, and access. Appendix A15 of this document. session was run with the BMECP and site layout. Those attending the Health Forum on 23rd November 2010 meeting were particularly keen to see 4.36 It asked specific questions to discuss progress with the project in-patient services removed from the about getting to the hospital, and address any concerns members of Barry Building. navigating and way finding at RSCH, the forum might have. The discussion and accessing the site itself. From focused mainly on general topics of 4.34 The members suggested that September 2009- July 2010 a series concern such as access, transport and a system for visitors to stay overnight of workshops and regular meetings parking. with patients, similar to the model were established. These aimed to used in the Royal Alexandra Children’s gain patient/public views regarding the 4.31 It was agreed at the meeting Hospital (RACH) should be introduced. current environment at RSCH which is that the best way to reach minority This suggestion informed the room due for development and utilise these ethnic groups who might be excluded design discussion for in-patient wards. views for design purposes, discussion from consultations for reasons of A mobile provision for visitors to be able looked at: social or language barriers was to stay was incorporated to the design through the Health Forum Group. so that beds can be made available in • Way finding Wayfinding within the redevelopment rooms as and when required. was of particular interest. The forum’s • Reception and waiting areas suggestions about non-language • Ward design/treatment areas based signs were fed back into the interior design programme to inform the • Clinical Care wayfinding scheme for the hospital. • Improved customer facilities

Brighton 3Ts: CONSULTATION STATEMENT 27