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 September 2009 - Andy Burnham stakeholders on their most relevant planning meetings have been held (MP for Leigh and Health Secretary) 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 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 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 1st October 2010 – Mr. Simon Kirby on progress and the latest scheme to submission of the application. 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 English Heritage (EH) Hove Town Hall. The meeting was 26th November 2010 – Mr. Nick Kemp Town Society an opportunity to present the draft Herbert (MP for Arundel and the proposal to members and provide an South Downs) Brighton and Hove Conservation opportunity for members to ask the Advisory Group (CAG) design team questions. Caroline Lucas MP met with the Chief Executive of BSUH to discuss The Regency Society 4.4 Members were further the proposals The Commission for Architecture consulted through the wider public and the Built Environment (CABE) consultation event held in October Friends of the Earth (FoE) 2010 with a specific focus day held on Thursday 21st October. Brighton and Hove Bus Company 4.5 A further meeting was held 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 collaboration with BHCC, CABE and 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 significant design changes, including: included: removal of “gull wing” roof; and between the design team, BHCC and th CAG was held 13 September 2010 re-location of helipad from Stage the height and bulk of Stage 1 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 removal of “gull wing” roof; 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: reduction in height of Stage 1 the proposed buildings from Lewes 4.10 As a result of the extensive concern at the possible loss of the Building; Crescent; consultation process carried out with Barry Building and the need for a extension of 3 storey plinth along 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; and from the adjacent Conservation concerns that Stage 1 was 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 the relocation and methodology for has achieved an overall form and 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 concerns regarding details such as presented in Section 5. 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 concerns over the mass, density process the CAG members were feedback) 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 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 the distribution of floorpsace over 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 the group were asked to vote, and by 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 the integrity of the architectural imposing appearance; the principle of demolition of historic include: expression of the Stage 2 facade; query whether the scheme should buildings on the site. With regard the concerns regarding the impact of be referencing some of the poorer new development the group recognised the height, including the helipad; Stage 1 on the Kemp Town Grade I the improvements made to the quality buildings in Brighton through 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, the need for further refinement of positive reaction to wider pavement, 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 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 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) 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