Scoping opinion report - Royal Sussex County Hospital 3Ts Redevelopment

Brighton & Hove City Council - Decision Required Under Delegated Procedure

Date

19 January 2024

Report to

Jane Moseley, Planning Manager, East

Case Officer

Ben Daines, Team Leader, Development Management

Subject

Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Opinion

Wards Affected

Whitehawk and Marina

1.1

To provide a formal Scoping Opinion in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the EIA Regulations), as to the scope and extent of the additional/updated information required as part of an updated Environmental Statement (ES) for the ongoing redevelopment of the Hospital, with a specific focus on the Stage 2 element of the 3Ts redevelopment.

1.2

This Scoping Opinion is required following a formal scoping request made by BDP on behalf of the NHS Trust on 10 November 2023. An extension of time to issue the Scoping Opinion was agreed by the applicant and the LPA until 10 January 2024.

1.3

The aim of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is to protect the environment by ensuring that a local planning authority (LPA), when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a project, which is likely to have significant effects on the environment, does so in the full knowledge of the likely significant effects, and takes this into account in the decision making process. 

The EIA Regulations set out a procedure for identifying those projects which should be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment, and for assessing, consulting and coming to a decision on those projects which are likely to have significant environmental effects.

2.1

The Royal Sussex County Hospital site is currently being redeveloped into the Teaching, Trauma and Tertiary Care Centre (3Ts) to provide a modern healthcare facility and allow a significant expansion of capacity. 

The original planning application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) dated 2011. Stage 1 of the project is now complete and the NHS Trust are now moving into Stage 2 which constitutes the demolition and replacement of the Barry Building to provide a new Cancer Treatment Centre.

2.2

The site is set within the boundary of the existing Royal Sussex County Hospital to the north of Eastern Road, Brighton. Residential properties lie to the north, west and south of the hospital estate. To the east lies further housing, educational and a variety of other uses. 

This has not undergone any significant change since the submission of the 2011 planning application and accompanying Environmental Statement.

2.3

An application for planning permission was submitted in 2011, supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment, for the following:

• demolition of existing hospital buildings located to the north of Eastern Road and to the south of the existing children’s hospital building and Thomas Kemp Tower
• addition of a helicopter landing pad and associated trauma lift on top of Thomas Kemp Tower.
• erection of new hospital buildings incorporating:
  • Stage 1: Part 10, 11 and 12 storey building including reinstatement of the interior of the Chapel;
  • Stage 2: 5 storey building; and 
  • Stage 3: Service yard with single storey building. 
• Site wide infrastructure including substation, energy centre and flues, 2 floors of underground parking (390 spaces) with new access from Bristol Gate and associated highway works. 
• Cycle parking, external amenity spaces including roof gardens and landscaping on Eastern Road

2.4

The application was determined in 2012 and was subject to a S73 application for, primarily, amendments to the Stage 1 building. It was approved on the 22 of October 2022, and included an updated description of development as follows:

• demolition of existing hospital buildings located to the north of Eastern Road and to the south of the existing children’s hospital building and Thomas Kemp Tower. 
• addition of a helicopter landing pad and associated trauma lift on top of Thomas Kemp Tower.
• erection of new hospital buildings incorporating:
  • Stage 1: Part 10, 11 and 12 storey building including reinstatement of the interior of the Chapel;
  • Stage 2: 5 storey building; and 
  • Stage 3: Service yard with single storey building. 
• site wide infrastructure including substation, energy centre and flues, 2 floors of underground parking (390 spaces) with new access from Bristol Gate and associated highway works. 
• cycle parking, external amenity spaces including roof gardens and landscaping on Eastern Road

(Part retrospective to address non-compliance with Condition 2 (approved drawings) and Condition 10 (helipad height and design) of planning permission BH2011/02886.

2.5

Stage 2 of the 3Ts redevelopment originally consisted of a 5 storey building with 2 storey basement car park to provide a cancer care centre with a GIFA of 29,626sqm. 

The building was centred around an open courtyard with a large roof garden and links to the Stage 1 development. 

The design has subsequently evolved with the following proposed key features:

• reorganisation of clinical uses with a proposed reduction from 29,626 sqm GIA to 16,934 sqm GIA (including carpark), a reduction of around 12,300 sqm
• retained number of storeys at 5. However, the measured building height is proposed to increase from 68.8m AOD (top of BMU garage as the highest point of the building) to 74.073 AOD
• reduced car parking to 1 basement level
• reduced Eastern Road building frontage
• new Eastern Road vehicle pick-up and drop off
• reduced Eastern Road lay-by
• new and amended public realm and landscaping

2.6

To assist the Local Planning Authority’s deliberations on its Scoping Opinion, an Environmental Scope Report (ESR) has been submitted by the applicant which seeks to confirm the scope and level of detail to be provided in the Environmental Statement.

In this case the applicant has focused on what areas of the original Environmental Statement would need to be subject to further environmental assessment and which areas are considered to be unaffected by the changes in the Stage 2 proposals, baseline, legislation, policy or guidance.

3.1

The primary purpose of the ESR submitted is to identify what additional or updated environmental assessments will be required to address the evolving changes to the Brighton 3Ts scheme. 

To do this each technical subject addresses the following:

• update to Baseline
• update to Assessment Methodology
• consideration of Scheme Changes
• requirement for Additional Assessment
• assumptions and Limitations
• conclusions

4.1

The submitted ESR sets out the topic areas to be reviewed and reflects the topics considered in the 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment. 

These are:

• noise
• air quality
• ground conditions
• archaeology
• heritage
• landscape and visual
• ecology
• wind
• daylight/sunlight
• socio-economics
• transport
• water

4.2

Telecommunications impact was included within the original Environmental Statement. However, this as an EIA subject area has become obsolete and is no longer required under the 2017 EIA regulations. Additionally, given that the telecommunications assessment primarily dealt with potential disruption to analogue TV and radio signals which is now superseded by modern technology, telecommunications are not considered further in the ESR. This approach is accepted by the Local Planning Authority and the topic is scoped out.

Noise

4.3

The ESR concludes that 

‘the proposed Stage 2 changes are unlikely to alter the conclusions on significant effects as presented in the noise and vibration chapter of the 2011 ES. Therefore, an updated noise and vibration chapter for the ES will not be required and a detailed noise impact assessment will be provided to present how the building services plant achieve the requirements of BS 4142:2014+A1:2019 in advance of work commencing on site.’

4.4

The ESR has been assessed by the Council’s Environmental Health section who agree with the conclusions of the report and that the ES does not need to be updated in respect of noise.

Air Quality

4.5

The ESR concludes that

 ‘overall, the scale of changes to the scheme and changes to baseline, legislation, planning policy, guidance and model inputs are considered unlikely to change/worsen the conclusions reached within the 2011 ES. Notwithstanding this, further assessment (including modelling) is recommended to confirm this position...It is considered that this further assessment could be presented within an ES Addendum.’

4.6

The ESR has been assessed by the Council’s Air Quality Officer who has agreed that the air quality assessment should be updated and should include:

• revised building configurations
• energy centre emissions
• vehicle trips to AQMA6, AQMA1 and AQMA2
• model set up to use the most recent emission factors and local traffic and monitoring inputs where available
• more stringent emissions standards for non-road mobile machinery used during construction of the hospital

Ground Conditions

4.7

The ESR concludes that

‘the assessment should be revised and is proposed to be scoped in the updated ground conditions report for the application. We consider the following works are required:

• the Preliminary Risk Assessment which informs the baseline should be updated to reflect current site conditions and current guidance
• a reassessment of historical ground investigation information to inform the baseline
• gap analysis to establish if any additional targeted ground investigation is required for the Site to inform potential mitigation measures, if required.

The findings will be presented as part of an ES Addendum.’

4.8

The ESR has been assessed by the Council’s Environmental Health section who agree with the above conclusions.

Archaeology

4.9

The ESR concludes that

 ‘since there are no significant effects on archaeological remains, no further work is recommended. The archaeology topic can therefore be scoped out and no further updated ES chapter is required to support the Section 73 application.’

4.10

The County Archaeologist has confirmed that they agree with this conclusion and no further update to the ES is required in respect of archaeology.

Heritage

4.11

The ESR seeks to scope out cultural and built heritage impacts from the ES update. The ESR concludes that

 ‘the context and nature of the Site means that the Proposed Development would not change the contribution that setting makes to the heritage value of any built heritage receptors, even those which are located within or in close proximity to the Site. 

The changes to the Proposed Development that have evolved since the 2012 ES do not have the potential to increase the scale of impact on the identified heritage receptors or their setting. There would be no significant likely effects on any heritage receptor and any other impacts or effects will be considered in the application as part of a Heritage Statement included within the Design and Access Statement.

The Heritage Statement would be prepared and describe the heritage value of receptors which are potentially affected by the Proposed Development and assess the impact of the Proposed Development upon that heritage value against legislation and planning policy. 

This would be sufficient for BHCC to understand the limited impacts that may occur, and consider those as part of the planning balance, without assessment of heritage in an Addendum.’

4.12

Whilst no comments have been received from the Council’s Heritage section in relation to the ESR, it is considered by the LPA that given the fairly significant proposed increase in height of the Stage 2 building (just over 5m), there is a potential for significant effects on heritage features beyond those considered in the previous ES so the heritage section of the ES should be reviewed and updated as part of the addendum.

4.13

For the applicant’s information a revised Heritage Statement should also be submitted with the planning application as proposed.

Landscape and Visual

4.14

The ESR considers the potential for likely significant effects on landscape and visual receptors in the vicinity of the proposed development. As a result of this exercise, it indicates the potential for significant effects on 12 visual receptors which will be scoped into the ES Addendum.

4.15

The South Downs National Park have been consulted on the ESR but have confirmed that they have no comments to make. The County Landscape Architect has also reviewed the ESR and confirmed that its conclusions in respect of Landscape and Visual matters are acceptable. On this basis the approach taken by the applicant is considered appropriate.

Ecology

4.16

The ESR concludes that an updated Environmental Statement in respect of ecology is not required due to the nature of the changes proposed and the limited biodiversity on the site. However, because a number of updated surveys have been and/or will be undertaken, it is proposed that a summary of these findings will be presented within an updated ES Addendum. 

This approach is supported by the County Ecologist who has been consulted on this ESR so is supported.

Wind

4.17

The ESR states that

 ‘it is expected that the wind environment for the entire site will be comparable to that reported in the 2022 wind assessment, although localised differences around the proposed Stage 2 site are likely to be identified. Where any wind condition exceeds the recommended wind criteria for pedestrian safety or comfort, mitigation measures will be introduced and tested to demonstrate that they effectively address any exceedances of the criteria identified.’ 

The wind assessments will be provided within a stand-alone report or Technical Note but will also be incorporated into the ES addendum.

4.18

The LPA consider this to be an acceptable approach.

Daylight / Sunlight

4.19

The ESR stats that

 ‘the proposed Stage 2 development design has evolved since the 2011 assessment and has undergone changes in massing and geometry potentially including an increase in height. 

As a result, the local effects on daylight, sunlight and overshadowing may differ from those identified in the 2011 assessment. Due to the changes in geometry both to the surroundings and the proposed development, the assessment will be numerically updated, and the effects quantified and re-assessed as appropriate.’

4.20

The daylight and sunlight assessments will be provided within a stand-alone report or Technical Note but will also be incorporated into the ES addendum.

4.21

The LPA consider this to be an acceptable approach.

Socio-Economics

4.22

The ESR confirms 

‘that the effects of the revisions to Stage 2 design; the change in construction duration, and reduction in operational floorspace does not affect the impact findings as contained in the Socio-economic assessment of the 2011 ES and 2021 ES Addendum.

Therefore, the conclusions of the assessment and its recommendations remain valid and robust. No additional effects have been identified as a result of the proposed amendments that require further assessment.’

4.23

The LPA agree with the above conclusion. As noted separately above, no update to the ES is required in respect of noise.

Transport

4.24

The ESR concludes that

‘additional transport related ES assessment is not considered necessary for the updated scope of the Stage 2 development. This is due to several reasons. Firstly, baseline conditions remain relatively unchanged, this includes observed traffic flows which have not increased as originally forecast in the 2011 ES. In addition, as the Stage 2 proposals are scaled back from the consented scheme, the assessment previously undertaken can be considered a robust and worst-case scenario. Moreover, the new Environmental Assessment of Traffic and Movement guidance document contains the same assessment methodology as previously undertaken. A Transport Assessment and updated Transport Statement will be prepared in support of the application, which will detail how the proposals will be accessed, in the context of the existing transport network and Royal Sussex County Hospital.’

4.25

The Local Highway Authority have been consulted on the ESR and are satisfied that the 2023 surveyed data shows that baseline flows are lower in both the AM and PM peak hours than the previously forecast 2023 flows from the consented scheme.

4.26

Taking the lower 2023 surveyed traffic count data into account, it is not considered that the Transport chapter of the ES needs to be updated, given the 2011 submission would have considered higher flows/a worst-case scenario. Any impacts associated with the amended scheme can be assessed via the Transport Assessment submitted with the forthcoming planning application.

Water

4.27

The ESR concludes that an updated assessment of flood risk, drainage and water resources is not necessary on the basis that the proposal results in a reduced footprint for the Stage 2 building.

4.28

Any impacts associated with the amended scheme can be assessed via the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy.

4.29

A number of relevant consultees have been consulted on the ESR. Southern Water have confirmed that they have no comment. The Environment Agency have confirmed that they are satisfied with the scope of the report but note that Section 4.3 should include reference to the Environment Agency’s updated contamination guidance ‘Land contamination risk management (LCRM)’.

4.30

The Council’s Sustainable Drainage team have not commented on the Scope of the report but have set out what they would require to be submitted with any planning application.

4.31

The LPA is therefore satisfied that the ES will not need to be updated with regard to Water.

5.1

Paragraph 1.3.1 of the ESR states the following: ‘The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (which superseded the 2011 EIA Regulations) specify that when a further application is submitted pursuant to a planning permission granted before the coming into force of the 2017 Regulations (i.e. the planning permission was granted before 16 May 2017), then the subsequent applications, are to be undertaken under the Regulations that were in place when the outline permission was granted. As such, the 2011 EIA Regulations continue to apply to this process, referred to as the “transitional arrangements.” ‘

5.2

The LPA do not agree with this approach and consider that because the new application will be a S73 application, the amended Environmental Statement will need to be undertaken under the 2017 Regulations. This approach is confirmed by Government guidance in the form of Annex A: Summary Comparison Table of S73 and S96A applications Annex A: summary comparison table (publishing.service.gov.uk)

5.3

Impact of the Project on Climate: taking account of the 2017 EIA Regulations (see above), an additional chapter should be included setting out the impact of the project on climate and the vulnerability of the project to climate change, or consideration of this should be included in other topic chapters such as that relating to the water environment.

5.4

Human Health: taking account of the updated matters set out in Schedule 4 to the 2017 EIA Regulations, and given the application relates to the City’s main hospital, it is considered that an additional topic should be scoped in relation to human health (including the risk posed as a result of accidents or disaster).

5.5

Cumulative impact: The ESR does not include reference to consideration of cumulative impacts with other approved/allocated schemes in the vicinity and with the consented scheme. This should be taken into account either through a separate chapter, or in relation to each environmental impact

5.6

In-Combination Impacts: consideration should be given to the interaction of impacts with each other and the resulting effect.

5.7

Please note that since the Environmental Scope Report was produced, the NPPF has been updated (December 2023) and therefore the most up to date version of the NPPF should be referenced within the ES addendum.

6.1

In summary, the proposed content of the ESR is broadly considered acceptable as set out in this Scoping Report with the exception of Heritage which the LPA considers should be amended/updated in the ES addendum, along with the inclusion of the additional topics set out above in order to meet the requirements of the 2017 EIA Regulations.

6.2

In addition to the above, all responses from consultees forwarded to you directly should be reviewed.

Signed

Jane Moseley

Planning Manager – East Team 

Date: 19 January 2024