A MEDICAL centre will be demolished and replaced with a new four storey venue if plans go ahead.

The new building in Oxford Street, Brighton, will be able to serve 22,000 patients, more than three times the number of the existing centre, according to an application submitted to Brighton and Hove City Council.

St Peter’s Medical Centre currently measures 450m squared.

But in October last year it merged with The North Laine Medical Centre which closed after being considered “unfit for purpose” by Brighton and Hove Clinical Commissioning Group clinical chairman Dr David Supple.

As a result St Peter’s Medical Centre now has a patient roll of more than 15,000 patients but is only suited to serve 6,000.

The centre will also accommodate the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.

In the planning application, developers Medical Centre Holdings stated: “The current premises are far too small to serve the number of patients registered with the practice.

“Furthermore, the ability to house both the St Peter’s Medical Centre and the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (SPFT) will mean that a more holistic approach to medical services will be possible than is the case with a standard GP practice.

“The SPFT provides for additional mental health services not provided in a standard GP practice. Not only does the development therefore mean that a greater range of services can be provided, but also, as a consequence of both services being accommodated in one building, there will be better synergy to the provision of all services.”

Plans say the existing two storey flat roof building would need to be flattened to make room for the new four storey building with a set back top floor.

A pharmacy would be included on the bottom floor with an NHS practice above.

The site would also include ten parking spaces as well as 12 cycle parking spaces for staff and 18 cycle parking spaces for visitors.

Planners added that the scheme has been designed to a “very high standard and will preserve the setting of designated and non-designated heritage assets”.

The application stated: “Even if a more pessimistic view of impact on designated heritage assets was taken, then any ‘less than substantial harm’ would be more than outweighed by the substantial public benefit that will accrue from the development.”

Developers also argued the plans should be approved as the scheme has been “assessed by professional consultants” with regard to impact on neighbours, highways and air qualities.

It stated: “In all cases it has been demonstrated that the application proposes a high quality scheme with no harmful impact on such matters.”