Gardens & wildlife

Carelet 2013 Six houses application

Return to Index of Carelet Applications

On 25th January 2013, The Council registered a planning application (No. BH2013/00139) from Carelet for 6 three-storey houses on the previously undeveloped open space to the rear of 67 to 81 Princes Road.

The proposal was identical (except in one regard) to the one refused by The Council's planning committee in 2010 (against their officers' recommendation to grant) and also dismissed by the planning inspector in 2011.
The appeal was dismissed on the basis of on-street parking difficulty in Round Hill alone BH2013/00139 differed from the 2010 application since it proposed a car-free development. The expected CPZ (which was indeed implemented in July 2013) made it possible for the first time for the Council to control which residents were permitted to park in Princes Road. Whether discriminating against prospective residents in this way could continue in the long-run without legal challenge (e.g. the human rights act) remains hypothetical until a car-free development of this nature is implemented and new residents explore their options under different laws.
Nevertheless, Carelet's 6 three-storey-house car-free proposal was granted on 15th May 2013. See related article
Application BH2013/00139
The links below contain the developer's descriptions of their proposal. The Design & Access Statement is probably the best place to start, though it uses criticisms of existing Round Hill residents, including the application site's immediate neighbours to argue for a proposal for residential accommodation. There is no pretence at local support for this development.

An insensitive proposal

Application BN2013/00139 is for 6 three-storey houses 2 floors down from street-level on backland much closer than any existing home to Veolia's Waste Transfer Station. Criticisms of this unsuitable proposal are numerous. See pages 10 to 15 of the Minutes of the meeting on 9 June 2010 for an overview. At this meeting the developer remarked that the proposal would offer existing residents "a buffer", which would screen them from The Waste Transfer Station. If this site remains undeveloped, "a green buffer of trees" would be very helpful. However, to create six new homes as "the buffer" displays a lack of sensitivity to the needs of prospective residents, who would be subject to the nuisances of odour, noise, fugitive particles (dust!) and light pollution.

Carelet's Design & Access Statement lacks any vision which would commend their proposal either to Round Hill residents or to those interested in increasing the supply of decent homes.

They state in paragraph 1.5 of their Design & Access Statement:
Development of the site will stop the increasing problem of the site being used as an unauthorized tip by the adjoining properties and local residents. When the proposal identical to BN2013/00139 came before the planning committee in 2010, the developer commented that BN2010/00083 would offer existing residents "a buffer" which would screen them from The Waste Transfer Station. Envisaging homes for prospective residents as "a buffer" is unlikely to win the hearts & minds of anybody who has community and neighbourhood foremost in their sights. The value of BN2013/00139 is about something else and the vision appears to lack regard for anybody but the developer.

Unacceptable as a site for new homes
We are only likely to get this REFUSED on transport grounds under policy TR1 agreed by the appeal inspector for the identical application.

However, Carelet's proposal is weakest of all in relation to its treatment of prospective residents.

It is well worth reading pages 10 to 15 of the Minutes of the meeting on 9 June 2010 for an overview of the flaws in Carelet's proposal. Among the concerns expressed by Councillors of different political persuasions were:

1. fire safety: access for emergency services

2. overlooking: the proximity of proposed to existing

3. noise from the The Waste Transfer Station

4. added noise from the ventilation system needed in rooms where prospective residents would need to keep windows closed in the context of pollution from The Waste Transfer Station.

5. access problems (with the living accommodation some distance away from Princes Rd and 2.5 storeys below street level) would make refuse collection arrangements awkward and create difficulties for residents who are less mobile on their feet.

Reasons for refusal 9 June 2010
1. The proposed development does not provide for the travel demands it creates, contrary to policy TR1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

2. The proposal, by reason of it having six dwellings on site, would result in a cramped standard of accommodation for future residents, contrary to policies QD27 and HO4 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

3. The proposed development, by reason of its close proximity to the Hollingdean Waste Facility, would lead to unacceptable noise exposure to residents of the scheme, both inside and outside their dwellings, contrary to policies SU9, SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan

Carelet appealed against refusal. The appeal was dismissed on the first ground alone. It was disappointing that the appeal inspector did not support all THREE of the reasons.

Consequence: Carelet put in BH2013/00139, a car-free version of their 6 three-storey-house car-free proposal, which was granted on 15th May 2013. See related article
This page was last updated by Ted on 07-Oct-2018
(registered users can amend this page)