Home
About
Community
Planning
Gardens & wildlife
History
Links

Carelet 2018 Removal of Car Free

Land At Rear of 67 to 81 Princes Road Brighton

A new application BH2018/00881 for the Carelet site (from a new applicant: Navichas) proposes to remove condition 8 of application BH2017/00175 which would allow occupants to be eligible for residents' parking permits.

The approved development is for 5 three storey and 1 two-storey house. A development of this size could mean much more competition for scarce parking places in the vicinity. Allowing this would also create a precedent for removing other car-free conditions (e.g. 28 Crescent Road) so that demand for on-street parking reasonably near homes would greatly exceed supply.

Application BH2018/00881 further proposes to vary condition 10 ensuring that the appearance of the gatehouse door is in keeping with the conservation area and condition 20 that the development shall not be occupied until the refuse and recycling storage facilities indicated on the approved plans have been fully implemented and made available for use.

It is important that there are proper onsite facilities available to occupants so that their refuse and recycling does not spill over into the street.

View and comment on Application BH2018/00881

 

Application No: BH2018/00881 (please quote)

Applicant: Navichas

Site/Property: Land at Rear of 67 to 81 Princes Road Briighton

Description: Removal of condition 8 which states that residents have no entitlement to  a resident's parking permit

Condition 8. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with the scheme to provide that the residents of the development, other than those residents with disabilities who are Blue Badge Holders, have no entitlement to a resident's parking permit submitted and approved under application BH2014/03621. The development shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the development is car-free and to comply with policy CP9 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan.

Description: Variation of conditions 10 and 20 RE compatibility of gatehouse door with conservation area :

 

Condition 10. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with the submitted details of the gatehouse door shown on drawing 1394-P-004-P6 received on 13/03/2017 and shall be retained as such.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to comply with policy CP15 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part one and policy HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

and (20) full implementation of plans for refuse and recycling facilities

Condition 20 The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the refuse and recycling storage facilities indicated on the approved plans have been fully implemented and made available for use. These facilities shall thereafter be retained for use at all times.

Proper on-site facilities are needed:-

Will the Council stick to conditions and a refusal which avoids this?

bins

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory facilities for the storage of refuse and recycling and to comply with policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

View or comment on Application BH2018/00881

Carelet 2010 parking difficulty

Above link shows successful community challenge (our own report) to technical report submitted on behalf of Carelet.

Download the full survey including photographs and details of our methodology and surveys.

Community parking survey (PDF, 764kb)

The appeal was dismissed.  A member of the Council's transport team had informed our community study by advising us on how to count safe/legal parking spaces within 200M & 400M of the application site. We used the standard measurements to counter Carelet's techical report then. At that time, I recall that it was assumed that a development of 6 houses would generate  demand for 9 onstreet parking spaces. The 2010 appeal was dismissed on the parking ground alone, so do not let technical reports go without challenge.

It is always worth challenging these technical reports which offer methodologies to serve the conclusion the developer wishes to reach. Appeal inspectors do not always arrive at the same conclusions.

 

Carelet 2013 car-free how long?

 

The above links provide useful background on what appeal inspectors have said about parking difficulty in the vicinity of the site as well as details of a community survey (our own!) of available parking spaces. 

CPZs do not increase the supply of onstreet parking space

CPZs give local residents preferential treatment with regard to onstreet parking while rationing their onstreet parking according to the number of permits which are possible in densely populated areas. CPZs do not suddenly create a larger supply of onstreet parking spaces. If anything, they reduce the supply by yellow lining spaces which involve pavement parking or create obstacles (e.g. for refuse collection & emergency service vehicles). Cramming already densely populated areas which already need parking controls with more residents can only be bad planning policy when developers are unable to offer any parking on site.

In dismissing Carelet's third Appeal, Inspector, Roger Mather concludes (paragraph 15 of Appeal Decision APP/Q1445/A/08/2073223) in relation to Carelet's application site that without a guarantee that the development would be genuinely car free, it would be likely to exacerbate parking stress in the area, sufficient to warrant withdrawing planning permission. The requirements of Local Plan Policies TR19 and HO7 (b) would not be satisfied.

 

 Back to the past? (while paying for a CPZ)  

The CPZ made our junctions safer, but reduced safe/legal parking space. Residents paid for preferential treatment over outsiders so that they could park near their homes. We didn't pay to create infrastructure for an unviable development which could not meet the transport needs it generated. 

parking problems in Princes Road May 2009Princes Road's 1 in 12 hill where extra parked cars would create a dangeous bottleneck. If every area was fully parked all the time, cars would not be able to exchange parking spaces. 

 How near will residents be able to park to their homes when all Round Hill spaces are taken?

 Adjoining areas (e.g. Springfield Road) now have their own CPZs.

 

This page was last updated by Ted on 12-Apr-2018
(registered users can amend this page)