The Round Hill Society

Carelet granted a car-free development Carelet's application for 6 three-storey houses was decided by members of Brighton and Hove City Council's planning committee at their meeting on Wednesday 15th May 2013.

8 members voted in favour, 1 (a ward Councillor repredsenting Round Hill) voted against, 1 left the meeting early and 1 abstained.

The permission is subject to the condition that none of the development's prospective residents is entitled to a parking permit when Round Hill's CPZ is implemented in July 2013.

No place for homes: 35M from WTS

On another tack, an intervention by the Councillor representing Round Hill reminded those present that prospective residents would be housed just 35 metres away from a Waste Transfer Station which existing residents at three times the distance away find noisy and smelly. This, coupled with a condition which may last over the short-term (stopping the developer from getting a higher price by claiming on-street parking space within the Area J CPZ) may leave us with another permission which turns out to be "unviable". Cllr Davey expressed a hope that the development would never be built.

The stalemate between the developer and local residents has lasted nearly ten years. Ten years ago, we had a good screen of trees between the greenfield application site and the two industrial estates.

A "barrier" would be OK here if it were made up of trees and not people's homes. Yet what we may get is another unviable permission and a developer asking for still more homes on an unsuitable site. Permission for 6 three-storey houses may not have ended this stalemate.

Faulty parking data used twice

When Carelet last put in this application for 6 three-storey houses (then BH2010/00083) they fell back on on-street parking space data collected when they successfully applied for 4 two-storey houses. Round Hill residents helped to get Carelet's appeal against refusal (of 6 three-storey houses) dismissed by the government's planning inspector. We submitted our own community parking survey demonstrating to the satisfaction of the appeal inspector the inadequacy of the developer's most recent survey data collected now over 4 years ago.

Carelet has offered no new survey data since. They have not even measured the added parking pressures in relation to displacement from The Viaduct-Rise area CPZ implemented on 27th September 2010.

9 of Carelet's "surplus" on-street parking spaces are outside or opposite 1 Mayo Road

 

 

The main changes in Carelet's 2013 application is that Round Hill is expected to belong to a CPZ.
The CPZ cuts off at 20:00 hrs, but peak difficulty remains until late in the evening
Note that the above data collected for Carelet was surveyed at 20:00 hours. The expected CPZ would cut off at 20:00 hours each day. The planning inspector who dismissed Carelet's appeal on the very same quantity of housing (identical application) commented in her decision that peak difficulties were experienced in the late evenings. See paragraph 19 of Appeal Decision [APP/Q1445/A/10/2131115].

Nevertheless, the residents’ survey bears out the local concerns that demand for on-street parking is heaviest in the very late evening. More importantly, in my view it highlights the fact that, because of
the high demand, indiscriminate parking in places which could prejudice vehicle and pedestrian safety is already taking place: I observed several instances for myself within the study area during the daytime when going to and from my site visit.
Reversing the benefits of the expected CPZ
before it has even been implemented No resident voted in favour of a scheme to reduce their parking stress only to have a developer who cannot offer any parking at all on their application site to increase parking stress within the Area J scheme by an estimated 9 extra spaces which would be claimed in the vicinity of Princes Road.

The Council has a need to roll out CPZs into neighbourhoods (Triangle / Hanover & Elm Grove / Preston Drove) which will suffer displacement from the latest round of extensions. However, if the invitation to residents is to patch up unsuitable development proposals and to have the benefits of reduced parking difficulty cancelled out by city cramming next to a Waste Transfer Station, then CPZs will surely fall into disrepute. That cannot be the purpose of parking schemes.

New noise assessment

Although the proximity of Carelet's application to Hollingdean Depot was not upheld by the planning inspectorate as a reason for refusal, The Council has recently required Carelet to update their Noise Assessment. A further assessment of daytime noise levels was requested in the context of a worst case scenario e.g. if the MRF and WTS were to extend their current operating hours (Mon to Fri 06:30 to 19:00) to 06:30 to 22:00 seven days a week.

The summary and conclusions of this latest Noise Assessment (PDF) are on page 17 of 40 pages. Velfac 200 Sound Reduction Windows are proposed for the whole development and it is recommended that windows facing the railway line, MRF and WTS achieve an accoustic performance of at least 33 Rw. In addition, the Noise Assessment concludes that "acceptable external noise levels to the rear garden areas are also met". Existing residents whose homes and gardens are significantly further away from The Waste Transfer Station have different definitions of "acceptable".