Carelet 0000 index to applications
| Carelet's planning applications | ||
| 2004 | 1st Appeal | 2005 |
| 2006 | 2007 | 2nd Appeal |
| 2009 | 2010 | Our own parking survey |
| 3rd Appeal | 2013 | 2014 |
| 2015 | 2017 | 2018 |
1976-2007 Pictures from the NE of Round Hill
Carelet purchased the greenfield site in February 2004. Towards the end of that year they applied for 30 flats. The application was refused and dismissed on appeal.
BH2004/03605/FP Erection of 30 flats 5 & 6 storeys. Refusal.
Appeal on refusal of BH2004/03605 Dismissed. See paragraph 16 of 2005 Appeal Decision APP/Q1445/A/05/1178381:
Local residents are particularly concerned regarding traffic and pressure on parking in the area. I have to say that I share some of these concerns. It is not clear that the development could be guaranteed to remain ‘traffic free’ and that none of the residents would own or use cars. The existing residents rely heavily on on-street parking and any significant additional car usage would exacerbate the pressure for parking in the area, with the concomitant additional hazards to road safety stemming from possible indiscriminate parking and the circulation of vehicle drivers seeking a parking space. Prince's Road and several of the surrounding streets slope steeply and are not ideal terrain for cyclists or pedestrians. I note that the Highway Authority does not object, providing the details of the car club are pursued further, but the lack of a guaranteed traffic-free solution reinforces my view that the proposed development is unacceptable.
2005 Carelet’s site clearance - wildlife haven destroyed
BH2005/02279/FP Erection of 21 flats 4 & 5 Storeys. BHCC's refusal.
BH2006/03214 Erection of 9 three-storey houses withdrawn appeal and BHCC's refusal
BH2007/04444 Eight houses proposed - some 2 & some 3 storey REFUSED (archived)
APPEAL APP/Q1445/A/08/2073223 on BHCC's refusal of BH2007/04444 DISMISSED by 2nd planning inspector to cite parking as a problem.
To access appeal decision, go to BH2007/04444 , filter documents by changing "Show all" to "Appeal Decision", then click on green tab APPLY. Select icon in the "view" column.
What the planning inspector said about parking in dismissing the appeal on refusal of the above:
Appeal Ref: APP/Q1445/A/08/2073223 Decision date: 21 October 2008
Agreeing with the inspector who dismissed Carelet’s first Appeal, the inspector who dsimissed Carelet's second appeal found merit in the argument that inadequate on-site parking would lead to further on-street parking, in an area suffering a degree of parking stress. In paragraph 14, he observes that it is stretching credibility to suggest that there is sufficient on-street space to provide for travel demand for eight family houses, estimated at seven cars, based on one beat survey undertaken during the early hours, on one weekday in August. He continues: moreover, the Survey showed only 8 spaces available within 100m of the site. A further 16 were available within a 400m of the site. I think that would be woefully inadequate to mitigate the harm at other times, outside the holiday season, when demand would be expected to increase. It flows from this that in the absence of controls to ensure a genuinely car free scheme, one Car Club space would be inadequate.The planning inspector concludes (paragraph 15) 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.
BH2009/00847 Four two-storey houses proposed & granted (archived)
conditions (archived)
objections (archived) too near the WTS
2010 Six houses BH2010/00083 refused on parking grounds
subsequent appeal dismissed on parking grounds alone
2010 Six house planning application No. BH2010/00083 refused
Ground 1) Failure to meet travel demand (parking) was upheld by the planning inspector who dismissed Carelet's third appeal APP/Q1445/A/10/2131115 on 15 February 2011
To access appeal decision, go to BH2010/00083 , filter documents by changing "Show all" to "Appeal Decision", then click on green tab APPLY. Select icon in the "view" column.
Download Round Hill residents' own parking survey which we contributed to the above appeal. This included photographs and details of our methodology and surveys. The methodology for this was explained by the Council's then Principal Transport Planner.
Community parking survey (PDF, 764kb)
The planning committee offered parking stress as a ground for refusal. They were supported by the third Planning Inspector who finds that parking stress in Round Hill has been underestimated by the appellant. In dismissing the appeal, she acknowledges residents' concern that night time parking when demand is heaviest.
Ground 1) Failure to meet travel demand (parking) was upheld by a third planning inspector when she dismissed Carelet's appeal early in 2011.
18. Residents accept that, during the day time, on-street spaces are more readily available in the vicinity of the site, but they consider that, overall, the on-street parking which currently takes place has been underestimated by the appellant. Their particular concern is with night time parking when demand is heaviest and when problems of double parking, parking on pavements and close to junctions are exacerbated. This time period has not been covered by the appellants. A community parking survey was carried out by a group of residents in July 2010. Unlike the survey conducted for the appellants, it was not carried out by a specialist independent traffic survey company and, although advice on the methodology was obtained at the outset from the Council's Principal Transport Planner, it has not been endorsed by the Highway Authority since being completed. I therefore treat the findings with some caution.
19. PPG13 notes that local authorities should not require developers to provide more car parking spaces that they themselves wish unless there are exceptional circumstances, for example where there are significant implications for road safety which cannot be resolved through the introduction of on-street parking controls. The Highway Authority did not consider that there were significant circumstances in the surrounding area which would be exacerbated by the proposal. 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.
CARELET WANTS AREA J PARKING SPACES WHILE PUTTING IN FOR CAR-FREE DEVELOPMENT BH2013/00139
The 2013 proposal BH2013/00139 was identical (except in one regard) to the one refused BH2010/00083 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.
2013 BH2013/00139 granted as a car-free development
14 August 2013 Six house planning application No. BH2013/00139 granted
The above 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.
BH2013/03782 Inaccuraccies in the application for 6 taller houses
Six taller three-storey house proposal approved on 12th March 2014: BH2013/03782
This is the permission which has actually been built. Subsequent applications have been proposals to vary or remove planning conditions
BH2013/03782 Six taller three-storey house proposal approved on 12th March 2014
2015 July: proposed Gatehouse: too little space for refuse & recyclables
BH2018/0081 now REFUSED
Carelet Development: Land At Rear of 67 to 81 Princes Road Brighton
View decision on Application BH2018/00881
- Application to Remove Car Free Condition
- Objections to Carelet's supporting document & parking survey
- Further variation of design of Gatehouse & Refuse /Recycling area
BH2018/0081 challenges BHCC's parking standards & commitment to sustainable modes
Brighton and Hove City Council has a list of many developments which are car-free where residents are not eligible for a permit. If our Council reneges on a clearly set out condition which made way for approval of 6 three storey houses (trailed as eco-homes), this precedent could invite dozens of other housing developments in the city to expect similar backtracking, including car-free developments in progress such as the one to the rear of 28 Crescent Road.
Carelet's application tests our Council's willingness to implement its current set of parking standards called for under City Plan policy CP9. Supplementary Planning Document SPD 14 October 2016 creates opportunities for sustainable modes. See page 5 on the zonal approach followed by pages 6 and 7 on car-free housing. The map on P22 near the end of SPD 14 October 2016 defines a Key Public Transport Corridors zone outlined in purple. The path of the coastways railway between London Road and Moulsecoomb stations falls within the purple zone, as do Carelet's new homes. As well as being well served by London Road Station, Round Hill is also well served by local bus services (Nos 26, 46, 50 and 79(weekends) on Ditchling Road and 23, 24, 25, 48, 49, 50 and 78(weekends) on Lewes Road. Many Round Hill residents are well used to walking to London Road Station (mentioned on page 6 of SPD14) on their way to and from work.
The above information is missing in the policy background section of the developer's supporting document, which instead heaps emphasis on an appeal decision where a condition denying eligibility for on-street parking was considered unreasonable and unnecessary.
The Planning Inspector takes a different line in his decision Appeal Ref: App/Q1445/A/14/2222561 dated 23rd October 2014 relating to 68a St Georges Road Brighton BN2 1EF.
Interestingly, the main issue of this unsuccessful appeal is whether the disputed condition HO7 on car-free housing is necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects, and the effect of removing the condition on the aims of policies which seek sustainable forms of development. SPD14 now replaces policy HO7 from the 2005 Local Plan. It will be interesting to see if planning committee members give the new zonal approach more attention than the applicant in the context of 6 three-storey houses and are willing to defend it.
The most recent application (BH2022/02050) to remove condition 8 (residents parking permit entitlement) of planning application BH2017/00175) was granted.
However, the removal of the condition does not necessarily mean that occupiers will be eligible for residents' parking permits. In the decision document dated 25th August 2022, the applicant was advised that details of the development will be passed to BHCC as Traffic Authority administering the Controlled Parking Zone, of which the development forms part, so they can determine whether occupiers should be eligible for residents' parking permits.
The removal of a car free condition alone would not remove Princes Road Nos. 1,2,3,4,5 & 6 Chestnut Close (on land at the rear of 67 to 81 Princes Road) from the Council's list of car-free developments.
The plot as a greenfield site in 2003 
