Crescent Road 2019 Objection
Application Summary
|
Address
|
28A Crescent Road Brighton BN2 3RP | |
| Application BH2019/00072 for removal of conditions 7 and 12 of application BH2018/00433 (Variation of condition 1 of application BH2016/00862 (Part demolition and conversion of existing commercial buildings and erection of two new buildings to provide 4no two bedroom houses (C3) with associated landscaping) to allow amendments to approved drawings (part retrospective). Condition 7 stated that the development permitted shall not be occupied until details of a scheme of works to change the redundant double yellow lines on Crescent Road to CPZ bays has been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Condition 12 stated that the development shall be implemented in accordance with the scheme for the restriction of resident's parking permits in accordance with the approved application BH2017/03844. |
||
| Case Officer | Joanne Doyle |
The original, controversial, application for houses on this site to the rear of Crescent Rd was granted to the developer as a car free residential development. This was clearly understood and accepted by the developer and presumably the subsequent purchaser of the site.
These restrictions were made in line with the council's Policy HO7, recognising the existing pressure already being made on public amenities, such as car parking in Round Hill, one of the most densely populated areas of the city.
This application to lift restrictions is very similar to another application currently being considered by the council, nearby in Round Hill (BH2018/00881). They both raise very real concerns about the morality of the council granting planning approval to developers for much needed housing on constrained sites within densely populated areas as car free developments, if follow up applications then remove any restrictions and grant parking. This is just is not fair and undermines any trust in our council's decision making.
If the council grants these new changes, then a dangerous precedent will have been set and certainly from Round Hill residents' viewpoints, all trust will be lost in our planning system. We believe it would massively increase objections for any similar 'infill' applications for building homes, not only in Round Hill but also across the city. This could seriously undermine the council's ability to increase housing within the city.
In addition to the fundamental matter of principle set out above there are a series of mistakes and inconsistencies in the application. We are aware that other individual residents have provided specific details of these, so only provide a summary of concerns:
The appellant states there is no waiting list for permits in Area J, but this applies to the very large area J, west to the London Road and north to Preston Park Avenue. We would argue this is not relevant to the high parking pressure in the Round Hill area where the permits would be wanted.
The surveys carried out by Reeves Transport for BH2018/00881 and BH2019/00072 (covering much the same area) are inconsistent. They presume a maximum of one permit per house hold, even when potentially there could 2 or even 3. They also wrongly interpret the existing parking stress in the area which is over 90%. Reeves quote appeal decisions that do not apply to the situation in Round Hill and should be ignored.
The parking reviews were carried out in the quiet periods of the year. For example students, who make up a high proportion of our local residents and many of them have car parking permits, were away on vacation. A review in the busiest times of the year would we believe show very different results.
Reeves try to play down its own average parking stress of 97% in the area that would be directly affected is this application was agreed. This level of stress is over that which triggers concern from the Local Highway Authority.
The Planning Inspector's view in 2005 APP/Q1445/A/05/1178381 recognise that 'existing residents rely heavily on parking and any significant additional car usage would exacerbate the pressure for parking in the area, with concomitant additional hazards to road safety stemming from possible indiscriminate parking and and circulation of vehicle drivers seeking a parking place'. In a very hilly densely populated neighbourhood, safety is a real concern, as is air quality a known concern in our part of the city.
Round Hill is close to very good transport links, both along Ditchling and Lewes Roads. It is close to London Rd station. This was part of the consideration of the original decision to grant planning as car free. To help move Brighton & Hove towards becoming a sustainable city, car free developments to such as these must be maintained and supported as car free.
Finally, we wish to draw your attention the need to protect the amenity of all residents Round Hill, many of whom do not have gardens, live in flats and do not have cars. They do however, engage in many of the community events we organise in our streets, such as children's Playsafe schemes, street parties etc. To do this we need some flex in the numbers of car permits issued so we can arrange the necessary streets closures. Policy SPD14, which gives the council power to address localised increases in demand for on street parking within parking zones. We ask these powers are used in rejecting this application.
Your sincerely
RHS Chairperson
On behalf of the Round Hill Society