The home site of the Round Hill Society, a community group of the residents of Round Hill in Brighton, England. The site contains information about the area, latest news and reflections on life in Round Hill.
28A CRESCENT ROAD BRIGHTON 28B 28C 28D 28E
BH2021/04390 | Application to remove condition 12 of planning permission BH2018/00433 which states 'The development shall be implemented in accordance with the scheme for the restriction of resident's parking permits in accordance with the approved application'.
Update: Application BH2021/04390 was approved on 8th June 2022 with 5 votes FOR and 2 votes AGAINST.
Subsequently, under Parking Services' policy (agreed at ETS Committee in September 2022) resident permits (first issued because of an administrative error in failure to amend the Traffic Regulation Order) will continue to be issued to the four dwellings at 28 Crescent Road and there is no proposal to amend the TRO.
It is reasonable to conclude that the Council's main policy for delivering car-free development [Supplementary Planning Document SPD 14 Parking Standards] has been badly compromised now that there is no longer planning authority involvement in assessing the need for car-free development.
How and when is car-free housing secured?
Why was the appeal on the Council's refusal of BH2019/00072 dismissed?
Did all local residents trust the survey submitted on behalf of the Crescent Road developer?
What did the planning inspector observe on his site visit of 23rd September 2019?
How common is car-free development in Brighton and Hove?
When was this car-free condition imposed?
How and when is car-free housing secured?
Historically, car-free housing has been secured through a planning condition on developments for new homes in controlled parking zones (CPZs) where there is already very high take up of parking permits.
In the years leading up to 2021 there were a number of appeal decisions against the use of this condition that have been upheld on the basis that the condition fails the test of being necessary (the number allowed have by far exceeded the number dismissed). The reason for this is because there are other routes for securing development as car free (via Traffic Regulation Orders). Brighton and Hove City Council sought legal advice on this and it supports the view of the majority of planning inspectors that we should no longer do this.
From mid 2021, Brighton and Hove City Council stopped the practice of attaching car-free conditions to planning consents, so now the designation of developments as ‘car-free’ operates exclusively via the Local Highways Authority Parking Service and through the amendment of Traffic Regulation Orders, which will remove addresses from (or not adding them to) CPZ lists of addresses eligible for resident parking permits. The Parking Design and Implementation Team are responsible for amending the TRO database.
See Residents seek to lift car-free planning condition but neighbours object [Brighton and Hove News].
Why was the appeal on the Council's refusal of BH2019/00072 dismissed?
BH2019/00072 was the unsuccessful attempt to get the car-free condition removed, before BHCC abandoned the use of planning conditions. The planning inspector who dismissed the appeal against refusal said:
"In support of the appeal, the appellant submitted a TN (Technical Note) and a Parking Beat Survey, based on the Lambeth Methodology, which relates to the number of vehicles parked and the number of empty parking spaces within a reasonable walking distance of the site. This survey was taken on Wednesday 12 December 2018 between the hours of 01:30 and 03:00, when most residents would be expected to be at home. The Parking Beat Survey data indicates that on average, the parking stress of the surveyed streets is very high at 95%. The TN predicts that the approved new dwellings would be likely to result in an increase in parking demand by four spaces. Based on this, the TN states that the approved development would further increase parking stress in the surveyed area to 97%."
Did all local residents trust the survey submitted on behalf of the Crescent Road developer?
No. See Crescent Road Bullets which uses the Lambeth Methodology to calculate "the true level" of parking stress in Crescent Road as 110%.
Notwithstanding this, the planning inspector based his decision on the 95% figure, which he thought was already high enough. However, he did observe that "Furthermore, the Parking Standards within SPD 14 states that the maximum level of parking for the proposal is one space per dwelling plus one space per two dwellings for visitors, which equates to a maximum of six spaces for this development. Based on this, the parking stress figure would be further increased above the 97% stated in the TN. "
What did the planning inspector observe on his site visit? (23rd September 2019)?
"I also observed during my site visit, which included a walk around the area on a Sunday evening when most residents would be expected to be at home, that there was a very high occupancy of parked vehicles on Crescent Road and the surrounding street, with few spaces available. The proposal would be likely to generate additional on-street parking demand in the vicinity of the site, in an area which already suffers from on-street car parking stress, to the further detriment of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers by making parking more difficult. Furthermore, the resulting combination of circulating traffic and overspill parking would be likely to increase vehicle movements in the area and obstructive parking, to the detriment of the free flow of traffic and highway safety."
Which of the Council's policies are undermined by the absence of planning authority involvement in assessing the need for car-free development?
The approval of BH2021/04390, in which a Parking Beat Survey is entirely absent, undermines policies SPD 14 Parking Standards, CP9 Sustainable Transport, TR7 Safe Development and QD27 Protection of Amenity.
Policy CP9 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One, 2016 (City Plan) seeks to deliver sustainable transport and the benefits that this brings in terms of reduced congestion, improved health, safety and quality of life by providing measures to transfer people onto sustainable forms of transport. Amongst other measures, this includes establishing clear criteria for car-free housing. These detailed criteria are contained in Supplementary Planning Document SPD 14 Parking Standards.
SPD 14 Parking Standards has been formally adopted (since Monday 3 October 2016) as an SPD for the purposes of determining planning applications. Pages 5 - 7 are on Car Free Housing. The application site is within a key public transport corridor i.e. the accessibility of bus and rail transport makes the car-free condition reasonable. In application BH2021/04390, the applicant fails to demonstrate (as SPD14 requires) capacity for on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the site and in the surrounding area through an on-street parking survey. So comments claiming ample parking space are entirely subjective. SPD 14 states when considering applications for car free housing, the impact of potential overspill parking needs to be considered. These impacts may include localised increases in demand for on-street parking which can cause highway safety risks and can have a negative impact upon the amenity of existing residents in the vicinity of the site, as competition for on-street spaces in a particular area may increase. SPD14 further states that car free housing will be approved having regard to a number of factors which includes the scale of development, sustainability of location and the capacity for on-street parking in the surrounding area, and that this should be demonstrated by the applicant through an on-street parking survey."
Policies TR7 Safe Development and QD27 Protection of Amenity establish that the car-free condition is necessary, which relate to what the planning inspector observed on his site visit and the on-street parking survey.
How common is car-free development in Brighton and Hove?
See the list Car free roads and properties in Brighton and Hove - there is a massive number of such developments.
What was the full wording of the pre-commencement car-free condition imposed on the Crescent Road development?
The development hereby permitted shall not commence until such time as a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority 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.
Reason: This pre-commencement condition is imposed in order to allow the Traffic Regulation Order to be amended in a timely manner prior to first occupation to ensure that the development does not result in overspill parking and to comply with policies TR7 & QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and CP9 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.
When was this car-free condition imposed?
From when it first obtained planning permission on 18th October 2016. Decision document for (BH2016/00862 see point 13 or the foot of this page for the full car-free condition).
On what basis did the residents of the Crescent Road development (28B 28C 28D 28E) make their successful attempt (BH2021/04390) to get the car-free condition removed?
Going by the supporting document in application BH2021/04390, their case rests on revision of government guidance on Use of planning conditions (revised 23rd July 2019). The latter contains a paragraph beginning "A negatively worded condition limiting the development that can take place until a planning obligation or other agreement has been entered into is unlikely to be appropriate in the majority of cases."
The following paragraph, misquoted by the applicants' planning company, reads "However, in exceptional circumstances a negatively worded condition requiring a planning obligation or other agreement to be entered into before certain development can commence may be appropriate, where there is clear evidence that the delivery of the development would otherwise be at serious risk (this may apply in the case of particularly complex development schemes). In such cases the 6 tests should also be met."
The six tests are that the condition should be:
1. necessary;
2. relevant to planning;
3. relevant to the development to be permitted;
4. enforceable;
5. precise; and
6. reasonable in all other respects.
The delivery of backland developments such as Carelet (6 houses) and the Crescent Road development (4 houses) would have been at serious risk - i.e. they would not have got planning approval - without the car free condition.
The compexity of the backland scheme affecting many neighbours in the densely populated Round Hill conservation area is reflected in three refusals and one withdrawn application before the development was granted in 2016 subject to the car-free condition.
Notes
Car free roads and properties in Brighton and Hove A massive number: 180+ roads and 1000+ properties.
Use of planning conditions (revised 23rd July 2019) This government guidance is quoted in application BH2021/04390 as the argument for removing the car-free condition. However, the appeal decision of 15th October 2019 from the government's planning inspectorate supports the retention of the condition imposed in 2016 (BH2016/00862 see Decision point 13).
See Residents seek to lift car-free planning condition but neighbours object [Brighton and Hove News]
This page was last updated by Ted on 19-Mar-2023