The Round Hill Society

Car Free Navichas

Carelet Index

Application Number: BH2022/02050

Site Address: Land at the rear of 67 to 81 Princes Road

Applicant: Navichas (formerly owned by Carelet)

Description: Application to remove condition 8 (residents parking permit entitlement) of planning application BH2017/00175

Comments should be received within 21 days of this notice (dated 1 July 2022). See SAMPLE COMMENT.

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.’

Condition 8 has now been removed

The application to remove condition 8 was granted. Decision document 25th August 2022. The applicant was advised that details of the development will be passed to B&HCC 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.

Car-free conditions no longer used

There are 180+ roads (over 1000+ properties) on Brighton and Hove City Council’s list of Car free roads and properties

The removal of a car free condition 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 above list.

I understand from paragraph 9.17 of The Officer's Report on BH2021/04390 - 28A Crescent Road that "Planning Officers have reviewed the use of conditions to restrict the entitlement of residents to parking permits and concluded that such conditions are not necessary as they duplicate what can already be achieved through parking regulations. Removing an address's entitlement to a parking permit requires an amendment to a Traffic Regulation Order, which cannot be achieved through the planning process. Parking Officers and/or Traffic Officers can seek such an amendment, without the need for a planning condition to trigger it, so it is considered to needlessly duplicate and complicate the process."

Residents at nearby 28A Crescent Road (who were successful in getting a car-free condition removed) were advised that "Separately to the planning process, the transport team could still consider the development should be car free." The same advice applies to the Princes Road car-free development. See ADVICE 1 application BH2018/00433.

It is therefore unclear what the applicant seeks to gain by applying for removal of a planning condition which is now considered redundant.

If more of the 1000 properties follow the example of the proposal BH2022/02050 now under consideration, it would become a huge waste of Council Officers’ and the Planning Committee’s time.

I would however urge the Transport Team not to consider removal of a redundant car-free condition as a first step towards amendment of the Traffic Regulation Order.

No reference to SPD14 Parking Standards

CMK's planning statement (posted 24th June 2022) purports to list policies relevant to assessing application BH2022/02050. However, there is no reference to SPD 14 Parking Standards, which is the very policy most relevant to the delivery of car-free development.

SPD 14 Parking Standards  was formally adopted (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 BH2022/02050, 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.

Permission for development would have been at risk without car-free condition

Contrary to CMK's contention in section 4.11 of their planning statement, permission for development on the application site would clearly have been at risk without the car-free condition.

3 dismissed appeals due to parking

Three planning inspectors dismissed appeals on the application site (formerly owned by Carelet) quoting pressure on on-street parking.

2005 Appeal Decision APP/Q1445/A/05/1178381 J. Mansell Jagger: "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. The lack of a guaranteed traffic-free solution reinforces my view that the proposed development is unacceptable.

2007 Appeal Decision APP/Q1445/A/08/2073223 Roger Mather: "inadequate on-site parking would lead to further on-street parking, in an area suffering a degree of parking stress. 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.

2010 Appeal Decision APP/Q1445/A/10/2131115 Isobel McCretton: "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.

Selective quote from The Officer's Report on BH2021 04390 - 28A Crescent Road

In 4.7 of their planning statement, with reference to application BH2021/04390 in nearby Crescent Road, CMK Planning quotes point 9.19 of The Officer's Report: ‘it is no longer considered appropriate to impose the car-free condition because parking in the local area, and limiting the issue of parking permits is already covered through the management of the Controlled Parking Zone and an informative has been attached accordingly.’ CMK fails to quote the last sentence of 9.19: Removing the condition would not therefore result in any increase to parking stress or highway capacity / road safety.

9.20, which CMK also omits, reads "However, an informative would be added, as above, highlighting that the details of the permission, if granted, will be passed to the parking authority so they can consider whether residents should be entitled to a parking permit. 

Approval of application BH2021/04390 at 28A Crescent Road to remove a redundant car free condition in June 2022 does not in itself prevent the Traffic Regulation Order from being amended to ensure that the development is car-free. The need for this was reiterated by planning inspector Rajeevan Satheesan in his appeal decision dismissing an earlier attempt to remove the car-free condition:

Crescent Road appeal inspector cites parking

2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Q1445/W/19/3231412: "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. I therefore find on the basis of the evidence before me, and having regard to the criteria of SPD 14, the car permit free restriction is relevant to planning, necessary and a reasonable requirement for this development in the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and highway safety. "