The Round Hill Society

Carelet 2018 Supporting Document

Carelet Index

UPDATE: Application BH2018/00881 proposing the removal of the car-free condition 8 on the Carelet development was REFUSED.

Removing condition 8 would have given occupants of Carelet's 6 three-storey houses elegibility for residents' parking permits.

If you are fighting an application which you feel would add to parking stress in your neighbourhood, this page and another one of similar detail may be of use.

Arguments on behalf of developer:
Technical Note (Parking) for BH2018/00881

Please read the Technical Report (Parking) submitted with BH2018/00881. To access it click here. 

Then (to the left of the green button APPLY) change "Show All" to "Supporting Documents" before clicking on the green button

The document PLANNING STATEMENT (published 20th March 2018) can be opened from the VIEW column on the right.

The Council's reason for conditioning Carelet's development as car-free is to comply with policy CP9 Sustainable Transport of The Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One.

The Special Planning Document called for under policy CP9 is the current set of parking standards SPD14 see page 5 on the zonal approach and pages 6 & 7 on car-free housing. The policy which Carelet's Technical Report ignores - pages 6 & 7 of SPD 14 October 2016 creates opportunities for sustainable modes. In relation to car-free housing. Page 6 and 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.

Critique of Carelet's planning statement
Technical Note (parking) BH2018/00881

1. No reference to what CP9 says on "Parking": call for SPD
2. No reference to SPD14 i.e. parking standards since Oct 2016
3. No reference to BHCC's criteria RE car-free housing
4. Playing down scale and type to minimise severity
5. Use of average data collected in 2011 to minimise severity
6. Zero mention of Key Public Transport Corridors zone
7. Nothing learnt from grounds for dismissing previous appeals.  Two samples of beat data on quiet dates is woefully inadequate
8. Wrong figure and inconsistent data for parking stress
9. Assumption that street space is only for motor vehicles
10. Hollow reference on page 4 to SA6 Sustainable Neighbourhoods
11. Air quality and shortfall of public open space in Round Hill
12. Carelet owes conditional approval of 6 houses to CPZ
13. Upheld Appeal, quoted to attack BHCC's car-free development condition HO7, is a red herring
14. Need for planning obligation was indeed discussed before 6 houses approved
15. Dismissed Appeal, which truly focused on BHCC's car-free development condition HO7 now replaced by SPD14
16. Condition 8 emerged from newer policies on car-free housing
17. Effect of precedents within Key Public Transport Corridors zone
18. National Policy Framework is compatible with Condition 8
19. Retained Local Plan policies are compatible with Condition 8
20. CPZs: streets for community uses other than the storage of cars
21. Challenging surveys which underestimate parking stress
22. Justifying conditions as "necessary" and "reasonable" in support of Local Policy

No reference to what CP9 says on "Parking": call for SPD

2. Policy Background - City Plan Policy CP9 Sustainable Transport is the local policy ground on which the permission for Carelet's 6-house development has been conditioned as car-free.

However, in referring to The City Plan Policy CP9, the supporting document quotes a very general summary of the city's Transport Strategy from pages 171 and 172 of Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One [PDF], without giving any policy information about parking.

Parking has its own heading, summarised on page 180 of the section C9 Sustainable Transport within  Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One [PDF] under points 4.126 and 4.127. The latter point calls for an up to date Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) setting out parking and servicing standards for new development.  

No reference to SPD14 parking standards since Oct 2016

The Supplementary Planning Document called for in section 4.127 has already been adopted. SPD 14 on Parking Standards was agreed in October 2016, yet there is no mention of it in the policy background to Carelet's 2018 Technical Note (Parking).

No reference to BHCC's criteria RE car-free housing

Pages 6 and 7 of SPD14 directly address policy on Car Free Housing, which I would expect to be central to mention of policy background in the developer's 2018 supporting document. These pages are not to be hidden away. Under the heading "Car Free Housing", they read:

Car free housing relates to housing developments where occupants do not have access to car parking and are precluded from applying for a residents parking permit within a CPZ. Brighton & Hove has relatively low car ownership levels compared to other UK towns and cities and the idea of not owning a car is quite familiar to many people working and living in the city.

Furthermore, a control over the parking which may occur outside the site (on-street) may encourage the use of sustainable transport modes and meet the wider strategic objectives set out policy CP9 of the City Plan. In addition to the potential transport and air quality benefits that car free housing brings there are wider advantages as developers can provide higher densities as the land set aside for parking can be used to provide additional floor space or enhancements to amenity space within developments.

Where residential development is proposed, within CPZs in the city, the City Council may restrict future occupants’ eligibility for residents parking permits subject to the considerations below.

Each development will be assessed on a case by case basis and car free housing will be approved having regard of the following relevant factors:

• Scale of development (number of units)
• Type of development (unit types and sizes)
• Sustainability of location / accessibility to sustainable transport modes and local services
• Capacity for on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the site and in the surrounding area. This should be demonstrated by the applicant through an on- street parking survey
• The level of vehicular parking which is proposed on site (if any)

Playing down scale and type to minimise severity

The Scale of development is 6 houses [1 two-storey and 5 three storey] much more than the two additional flats mentioned in Appeal Decision APP/Q1445/W/16/3149109, cited in the Technical Report, though a complete red herring in relation to parking which does not enter into the Council's decision to refuse the development proposed in BH2015/0307.

Type of development (unit types and sizes) - In addition to two double bedrooms, Carelet's houses have a home office which could easily be used as a third bedroom. Their first proposal was for 33 flats. Their 8-house proposal BH2007/04444 (6 three-storey + 2 two storey), the first to use half the back garden taken from No 67 Princes Road, was deemed capable of accommodating up to 44 occupants. The 6 houses they have now built sit tightly on their extended plot and the 5 three-storey ones have been increased in height since permission was first given for 6 units.

Use of average data collected in 2011 to minimise severity

Section 4 of The Technical Report uses average data collected 7 years ago (i.e. derived from the 2011 census) to estimate Development Parking Impact. This takes no account of of particular variables. It is a pure guess that the uptake of parking permits will be no more than six. The context here departs from average situations. Street access is a 1 in 12 hill and residents living so close to a smelly Waste Transfer Station may wish to limit the hours they spend in their home environments. There are nicer places to drive to in Sussex.

Zero mention of Key Public Transport Corridors zone

Sustainability of location / accessibility to sustainable transport modes and local services - the policy which Carelet's Technical Report ignores - pages 6 & 7 of SPD 14 October 2016 creates opportunities for sustainable modes. In relation to car-free housing. Page 6 and 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. As the Technical Report observes, opportunities for sustainable modes also form part of National Planning Policy, which is what Condition 8, attached to the decision notice for planning application BH2017/00175 exists for in the context of otherwise unsuitable development.

Nothing learnt from grounds for dismissing previous appeals

Capacity for on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the site and in the surrounding area. This should be demonstrated by the applicant through an on- street parking survey - according to all three Carelet appeal decisions, parking stress in Round Hill was underestimated in each of the surveys offered by the developer.

See Paragraph 16 of Carelet's 1st appeal APP/Q1445/A/05/1178381 and

Planning Inspector's Appeal Decision for Carelet's 2nd appeal Ref: APP/Q1445/A/08/2073223 Decision date: 21 October 2008.

Planning Inspector's Decision APP/Q1445/A/10/2131115 of 15th February 2011 for Carelet's 3rd appeal, involving 6 smaller houses than the ones which have now been erected, concludes that that parking stress in the developer's report has been underestimated both overall and at night time. She makes it clear that Round Hill residents' 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.

Two samples of beat data on quiet dates is woefully inadequate

Beat data taken only twice on quiet dates

Appendix 2 of the parking survey submitted with BH2018/00881 includes night time survey data taken on 23rd November 2017 and 16th January 2018. This is an improvement on choosing August when long-term students are likely to be absent. However, Round Hill residents are well aware that events such as The Brighton Festival in May, Bank Holidays or Pride weekend draw more cars to our neighbourhood.

In dismissing Carelet's appeal against a previous refusal, the planning inspector [link] finds it woefully inadequate to provide beat data merely on one day at a quiet time of the year. The parking survey submitted with BH2018/00881 manages 2 days: 23rd November 2017 at 01:00 and 16th January 2018 at 03:30. Far more beat data is needed to avoid stretching credibility.

Wrong figure and inconsistent data for parking stress

Underestimation of parking stress in 2018 Technical Note (parking)

Round Hill resident, Neil Griffiths observes that the main result of Carelet's 2018 parking survey used to support the proposal to remove the condition that new residents of the new development cannot apply for parking permits is an average parking stress of 89.3% with the addition of 6 cars (the maximum, which should not be exceeded, is typically 90%).

However, The 89.3% figure is wrong, it is at best 90.5% if not 91.2%. The 89.3% uses the parking stresses stated on 23rd November of 88.9% and on 16th January of 89.7%. The 16th January figure of 89.7% is wrong. It is either 91.2% (104 divided by 114) or 90.4% (104 divided 115).

Inconsistencies Technical Note pages 4 & 5 Tables 3.1 and 4.1

Neill Griffiths also observes that that they can’t decide whether capacity is 115 (as shown in table 4.1 on page 5) or 114 (as shown in table 3.1 on page 4).

The average parking stress on 23rd November is stated to be 88.9% but this uses the number of cars parked (104) divided by the total number of cars parked and observed spaces (117). If the official capacity of 114 is used the parking stress is 91.2%. If 117 is used on 23rd Nov and 114 on 16th January then the average parking stress in 90.5%.

Assumption that street space is only for motor vehicles

Mistaken premise of supporting document - The TECHNICAL NOTE looks solely at space for more on-street parking in streets already cluttered with cars.

The argument in section 6.5 (page 7 of The TECHNICAL NOTE) that extra income from more residents parking on cluttered streets will pay for environmental benefits will not convince local pedestrians. Better not to create bottlenecks in the first place in neighbourhoods where parking stress is so near to the 90% maximum figure. The benefits of CPZs is that by reducing parking stress they create opportunities for sustainable modes, cleaner air quality and greater safety. Section 1.1.4 of Manual for Streets reads: 1.1.4 Streets should not be designed just to accommodate the movement of motor vehicles. It is important that designers place a high priority on meeting the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users, so that growth in these modes of travel is encouraged (Fig. 1.1).

In Round Hill, we hold fairly frequent Street Play sessions between Spring and Halloween which involve closing off Mayo Road for two hours. Residents cooperate by moving motor vehicles from Mayo Road into Richmond Road or Princes Road. An increase in parking stress in this vicinity will not be helpful to the social and environmental benefits our local residents' association has been working hard to achieve.

Hollow reference on page 4 to SA6 Sustainable Neighbourhoods

SA6 Sustainable Neighbourhoods are described on pages 122 to 129 of Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One and mentioned in the section of local policy CP9 reproduced as 2.4(d) on page 4 of Carelet's supporting document:

2.4(d) Working with communities to identify priorities for improved public realm, safer areas (e.g. child-friendly streets) and sustainable transport improvements. (see SA6 Sustainable Communities)

Pertinent to the Round Hill neighbourhood, which lacks public open space such as parks and recreation grounds are the following sections of SA6 on page 128 of Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One

Air quality and shortfall of public open space in Round Hill

3.187 Shortfalls in the quantity and quality of open space, recreation and sports facilities have been identified in the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study127 and the findings will be taken forward into Open Space Strategies for the city. This will be tied in with identifying community safety priorities for improving open spaces, providing children’s play space and encouraging residents to use their parks.

3.188 The city and its partners are working towards designation as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, a world class centre of excellence where the benefits of nature conservation to people are clearly demonstrated. The policy helps to deliver Biosphere objectives by encouraging the integration of beneficial biodiversity as an integral part of sustainable neighbourhoods.

Carelet owes conditional approval of 6 houses to CPZ

Both application BH2018/00881  to remove  condition 8 and application BH2017/00175 (which created condition 8) were approved within the context of a CPZ. Indeed, it is the very existence of a CPZ which allowed Brighton and Hove City Council control over entitlement to on-street parking.

The first permission for 6 houses 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.

Upheld Appeal, quoted to attack BHCC's car-free development condition HO7, is a red herring

Use of planning conditions

Section 2.2 beginning on page 2 of The Technical Document (parking) summarises The National Planning Policy Framework in four bullet points. In section 6.3 and 6.4 on page 6, the fourth of these bullet points is linked to an appeal inspector's disapproval of Local Plan policy HO7 being suggested as a condition in relation to conversion of existing properties which would result in two extra flats, should application BH2015/03407 be approved.

Carelet's supporting document fails to refer to SPD14 which has set the Council's policy on Car-Free Housing since October 2016 . Section 6.4 of the Technical Note refers to an Appeal Decision APP/Q1445/W/16/3149109 relating to two very small extra flats.

Here the appeal inspector has picked up on the following note in a report by the Council's transport department:[Car-free housing comment] The Highway Authority deems that the proposed development has good access and is near local services and public transport and is within a controlled parking zone; therefore, to accord with the City Council’s Local Plan policy HO7, requests that conditions be attached to prohibit residents from being eligible for parking permits and encourage the development and surrounding area to be genuinely car-free.

Need for planning obligation was indeed discussed before 6 houses approved

Dealing with a much smaller demand, this planning inspector is critical of limiting the benefit of planning permission to certain groups of people. He quotes Paragraphs 21a-010 and 21a-015 dating from 06 03 2014 as advice given within Planning Practice Guidance over the use of conditions.

The final paragraph on 21a-010 in fact reads:Where consideration is given to using a negatively worded condition, it is important that the local planning authority discusses with the applicant before planning permission is granted the need for a planning obligation or other agreement and the appropriateness of using a condition. The heads of terms or principal terms need to be agreed prior to planning permission being granted to ensure that the test of necessity is met and in the interests of transparency.

There was indeed discussion between BHCC and the applicant on the necessity of the car-free condition before it was first applied to permission for a lesser volume of accommodation (6 lower three-storey houses).

View the letter to the Case Officer relating to the planning obligation associated with BH2013/00139 dated 13 March 2013.

To access it, click here. Then (to the left of the green button APPLY) change "Show All" to "Correspondence" before clicking on the green button

Carelet used Round Hill's CPZ to get its application for 6 smaller houses approved under condition 7 of planning application BH2013/00139 which the Council was able to impose once it had control of on-street parking entitlement. Condition 7 is worded:

The development hereby permitted shall not begin 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: To ensure that the development is car-free and to comply with policies HO7 and TR1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Reason attached to the decision document for BH2013/00139 To ensure that the development is car-free and to comply with policies HO7 and TR1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

An identical proposal BH2010/00083 was refused by the Council's planning committee and the transport grounds were used by the third planning inspector Isobel McCretton to dismiss an appeal against refusal by Carelet.

The decision document refusing BH2015/03407 which prompted the appeal  APP/Q1445/W/16/3149109, upheld in the decision on 7th October 2016, makes no reference at all to transport considerations or policy HO7 on car free housing.

The main issue of APP/Q1445/W/16/3149109 relating to 110 St George's Place BN1 4GB is part change of use of a ground floor shop and internal alterations to existing residential accommodation. BHCC's decision to refuse BH2015/03407 was dated 17 September 2015 when policy HO7 on car-free housing was still retained from Brighton & Hove Local Plan Adopted 2005, but policy HO7 was no longer retained on Adoption of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (March 2016)

Dismissed Appeal, which truly focused on BHCC's car-free development condition HO7, now replaced by SPD14

A different line supportive of policy HO7 is taken in 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 appeal dismissed by the Planning Inspector 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.

The wording of the Main Issue (see point 2 of the Planning Inspector's appeal decision) closely follows the six tests which form the overriding parameters for the use of conditions in the Government's Guidance. Note the use of the phrase "the Government's planning policy" in section 2 of Carelet's Technical Point, which includes the bullet point about the severity of the impact of the development, and the full text of the Government Guidance.

This dispute, directly concerning the use of condition HO7, relates to BHCC's approval of BH2013/04061on 26th February 2014. The development permitted is demolition of existing building and roof covering over site and the erection of 2No three bedroom houses i.e. far less new build than approved for the Carelet site in tightly knit Round Hill.

Just 16 days later than the appeal decision questioning the use of car-free conditions, now with condition HO7 as the main issue, the Planning Inspector concludes:

10. Lastly the appellant draws attention to the fact that there is no waiting list for permits in the appropriate controlled zone. This is not disputed by the Council.

11. In conclusion, the development has been permitted without parking and this is in line with Policy HO7 and makes best use of land in an accessible location. To ensure that the development stays genuinely car-free, in line with the policy aims and those of national policies on reducing the need to travel, it is necessary and reasonable to prevent occupiers being able to obtain a parking permit, notwithstanding that there appears to be no waiting list. Harm would occur to the aims of sustainable development, and particularly the environmental dimension, in removing the condition, which is also relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable and precise. For the reasons given above it is concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.

INSPECTOR

Appeal Ref: APP/Q1445/A/14/2222561.

What Carelet's BH2018/00881 supporting document misses is that Local Policy HO7, supported by other planning inspectors in relation to Carelet's dismissed appeals and used to overcome an appeal inspector's ground for refusing 6 houses, was deleted on Adoption of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (March 2016).

Condition 8 emerged from newer policies on car-free housing

Moreover, condition 8 was imposed under new policies on car-free housing pages 6 & 7 of SPD 14, which have emerged from policy CP9 Sustainable Transport of . Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One. These new policies relate to new development and were adopted on October 2016 - well after the refusal of BH2015/03407

Most surprisingly, no reference whatsoever is made to SPD14 in the policy background section of Carelet's 2018 Technical Report (parking).

The policy which Carelet's Technical Report ignores - BHCC's OCTOBER 2016 Parking standards is comprehensive and well defined. Car-free housing in relation to new build is specifically dealt with on pages 6 & 7 of SPD 14 October 2016. Particular attention is paid to what is reasonable as a condition. Blue badge holders are excluded from the condition. 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.

Effect of precedents within Key Public Transport Corridors zone

The approved development is for 5 three storey and 1 two-storey house. A development of this size could mean much more competition for scarce parking places in the vicinity. Allowing this would also create a precedent for removing other car-free conditions.

To the rear of 28 Crescent Road 4 residential properties are being constructed. As they have no street frontage of their own, they have been similarly conditioned as car-free. If this precedent is set and planning inspectors hold the Council to it, then on-street parking demand would greatly exceed supply. Indiscriminate and dangerous parking would return. 'Car-free' would just become a ruse to get unsuitable developments approved on tight sites.

Carelet first gained permission for 6 houses on the basis of the condition they now want removed, yet their most recent permission is for 6 even taller houses.

National Policy Framework is compatible with Condition 8

Just as SPD14 and condition 8 arise from the need to make streets pleasanter and healthier environments as the density of development in our cities becomes greater, the&nbspcbullet points from National Policy Framework, quoted  in Carelet's Technical Report (parking) are compatible with the need to promote walking, cycling and greater use of public transport. 

• Opportunities for sustainable modes - isn't this what condition 8 provides?
• Safe and suitable access to the site - such a narrow sole access for a development of 6 multi storey houses on backland invites a bottleneck unless the development is car-free. It won't be traffic-free, given the number of delivery vans which now serve our homes in the age of Internet shopping
• Improvements which can limit the impact - condition 8 was designed for that i.e. so that a development of this size could be approved when a smaller one was previously refused
• Residual cumulative impacts need to be severe before refusing development - the development has been approved; the condition is to limit an impact which concerns many residents: concerns shared by three planning inspectors who have dismissed appeals on transport grounds. The precedent of dropping this condition could tie the Council's hands on limiting severe impacts. Another backland development subject to a car-free condition is being erected to the rear of 28 Crescent Road, also with very narrow sole access.

Retained Local Plan policies are compatible with Condition 8

Retained policies of the Local Plan are likewise compatible with condition 8

• Policy TR7 RE the dangers to users of adjacent pavements, cycle routes and roads - the north side of Princes Road is a well used route to the Downs Infant and Junior School, the length of which involves no road junctions. Manual for Streets would recommend that 6 large houses had better access. Several cars and delivery vehicles targeting this point could increase danger
• Policy QD27 RE loss of amenity amd material nuisance - people who can see their vehicles from their homes can act to prevent material nuisance if they are causing an obstruction or if a car alarm goes off.

CPZs: streets for community uses other than the storage of cars

How was our CPZ promoted?

Some residents supported the CPZ in order to make it easier for them to park near their homes, but others, including non-car-owners, supported it to improve the pedestrian environment, to reduce air pollution, to create alternative uses to car parking within our public open space, to allow for cycle parking. Bikehangers like the one at the junction of Shaftesbury Road and Ditchling Rise, used especially for electric bicycles, would be appreciated by many  residents in Round Hill since there have been many bicycle thefts.

The appearance of planters in areas which now have CPZs demonstrates another use of our public open space. Hackney Council is currently promoting community parklets which can include planters, benches, games, notice boards or anything that your creativity and inventiveness can come up with. The idea is to re-purpose parking spaces on streets for community uses other than the storage of cars.

Challenging surveys which underestimate parking stress

Carelet 2010 parking difficulty

Above link shows successful community challenge (our own report) to technical report submitted on behalf of Carelet.

Download the full survey including photographs and details of our methodology and surveys.

Community parking survey (PDF, 764kb)

Ground 1) Failure to meet travel demand (parking) was upheld by planning inspector, Isobel McCretton, when she dismissed Carelet's appeal early in 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.

The appeal was dismissed.  A member of the Council's transport team had informed our community study by advising us on how to count safe/legal parking spaces within 200M & 400M of the application site. We used the standard measurements to counter Carelet's techical report then. At that time, I recall that it was assumed that a development of 6 houses would generate  demand for 9 onstreet parking spaces. The 2010 appeal was dismissed on the parking ground alone, so do not let technical reports go without challenge.

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.

20. Moreover, I am aware that since the application was determined a CPZ has been introduced some 400 metres from the appeal site. In my experience, it is highly probable that some displacement parking, both from commuters and from residents within the CPZ who cannot get/do not wish to purchase permits, will take place within the vicinity of the site.

21. I am also cognisant of the fact that another Inspector, in determining a previous appeal in respect of proposals for 8 houses on the site, expressed the view that parking stress in the area would be likely to be exacerbated in the absence of any guarantee that the development would be genuinely car free. In that case the estimated demand was 7 spaces.

22. To conclude I do not consider that it has been adequately demonstrated that the proposal provides for the future travel and parking demands which would be created as a result of the development in accordance with Local Plan policy TR1.

Conclusion

23. Although I have not found harm in respect of the living conditions for future
occupiers, I am not persuaded that there would be sufficient capacity in the
 available on-street parking to meet the future parking demands of the 
development. For the reasons given above, I consider that the appeal should
 be dismissed.
Isobel McCretton
INSPECTOR

It is always worth challenging these technical reports which offer methodologies to serve the conclusion the developer wishes to reach. Appeal inspectors do not always arrive at the same conclusions.

CPZs do not increase the supply of onstreet parking space

CPZs give local residents preferential treatment with regard to onstreet parking while rationing their onstreet parking according to the number of permits which are possible in densely populated areas. CPZs do not suddenly create a larger supply of onstreet parking spaces. If anything, they reduce the supply by yellow lining spaces which involve pavement parking or create obstacles (e.g. for refuse collection & emergency service vehicles). Cramming already densely populated areas which already need parking controls with more residents can only be bad planning policy when developers are unable to offer any parking on site.

In dismissing Carelet's second Appeal, Inspector, The Planning Inspector  concludes (paragraph 15 of Appeal Decision APP/Q1445/A/08/2073223) in relation to Carelet's application site 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.

Appeal Ref: APP/Q1445/A/08/2073223 Decision date: 21 October 2008

Note: within a CPZ where policy HO7 (replaced in Oct 2016 by SPD14 The Council's current parking standards) could regulate entitlement to on-street parking effectively, Appeal Inspector Roger Mather would accept the use of the condition.

Likewise in dismissing Appeal APP/Q1445/A/14/2222561 the planning inspector fully accepts the need for condition HO7 even in circumstances where there is no waiting list for permits in the controlled zone pertaining to his decision. See points 10 and 11 of his appeal decision dated 23 October 2014

One thing that has changed within the last 4 years is a huge rise in Internet shopping i.e. deliveries of food and packages to residential streets, which creates less need for cars but a greater volume of traffic. Backland developments (e.g. homes to the rear of Princes Road and Crescent Road) will require more time for such deliveries. With narrow access to these developments, more cars as well could not be accommodated without creating bottlenecks.

Note that some appeal decisions are citing The Government's Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) which requires planning conditions to be both necessary and reasonable. This means that it is important for Councils to provide supporting evidence that [A] any additional parking demand arising from development would lead to material harm to highway safety, or [B] would otherwise conflict with other development plan policies.

Policy CP9 of The Brighton and Hove City Plan has given rise to clear definition of Local Policy on Car-Free Housing in the form of Supplementary Planning Document SPD14. 

Justifying conditions as "necessary" and "reasonable" in support of Local Policy

Appeal APP/Q1445/W/18/3198211 dated 5th October 2018 (upheld by the  planning inspector) mentions that Brighton and Hove City Council has not provided detailed supporting evidence of [A] and [B] above i.e. the inspector was not provided with evidence that the car-free condition would meet the tests of reasonableness and necessity.

It is up to The Council to defend its policies i.e. its current parking standards SPD 14 [October 2016] and Round Hill residents can help by convincing members of the planning committee that the level of parking stress here justifies the application of our city's policies.

Brighton and Hove City Council has a list of developments which are car-free where residents are not eligible for a permit. If every car-free condition in our city was challenged, there would be transport chaos. Conditions can be used providing they are reasonable and necessary.

National Planning Policy Framework July 2018
See pages 15 & 16 points 54 to 56 Use of Planning Obligations and Conditions

Use of Planning Obligations [The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010]

BH2018/00881 Still under consideration

1. Application to Remove Car Free Condition
2. Further variation of design of Gatehouse & Refuse / Recycling