Neighbours have objected to an attempt to remove a planning condition that required new homes on a site in Brighton to be “car-free”.
Jini Coroneo and three of her neighbours in Crescent Road, Brighton, have submitted a planning application to Brighton and Hove City Council to remove the condition.
It currently prevents residents living on the old light industrial site behind 28 Crescent Road from having a parking permit.
The site was originally a laundry and later a wine blending and processing plant but, after a planning application in 2016, the redundant buildings were turned into homes.
The developer, Home Sussex, formerly known as AMF Property Investment, owned by Jennifer Anderson-Mann, 44, and Damian Frizzell, 43, and residents have previously applied to the council to scrap the car-free restriction.
The applications were lost on appeal but planning agent Colm McKee said that he was confident that the rules were now on the side of the people living there.
Mr McKee, director of CMK Planning, said: “There has been a historic issue with Brighton and Hove with the ‘car-free development’ condition. The condition is contrary to government guidance.”
He said that the council had imposed planning conditions relying on laws that were not related to planning policy – something that should happen only in exceptional circumstances.
After a number of appeal rulings, the council had stopped adding a condition that new developments should be car-free.
And this had prompted those living in the new Crescent Road homes to apply to the council to lift the condition.
Round Hill resident Dominic Furlong is one of the residents concerned about the proposed change of conditions.
About three dozen have objected to the proposal while only about a dozen have written to the council to support a change.
Mr Furlong said: “The development only ever got approved, after much back and forth, on condition it was car-free.
“And so now, with the case officer set to lift the car-free restriction, it really undermines the faith in the planning system and Brighton and Hove City Council planning policy.”
A comment with the objector’s details redacted on the council’s website said: “Original permission was given on the basis that this development would not add to the parking stress we experience in this area in the evening.
“The parking stress still remains and removing this condition retrospectively will have a negative impact on parking not only in the Roundhill area but the potential for a domino effect all over our city.”
Supporting comments said that there was space for more vehicles with parking permits in parking zone J, adding that the restrictions were “unfair”.
Another person whose details were redacted on the council’s website said: “New residents should be able to have access to their vehicle in a space close to their homes. This is of particular importance to families with young children.
“Myself and many others don’t feel safe relying only on public transport under the current circumstances and I don’t think it is going to change in the foreseeable future.”
The council said that it was looking at other ways to ensure that new housing schemes were car-free by using a different method, adding: “In the past, we have tried to secure car-free housing on small schemes in controlled parking zones through the planning process.
“But in recent years, we have had a number of decisions on appeal where the Planning Inspectorate has decided that car-free housing should not be secured through the planning process but through traffic regulation orders. Other councils such as Bristol City Council already do this.
“There have been decisions to the contrary, such as this one. But these are rare – and legal advice confirms the planning process should not be involved.
“So from now on, our planning reports will instead set out where, based on the advice of our transport team, there is a need for parking controls to mitigate the expected impacts of the developments.
“In such instances, when we grant planning permission, we will make it clear that the council will be seeking to make the development car-free by amending the traffic regulation order covering the zone within which the development is located.
“Amending these orders is subject to a statutory public consultation process following national guidelines.
“We are also taking this approach on planning applications such as this one that are seeking to remove the car-free condition from previously approved applications.
“Residents have raised concerns with us about the issuing of parking permits to people living at 28 Crescent Road and we are investigating this.”
interesting story: there was always something fishy about this planning condition. Back in 2000’s, the Council was forced to amend this condition as it was discriminatory to the disabled.
Why should people have the right to dump their private property in the road? If you own something you don’t have the space to store, that’s your problem.
Why did these people choose to live in a car free development? Adding a car rental single parking space might allow them to sell their cars and book use as needed. Compromise!
Not safe to use public transport, what a lot of tosh. Not everyone chooses to run a polluting form of transport and find it very safe to use public transport. Pollution, that’s not safe, car accidents, that’s not safe. It should not be a right to have a parking space
I will never understand why people buy property with conditions attached and then complain about them afterwards. It’s the same with those gig and live music venues that have been closed down in Brighton because residents (who moved in long-after the venues were established) complained about the noise. If planning permission was only granted based on this being a car-free development then it is unfair on the majority of local residents to retrospectively change it to benefit the few living there who went into their home purchases with their eyes open to what it would mean for them.
It was never made clear at the start that I would be moving into a car-free building. I think it should be clearly stated and pointed out as a clause before signatures are made on the dotted line.