A £10 million scheme to build two blocks of flats will have too few parking spaces, especially for people with disabilities, neighbours said this week.
They spoke out about Brighton and Hove City Council’s plans for the six-storey blocks on the former butterfly bank in Swanborough Drive, Whitehawk.
With just five disabled parking spaces for residents plus one for visitors, they fear people will struggle to park when they get home. The flats are expected to house more than 110 people.
They cited the spread of resident parking zones in Brighton and the increase in the number of cars and vans parking long term in north Whitehawk where permits are not required.
The area is served by the number 1 and 21 buses, with the 1A having been scrapped, and the area has just one small convenience store.
The council’s planning statement said: “The development is set to prioritise on-site parking for disabled users, followed by less emissive personal motor vehicles (electric cars, motorcycles).
“The on-street parking spaces in the area are found to be adequate due to most local developments having allocated parking and good public transport connections being maintained in the area.
It also said: “This development’s parking provisions overall are significantly lower than Brighton and Hove’s described maximum parking standards.
“(A study) indicates appropriate levels of on-street parking and good public transport connections.”
But the planning statement promised “44 cycle parking spaces … in a secure indoor room, with an additional 20 spaces provided in front of the building”. It added: “The number of spaces can be significantly increased.”
Five motorcycle spaces are planned and the council planning statement added: “The parking provisions for disabled drivers are five total undercroft parking spaces and a single disabled visitor space next to the community centre.
“These provisions meet the nationally described minimum parking standards.”
Lesley Somers, who was born and raised in Swanborough Drive, said that he could remember when children would play out on the street. They can’t now because of the traffic and the parked cars.
She said: “The new tenants will have cars and they will need to park so they will use the flats end of Swanborough and those residents that live in their own homes will be forced to move along Swanborough to the bungalow end.
“It’s going to cause carnage and lots of anger between the new and old residents.”
Another neighbour, Dom Calisto, said that caravans had been left for up to three months in the street by people from areas with permit parking.
He said: “I worry they’re going to end up introducing permits here. Then there’s going to be a few spots without them. It’s a lot of encroaching.”
Lauren O’Connor said that she felt as though Swanborough Drive and Whitehawk in general were treated like a dumping ground.
She said: “There’s a lot of houses and people living in this small space and there’s not really any thought for local amenities or small businesses.
“I have no objection to the flats being built. It’s just the lack of thought around the community and what this will bring with it.
“It’s going to stretch GP services – and where is the healthy food coming from?”
Irfana Bharveen is concerned that people will just be “dumped in new tall buildings”. Her neighbours pick berries and enjoy walking around the neighbouring orchard and wild areas.
She said: “I love this community and, even when the council feel they need to give to people who really need houses, don’t they deserve proper housing.
“I don’t know what’s the point of dumping everybody into tall buildings and overcrowding.
“I’m so grateful for the NHS, the council and the services here but I don’t understand if this is solving the purpose if the housing isn’t good for the children or anyone.”
Six off-site new bee and butterfly banks are due to be created to compensate for the loss of the wildlife space.
Ecological surveys recorded 244 species of invertebrates at the site – 13 with conservation status and three which are rare and among the most protected.
Residents campaigned against allocating the site for housing in October 2022 when the council consulted the public on its strategic planning blueprint known as City Play Part Two.
A “design and access statement” submitted as part of the planning application said that residents were supportive, with “some reservations” about the construction process.
Twelve of the flats would have one bedroom for two people. Fifteen would be two-bed flats designed for three people. One would be a three-bedroom flat for four people. And eight flats would have three bedrooms and be designed for five people.
The ground floor is expected to include an adaptable space with catering facilities, store rooms and toilets, including wheelchair-accessible toilets, all clustered around an open space for community activities.
To see the application or to comment on it, search for BH2025/00532 on the council’s website.
Did they just make the argument for residential parking zoning? Council also owns the car park area next to the old Valley Social building. Plus definitely worth considering additional parking. I think there are a few options here.
And didn’t Whitehawk Hill recently get additional ACV status this year too? That’s comforting to know some of the greens spaces are being protected.
I think retail space is a very good shout though, alongside looking a Whitehawk strategically, not just houses, but infrastructure, shops, healthcare, and roads.
Parking should be underground self contained for occupants only, leaves street spaces free. I’m sure that was the plan 25 years ago.
Underground parking is a must. Plenty for service vehicles needed too
I want monsy to be used to house people not cars
underground car parks cost a fortune to build and reduce the amount of homes that can be built for the same money
People will know they won’t be able to park their cars so if they have are car they are unlikely to move in to these blocks if they are offered a home there.
If the parking issues are caused by vans etc why not have a light touch parking regime –
Makes sense to me!
Another thought is taking the existing parking areas and adding a level, effectively doubling parking capacity.
As long as you want a load of EV ‘s parked beneath you, likely to explode. Which is the reason the Council will give you re underground parking.
We have a big problem in Coldean Village unrestricted parking area. Since Bluebell heights has been built. 6 Blocks . 3 blocks allocated to Council Tennants.3 blocks Hyde share to buy blocks have allocated parking space but Council Tennants haven’t a Car parking space. However priorities Disabled spaces that Tennants pay for
This means Bluebell heights Tennants and visitors are now parking in the village and they are furious
Planning at its best, nothing works and no-one cares and when something does work no-one knows why,
Since when has it been Coldean Village
I’ve heard if Patcham and Stamner Village.
Few years .
Since it had post office and pub. Which no longer has . But still called village
No idea where you get the idea that basement car park funding could instead be for housing, also your theory about the costs involved are not what you think, plenty of recently built housing blocks have parking under the building, get outside your front door and have a look, also along the seafront are a few I’ve been involved with.
Unless you are telling me building undergound car parks is absilutly free (which is patently false) then every pound spent on a car park is a pound not being used to build homes
Private developers have a different financial interest in building underground car parks as they can sell the flats for more!
Of course they cost money, cars can park underground, bit difficult putting people in there, it’s not only developers that sell parking spaces, fx Bayside in Worthing has more than enough of everything, underground parking for ALL private owners and extra parking pay parking for others, a section for Worthing homes is included in the housing complex so it can be done.
This is planning discrimination by the council on a number of fronts. Only spaces for 5% of the residents that have disabled parking. In addition, no spaces for anyone that needs a vehicle for work. So what about key workers who require cars? Or trades people? Are we saying these flats only suitable for people that don’t work? However, not suitable if many of them are disabled!
This isn’t just a matter of how many homes are built. These homes need to be livable and for many people, working and disabled amongst them, having access to vehicles is necessary.
There are plenty pf people who work but don’t have cars!
yes, there are people who work without cars. But are we saying that all 110 of these people won’t? That seems unlikely. Even if they start working without needing transport, many jobs require it later in their careers. So are we saying they have to turn down jobs or move?
When are people going to realise that local council and GOVERNMENT do NOT want cars on the roads ,look at the profliferation of cycle lanes , the cost of petrol ,car tax , parking charges and the list goes on and on.
Ridiculous! At least 60% of residents will have tax payer funded motability vehicles, they need to park them somewhere. Maybe the tax payer should fund a car park too!
1 in 5 cars on the road are now said to be from the motability scheme! Is the British tax payer propping up the uk car industry?
So I would suggest that you touch upon a potential example of why welfare reform may be needed. I know of one case where a person got a motability scheme car…who didn’t have a driver’s license, nor had anyone in his household who could drive either. Unsurprisingly, it became damaged within the first month after an alleged DUI.
Has anybody considered this crazy thing called… A bus? Or that not everyone is actually able to own a car, and those who are often unfairly dominate these discussions as a vocal and entitled minority?
Not exactly a minority 30 million cars on the road, try fitting a tiny portion of that on to buses, or any other system,
I think that’s quite an unfair comment to make, AB. People own cars for a variety of reasons. For example, I need to travel across the country with a large amount of equipment, some of which is a potential risk for public transport, and it is impractical to do so.
Those who have shift work also might be working at times when public transport is unavailable or sporadic, and potentially in areas that are dangerous to be outside at nighttime.
Brighton does quite well in reducing car ownership; looking at the data, where other cities have grown in ownership, Brighton has stayed level. It is fair that people would like some assurances that they can park, at least nearby, to their home.
There are options to do that, certainly. And buses are but one part of a wider solution.
Is this the same people at the council who will be redeveloping the tower blocks on the estate as well, doesn’t provide much hope for that then if they can’t get a small block designed then….
It would have been nice to see them reconsider this build in line with the wider regeneration that is needed in Whitehawk following the future demolition of the tower blocks.
We also need more family housing, building more 1/2 beds is not enough when we need 3/4 bedroom homes for families.
Not a sensible decision to move forward when there is other upcoming housing issues that also need to be ceonsidered now as part of this plan.
My understanding is that this is, in fact, being considered strategically in line with the wider Whitehawk regeneration. For example, it can help with decanting residents, and a purpose-built community space is being included as part of the infrastructure.
You’re right that three bedrooms are needed; they have one of the longest waits. However, the sensible priority is going to be the displaced residents of the high-rises first, as they will need to be rehomed before new tenants can be accepted, and when you look at the make-up of the high-rises, they are almost exclusively two-bedroom flats with some generational downsizing.
Positively though, it won’t be a like-for-like project; if they can design more properties, there’s no reason why a few three-bedroom places can be included in the overall strategic design!
I was looking at the parking bays at the end of Lodsworth Close. I’d consider changing those to resident-permit / guest permit bays, and then add a single modular deck level on top. There are some considerations with one-way access and some fire regs, but design-wise, it would be a lot easier to set up and maintain compared to an underground system. You’d add up to an extra 40 spaces, approximately?
Good to see the ubiquitous “carnage” making a late appearance in this report…….