People moving into new flats being built near Brighton railway station will not be able to obtain parking permits even after councillors removed a restriction from the scheme’s planning permission.
When the flats were approved, the scheme was described as car-free and Brighton and Hove City Council underlined this in the conditions attached to the planning permission.
The 20 flats are being built in a five-storey block on the site of the old Sussex Maternity Hospital, in Buckingham Road, Brighton.
The developer Martin Homes has taken over the project and applied to lift the existing restriction because the council had started using traffic regulation orders instead of planning conditions for “car-free” schemes.
The company said in its planning statement: “The applicant is aware that a restriction on parking permits may still be in force.
“But (it) seeks to remove the restriction from the planning consent in the event that on-street car parking capacity is sufficient in the future.”
And a traffic regulation order (TRO) is in force for the properties – at 76-79 Buckingham Road and flats at 80 Buckingham Road on the corner of Upper Gloucester Road.
Twelve people objected to the application to lift the planning condition, citing parking stress and traffic issues in the area.
Eleven comments supported the change, saying that the condition was discriminatory and that restrictions were managed by TROs.
Green councillor Kerry Pickett told the council’s Planning Committee: “In areas such as the centre like this we need to have as many car-free areas as possible.
“I don’t really understand why we’re removing this so I don’t think I’m going to be agreeing with it.”
At the committee meeting at Hove Town Hall yesterday (Wednesday 5 August), fellow Green councillor Sue Shanks also voted against removing the restriction.
Councillor Shanks said: “The point is it’s a car-free development and we want to see that. We want to see people choosing a car-free development. There’s not a lot of parking there.”
Labour councillor Maureen Winder said: “Simplifying this process by taking it outside of the planning process enables more flexibility in the future so I think this is a good way of proceeding.”
Fellow Labour councillor Alison Thomson, who chairs the Planning Committee, said: “On a consumer level, a flat that’s sold with parking permission is possibly worth more than one sold without.
“One of the things for me is that this is right next to the railway station and you couldn’t be better served by buses so there’s an awful lot of public transport there.”
The committee voted six to three in favour of removing the condition although, because of the TRO, residents will still not be eligible for a parking permit.
So basically the greens are saying these flats are good for commuters and people that work close bye. It’s a bit like being racist but discriminatory.
Meanwhile at last week’s planning committee meeting, none of them turned a hair at the idea of emergency vehicles and dustbin lorries not being able to access the new King Alfred hub via its low entrance undercroft car park and £11m of plans offering an overheated glass and metal box seemingly unable to meet building regs. Presumably the six new tower blocks there will be car-free being as there won’t be anywhere for them to park. Except they can’t claim to be “luxury” flats on that basis. Probably the same problem here. I knew a town with one of the first-car free developments in the country 25 years ago. Took nearly five years to sell all the houses as the developer was marketing them as ‘luxury’ properties and the buyers didn’t agree.
Why would an emergency vehicle want to access the undercroft? You do like to present yourself as fatuous, don’t you?
Quite right, Benjamin. Why do we need emergency vehicle access at all? They should all be fit people going to a sports hub with no lighted materials in their possession.
I would imagine the emergency vehicles would rather park by the front door than the car park.
Equally,, dust carts, no flats so what are you waffling about… A couple of commercial ones can be dragged out road side. If it was a block of flats then yeah sure but it’s not is it.
Fit people? What are you on about? An emergency vehicle is going to park directly outside the door for easy ingress and egress. They wouldn’t go into an undercroft. Obviously. Didn’t think that needed spelling out, honestly. 🤦
What an idiotic reply to bennies valid point!!
Wrecked the footwat blocked the drains, another development that does what it wants and taxpayers pick up the bill.
Why can’t BC insist on ungrounds parking as a condition of planning on all new builds.
The Stalinists in BHCC transport dept hate cars. It’s a simple as that .
Stalinists?
Please expand upon this brave new thesis on political thought.
That is good 😀 Wonder what policy Trotsky followed on similar circumstances 🤔
Yawn! Let’s ram the city with as many cars as possible and then you’ll moan about that too!!
Because those cars would still cause congestion and pollution on their journeys to and from the block, which is right by lots of excellent public transport. Most households in the city centre don’t own a car, yet only a tiny proportion of city centre housing is ‘car free’, so there are plenty of alternatives for those that want a car.
As it says in the article, flats that are car free are more affordable than those that allow parking, so we need more options for buyers that don’t want a car – they shouldn’t be forced to pay the premium for a flat that has parking permission they don’t want or need.
Far easier to control the peasants of Brighton if they don’t have access to personal transport, but the best bit, the really stupid ones buy in to all the anti car/ vehicle propaganda we pedal (excuse the pun) and actively help us remove their hard one freedoms.
We now just need to get them to doff there caps as we, their lords, masters and betters drive by them, as in the old days, before the peasants got personal transport, ie the car, and the freedom that gave, a time where the peasants knew their place, and rarely left the village or town in which they were born, and only the richest had access to personal transport.
So well done Brighton council , now if we can just get domestic servitude back,and young lads up chimney
If you can find a parking space in this area good luck. It’s not about idiology it’s basic intelligence that if you live in the city centre you probably don’t need a car and if you do need a car, it’s far better to take a property in the suburbs. Call me wrong by all means, but if you can tell me where you’d put 20 extra cars up here, please do.
Thay could still have a motorbike. That’s about the most personal transport there is.
Car-free status impacts the value and resale prospects of new properties—unattractive to buy and to rent for many people…
Unattractive you say, but that isn’t reflected in reality when you consider Brighton has some of the highest rents outside of London.
Cheaper prices or lower rents would be more attractive to households that don’t have a car.