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?
Wrecked the footwat blocked the drains, another development that does what it wants and taxpayers pick up the bill.