A public car park in the centre of Brighton is unlikely to be replaced when the flats above it are demolished and rebuilt.
Chapel Street car park, under St James’ House, a condemned tower block, was given a major revamp four years ago.
But the refurbished car park, with 81 spaces, has been closed for the past two years, with the 1960s tower block expected to be demolished because it doesn’t meet modern safety standards.
Brighton and Hove City Council intends to build more flats on the site but those plans are unlikely to include a car park, it emerged this week.
The loss of the car park follows the closure of Carlton Hill car park, with 52 spaces, in Kingswood Street, Brighton, when the old Circus Street fruit and veg market was redeveloped.
And this week the council also said that it planned to demolish the car park in Norton Road, Hove, which had 290 spaces until a revamp last year.
The layout was changed to ease the structural load and the number of spaces was reduced to 180.
And there are fears that the 120 spaces in the King Alfred car park, on Hove seafront, will also be lost when a new swimming pool and leisure centre and hundreds of flats are built there.
The decision to scrap Chapel Street car park was touched on when the council’s Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee met at Hove Town Hall on Tuesday (3 November).
The committee was given an update on plans to demolish eight high-rise blocks of flats in Brighton where the council has concerns that the concrete “large-panel system” used in their construction fails to meet modern safety standards. A review followed the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017.
Labour councillor Gary Wilkinson, who represents Kemptown ward, asked about the Chapel Street car park. The car park, which was for the public rather than residents, closed in July 2024 for safety reasons.
Councillor Wilkinson asked what assessments had been carried out to support removing the car park as part of the redevelopment of St James’s Street. He spoke of potential effects for disabled visitors, businesses loading and displacement parking in nearby streets.
He asked: “How will any future traffic regulation order meaningfully influence the outcome given that the feasibility design as already proceeded on the assumption of a permanent closure?”
The committee was told that a replacement car park would cost too much when the new flats were built. Parking charge income would be foregone but the council would no longer have to pay £44,000 in business rates.
The council’s director of housing regeneration Chantelle Barker said that the architect’s brief did not include the car park because of the costs of building under a new high-rise block.
She said: “The challenge we find is that sometimes, with any public car park, when there’s been a period of time when something’s been closed, it often means that people forget about it.
“That’s what we want to try to test the principle of – where people are parking, what is the outcome – and that can be considered as part of any design programme.”
A public consultation to inform the formal closure process will be carried out by the council’s transport team.
The council’s cabinet is expected to decide whether to approve the process that would lead to the permanent closure of the car park at a meeting next week.
The cabinet is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 10.30am on Thursday 12 November. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast.
What a word salad, plus why are the council testing the principals of – where people are parking, what is the outcome – and that can be considered as part of any design programme.”
Clearly Brighton councils are seriously overstaffed, so are having to create pointless nonsense to make themselves look busy.
Just get on and build the flats and the car park, whilst laying of the excess staff you clearly have, then you can bring down council tax
So that’s how you bring council tax down. Why didn’t the council think of that before.
Its beyond me how brighton is going to survive the next few years , bafoon councils
It is word salad and I dont understand how you can test the principles when you have already made the decision. It is very clear Kemptown is stuffed to the brim with cars and the development would result in more cars.
I also take issue with the lack of meaningful information given to the committee. If you compare and contrast the two reports, the committee has been given far less information than cabinet. It means the cross-party scrunity cannot take place when there is so much information withheld.
It feels that Labour in their dying days are pulling up the drawbridge and trying to shove through many decisions as quickly as possible.
If you bothered to read the meeting papers, although I understand why you may not, you would see enough information. But don’t let that get in the way of the truth or your own narrative. Even if Labour are drawing up the drawbridge, surely it’s better to stop the greens invading the city. Been there, seen it, never bought the t-shirt!
Nice try Katy, I am not party political but the scrunity committee paper has a grand total of four pages and one appendice. The cabinet paper has 16 pages and 3 appendices, one of which is exempt.
Therefore, the scrunity paper isnt reflective of the cabinet paper contents and reduces challenge by not providing information. For example in the scrunity committee paper, there are no risks and legal implications, then suddenly there is in the cabinet paper.
As someone who is directly impacted by the Hollingdean site, I am also amazed it appears the council are looking to rehouse more residents outside of the blocks for ‘viability purposes’. What block is it? How many residents? Why this block? If there is no design how have they established it isnt viable as is?
I’m not saying either way what is and isnt appropriate but there is clearly a large gulf in the information provided. You can huff and puff about it and patronise but it does look designed to withhold chunks of vital information which could be scrutinised.
Old news, the car park has been closed for over a year and we all know about the condition of the block and what’s happening to it, shortage of ‘real’ news?
All part of BHCC ‘s anti car ‘modal shift ‘ policy.
Contact Charles Field at the Council Transport dept for details
Poorly constructed building has a finite lifespan, but yes…it’s a plot.
Yeap typical brighton council let’s get rid of all car parks and paint yellow lines everywhere then there’s no cars in the city just another nail in the coffin of the car around here
Yes! Down with the cars! Let’s take our city back
Without cars you wouldnt have a city .
Perhaps this huge rebuilding of flats is part of Labours Manifesto promise to build 1.5m new homes which technically they will be doing.
Seems to be a mix of what’s in use, what isn’t and what might be, the car park has been closed for some time, parking now and for the forseeable future isn’t changing, the current situation won’t change unless they take away more spaces, or maybe add a few ??
Not been used in over 2 years anyway