The Round Hill Society

Carelet Round Seven

Application No. BH2012/01583
Applicant Carelet Ltd
Site/Property. Land at Rear of 67 to 81 Princes Rd Brighton
Description Extension to time limit for implementation of previous approval BH2009/00847
Carelet's permission extended till 2015
Brighton and Hove City Council's Planning Committee gave just 56 seconds to Carelet's application for a 3-year extension on their planning permission (BH2009/00847) to build four 2-storey houses on the greenfield site to the rear of 67-81 Princes Road. The decision in favour of the developer was unanimous, giving greater longevity to a permission which Carelet itself describes as unviable in their unsuccessful application (BH2010/00083) to build six 3-storey houses.

32 objections were recorded on The Plans List. The Planning Committee went straight to a vote (on BH2012/01583) with no discussion at all. Nothing said about an extra demand of "six extra motor vehicles" on limited on-street parking and not a word about the wisdom of housing new residents a few metres from a Waste Transfer Station with an odour management problem over a significantly greater radius.

Scheduling of Carelet's application as the last item on the Agenda (following long discussion of the skate-park proposal at The Level) was unhelpful to Round Hill residents wishing to be spared from 3 more years of planning blight in Princes Road. The stalemate over this greenfield site, which separates the built-area of Round Hill from two industrial estates, could now involve a new developer, since Carelet is attempting to sell both the land and the extended permission.

Resources produced by residents
1-page flyer, putting the case concisely.

Proforma objections to Application BH2012/01583

1) Microsoft Word.Doc version 1 Word version of text at above link.

2) Microsoft Word.Doc version 2 contains a picture of parking in Princes Road and comments from planning inspectors who shared residents' concerns in dismissing Carelet's appeals against refusal.

The text of Microsoft Word.Doc version 1 (i.e. the first proforma letter of objection) is reproduced below including web links to planning documents from which quotes are drawn.

Microsoft Word.Doc version 2 (the second proforma letter of objection) is not reproduced below, since the Word version logs Appeal Inspectors' comments on parking difficulties in Round Hill in complete paragraphs.

These planning inspectors' comments are good references to include since Councils are often reticent about refusing planning applications if they feel that their decisions cannot be defended on Appeal. If a developer wins an appeal, The Council bears the cost of the appeal, which is a waste of ratepayers' money.

Sample objection
Application No. BH2012/01583
Applicant Carelet Ltd
Site/Property. Land at Rear of 67 to 81 Princes Rd Brighton
Description Extension to time limit for implementation of previous approval BH2009/00847

Dear Sue Dubberley (Case Officer for BH2012/01583)

I urge Brighton and Hove City Council to refuse application BH2012/01583 requesting extension of Carelet’s permission (BH2009/00847) to build 4 houses on land to the rear of 67 to 81 Princes Road.

I understand that if built the new houses would generate an extra on-street parking demand of 6 spaces. Since the neighbouring CPZ (some 400 metres from the appeal site) started on 27th September 2010 there has been a significant increase in parking pressure in Round Hill, which has been a key factor in deciding all the Appeals since 2005. Carelet's 2010 Appeal (APP/Q1445/A/10/2131115) was dismissed in early 2011 on the basis of transport needs alone.

Carelet described BH2009/00847 as “unviable” while applying unsuccessfully to increase the amount of housing.

However, should BH2009/00847 ever be built, the effect of 6 extra vehicles looking for on-street space would be intolerable. This space requirement is not very different from the “7 on-street space demand”, which was the reason why planning inspector Roger Mather dismissed Carelet's 2007 Appeal (APP/Q1445/A/08/2073223 RE BH2007/04444) at a time when we were competing with far fewer vehicles displaced by CPZs.

Parking pressures are increasingly cited as a reason for moving out of Round Hill. Some residents have left for that reason and others (including medical doctors who find it too difficult to be “on call” when they cannot park near their homes) have announced their intention to leave if parking pressures for those who need to park in the vicinity of their own homes cannot be eased. These concerns have been voiced by very many residents on the comments page at www.roundhill.biz .

Application BH2012/01583 fails to include a valid survey on currently available on-street parking space

The beat survey data (from Benchmark Data Collection Ltd) used in support of BH2009/00847 is identical to the data used in Carelet’s unsuccessful application BH2010/00083 which did not convince Isobel McCretton BA(Hons) MRTPI (The Appeal Inspector) who dismissed Appeal Ref: APP/Q1445/A/10/2131115 on the basis of failure to meet transport/parking needs (Appeal Decision: 15 Feb 2011).

It would be totally unrealistic to expect the beat surveys presented in support of BH2009/00847 over three years ago to serve permission for BH2012/01583 to be extended to 2015.

Identification of surplus space within a CPZ to which Round Hill does not belong

The table on page 3 (14/01/2009 VEHICLES PARKED AT 12:00) of Technical Report Appendix C: (On-street parking surveys for BH2009/00847) identifies on-street space available to Round Hill residents at midday within DITCHLING RISE, which since 27th September 2010 has been within a neighbouring Controlled Parking Zone of which Round Hill is not a member.

The table on page 4 (14/01/2009 VEHICLES PARKED AT 20:00) of Technical Report Appendix C used both with BH2009/00847 and BH2010/00083, is the only evening survey we are offered, performed before the Viaduct-Rise CPZ was a material consideration. The latter, now a reality, is also responsible for significantly more pressure – the main reason given by the Council for prioritising Round Hill in the current parking review.

Failure to respond to criticisms of their data reiterated by a planning inspector

19. The Highway Authority did not consider that there were significant circumstances in the surrounding area which would be exacerbated by the proposal. Nevertheless, the residents’ survey bears out the local concerns that demand for on-street parking is heaviest in the very late evening. More importantly, in my view it highlights the fact that, because of the high demand, indiscriminate parking in places which could prejudice vehicle and pedestrian safety is already taking place: I observed several instances for myself within the study area during the daytime when going to and from my site visit.[Isobel McCretton APP/Q1445/A/10/2131115]

Carelet has made no response in Application BH2012/01583 to the data presented by Round Hill residents in their July 2010 COMMUNITY PARKING SURVEY IN THE PRINCES ROAD AREA which calls into question the accuracy of the surveys presented both in support of BH2009/00847 and BH2010/00083. Download the residents’ survey.

Carelet’s BH2009/00847 / BH2010/00083 data overstate supply of on-street space

Legal/Safe Spaces within 0-200 metres of application site

Carelet’s transport consultant (Benchmark Data Collection Ltd) counted 194.

Round Hill residents (using criteria agreed with The Council) counted 150

Legal/Safe Spaces within 200-400 metres of application site

Carelet’s transport consultant (Benchmark Data Collection Ltd) counted 480

Round Hill residents (using criteria agreed with The Council) counted 310

Carelet’s BH2009/00847 / BH2010/00083 data count spaces which are NOT “safe” and likely to be yellow lined soon whether Round Hill votes to join a CPZ or not.

Both planning inspectors and highways department have noted that our main parking pressures are in the evening. The only evening survey presented in support of BH2009/00847 (see Technical Report Appendix C page 4 (14/01/2009 VEHICLES PARKED AT 20:00) draws most of its “legal/safe” on-street space within 100M of the application site from both sides of the road (wider curve and sharply-angled turn) around the junction of Princes Road and Mayo Road. Our own guidance from The Council’s Transport Manager, Steve Reeves, was that there should be no parking within the first 5 metres of a junction (from the point where the kerb line starts to straighten. Parking around this and other junctions is known to obstruct service and emergency vehicles, as is still being reported by local residents who post to The Round Hill Community Group.

I urge you, to echo the response of the last planning inspector who looked at the same data as presented for BH2009/00847 in examining BH2010/00083 and to refuse BH2012/01583 on transport grounds. Pressure on our on-street space as it is NOW compromises safety and makes the pedestrian environment very difficult for residents who are less able to squeeze between parked cars.

An open space vision for land to the rear of 67-81 Princes Rd Success in getting the extended permission (until 2015) refused, would end Carelet's current attempt to sell their land (with planning permission for 4 houses) to another developer. It would be easier to find a charitable environmental trust (e.g. woodland/wildlife/railway corridor/re-instating the green boundaries of conservation areas to screen them from industrial pollution) to buy the land, if the asking price was for the land alone and not also for permission to build on a greenfield site.

Rewarding land speculation V The wishes of local residents
Granting the extension, albeit that Carelet described the permission they wish to sell on as "unviable" (see point 1.2 of the Design & Access Statement of their unsuccessful BH2010/00083 proposal to increase both the number of houses and their height), would continue the development threat which has put a blight on the NE end of Princes Road since 2004.




This page was last updated by Ted on 11-Aug-2012