The Round Hill Society

SAVE OUR PROTECTED TREE

On 9th June 2010, members of Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee refused Carelet’s application (no ) to build 6 three-storey houses on the greenfield site (to rear of 67-81 Princes Road).

The grounds for refusal were :
1) Failure to meet travel demand (parking)
2) Over development
3) Detrimental Impact on future occupiers due to the proximity to the Hollingdean depot.

Information in this column about the inadequate bottleneck access to the application site may prove useful in defending the second ground for refusal: 2) Over development.

Please note, however, that emphasis should be focused first on the problems that such a tight three-storey development would cause in terms of loss of privacy, light and overlooking.

Representations from residents experienced in architecture &/or reading plans could very helpfully focus on separation distances between "existing" and "proposed" homes, which fall far short of the recommended CABE 20 Metre Guideline, as the RIBA architect (Philip Andrews), who chairs the Council's Conservation Area Advisory Group, made clear to members of Brighton and Hove City Council's Planning Committee.

A previous Appeal Inspector has already voiced a view that measures could be taken to retain the protected horse chestnut tree. I believe that the arguments about the tree (below) are sound, but we should expect The Planning Inspectorate to show consistency in its decision-making.

3) Save The Protected Tree! - do they think we're stupid?
The 'protected' horse chestnut tree just to the east of 81 Princes Road and a developer's implausible protection plan!

What would happen if a stream of construction traffic (cranes, diggers, etc) attempted to pass through here?
In their tree report, Carelet's consultants recommend boxing in the horse chestnut tree using H section steel beams concreted into a sheathed excavation and clad with steel sheet. The latter would be painted red and white to increase visibility. They have lifted this from www.aie.org.uk/trunkline/aie_tr_devsite1.html, which shows trees being protected on flat level ground. However, they omit to mention that in addition to the protection box the specification requires further protection around the bottom of each box by way of water filled 'bollards'. Some builders include temporary metal fencing panels e.g. Heras 151 steadfast system range or a robust wooden bumper rail as an extra line of defence. In the examples pictured at www.aie.org.uk/trunkline/aie_tr_devsite1.html there is far wider access for site vehicles than Carelet can possibly offer in the narrow gap between the telegraph pole and the tree. I fail to see how Carelet's construction vehicles will get in, even if only the first part of the specification is carried out. There will be massive upheaval at this entrance during the construction period, and a bottleneck on the adjacent section of Princes Road for ever after, if this ill conceived proposal is given planning permission.

Selling the community short in simple steps
The horse chestnut (to the NE of Princes Road), which greets residents and visitors to our area as they come over the summit of the hill, will surely not survive, if the planning decision (to be taken soon) goes the wrong way.

Once granted, planning permission could even be sold on to another developer. However competent that developer might be, construction vehicles would simply not get in. What would inevitably follow is another planning application to take 30% or over off the crown of the horse-chestnut tree in the pretence that it might still be possible to save it. The Council would be likely to approve this to avoid the embarrassment of having granted development blocked by a protected tree. Soon after, we would see the much loved tree felled, sawn up and carted away. An eyesore (in the form of inadequate access/parking/dropping-off point for four homes) would take its place, and Princes Road would never be as attractive again.


Say "no" to more on-street parking stress
Carelet's parking survey - is flawed, out of date and hidden away in their application so nobody could easily find it.

In the document Supporting Document Technical Report Part 05, drawn up before the decision to have residents' parking in the streets around London Road Station, they are still claiming that there is surplus on-street parking in Ditchling Rise and Springfield Road. They have not revised their claim that there are surplus parking places in Ashdown Road after the approval of a proposal involving 2 new houses and 3 flats.


This page was last updated by Ted on 10-Jun-2010