Agenda item - BH2021/04390 - 28A Crescent Road, Brighton, BN2 3RP - Full Planning

1.       The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.       Dominic Furlong addressed the committee as an objector and stated that the development was meant to be car free. In breach of the parking condition, residents are able to get parking permits. ‘Rat runs’ usage in the area has increased. 29 objections have been submitted. The application fails to demonstrate lack of parking in the area with no on street survey required under policy. The appeal was dismissed in September 2019. The area is 97% full and any further parking would be detrimental to free flow of traffic.

3.       Colm McKee addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that they welcomed the officer’s positive report, and they did not consider the parking condition appropriate and refusing the application would be contrary to national policy. Other appeal decisions have been consistent with policy. The agent requested the committee support the application.

4.       Gavin Stubbs addressed the committee as the applicant and stated that one permit would be issued per unit. The applicant stated they were a professional couple living at top of Round Hill and there was plenty of space in surrounding streets to park, otherwise it was a 15 minute walk to parking. The applicant considered young families would be forced out of the area and only wanted parity with other areas.

5.       The Planning Manager informed the committee that even if the application was approved and the condition removed, the Traffic Regulation Order would still require amendment to allow parking permits to be issued to the applicant.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.       Councillor Shanks was informed by the case officer that the Highways/Parking and Planning systems were separate, and the parking database was operated by the Highways team. The 2017 application was to discharge the parking condition; however, the database was not updated to remove the property’s entitlement to parking permits. Separating the application process will help to stop errors. The legal officer confirmed that Planning will not include a car free condition as it is dealt with through the Highways regulations. The Planning Manager confirmed that the if Highways request a development is car free, then this can still be required, but directly through the Parking Service, rather than requiring Planning to contact the Parking Service.

7.       The Highway Agreements Officer stated that prior to now Planning could apply the car free condition. It is proposed that previously condition required developers to contact Highways and it was incumbent on developers to inform residents if the development is car free. Now an informative would be added, noting that planners would pass thedetails directly to the Parking team. It was noted that the application was before the committee as residents had applied for parking permits. The policy setting out the process to secure car-free developments will be going before Environment, Transport and Sustainability (ETS) committee.

8.       Councillor Ebel was informed by the case officer that one parking permit had been issued.

9.       Councillor Yates considered the situation as mess, policy states car free on grounds of advice from Highways, then don’t act or update data base. Policy for planning is to mitigate traffic and parking stress. The councillor was informed by the Planning Manager that it was because of these issues that they were getting the process in place to streamline, and it was not all about parking stress but also air quality. One of the mitigating factors in allowing the development was the car free element so it was still relevant to planning.

10.      Councillor Littman noted that across the country Planning Inspector decisions have changed to remove the requirement for car-free conditions.

11.      Councillor Moonan was informed by the legal officer that case law showed that the car free condition was not appropriate.

12.      Councillor Theobald was informed by the Planning Manager that the removal of the condition would not remove the prohibition of parking permits. It was not known if there was a car club in the area.

13.      Councillor Shanks was informed by the Planning Manager that informative number 2 covered no parking permits at the development, with details to be passed to the Parking team.

14.      Councillor Moonan was informed by the Highways Agreements Officer that residents are not able to appeal a parking permit refusal. It was noted that car free requirements are based on parking not traffic and Highways will indicate in reports whether a development should be car free or not.

Debate

15.      Councillor Yates stated they supported the application and was pleased the policy would be going to ETS committee.

16.      Councillor Theobald considered it was a shame there was no parking onsite and they did not like car free developments and the site was approved with no resident parking permits.

17.      Councillor Shanks considered the development should be car free and stated they were against the application.

Vote

18.      A vote was taken, and by 5 to 2 the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

19.      RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives in the report.