PLANNERS have agreed to remove a car-free condition from a new development but residents may still be denied a coveted parking permit.

When the four-home development at a former laundry in Crescent Road, Brighton, was given planning permission, a condition barred residents from securing Zone J parking permits.

Some have been able to get permits anyway because Brighton and Hove City Council planning officers forgot to tell the parking department.

The condition has now been revoked – but the council’s parking department now intends to issue a traffic regulation order (TRO) banning them in that way instead.

The kerfuffle was revealed during a debate at planning committee into an application by resident Jini Coroneo to remove the condition.

She argued this would be in line with government guidance that parking restrictions are decided by transport rather than planning officers.

However, her application was opposed by Round Hill residents’ representative Dominic Furlong, who said the area has “high parking stress” and is attempting to become a low-traffic neighbourhood.

He said: “The application itself fails to demonstrate capacity for on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the site, and in the surrounding area, and fails to include an on-street parking survey as required under policy SPD14 (Parking Standards)."

Planning agent Colm McKee, speaking on behalf of the development’s residents, said car-free conditions are “no longer used or appropriate”.

He said: “Such conditions are considered beyond the scope of planning.

“Such conditions needlessly complicate and duplicate the process.”

The Argus: Parking is a contentious topic in Brighton and Hove Parking is a contentious topic in Brighton and Hove

Mr McKee said refusing the application to remove the car-free condition would be against national planning policy and recent Planning Inspectorate’s appeal decisions.

Gavin Stubbs spoke on behalf of his neighbours and said they were seeking one permit for each of the four houses.

He said the nearest option for parking outside Zone J is at least a 15-minute walk away.

Mr Stubbs said: “We understand the concerns raised by local residents, and we are part of that community.

“However, any constraints within this area around the street I don’t think are valid because there is plenty of space in surrounding streets.

“From my perspective, any decision should be taken on the zone, not on the street.”

Following Mr Stubb’s statement, planning manager Jane Moseley said the application was “not the mechanism” to get the parking permits, as parking department officers had the power to decide and adjust any traffic regulation order.

Labour councillor Daniel Yates voted with the recommendation to remove the condition.

He said the proposals sought to regularise the “highly irregular” and hoped a new policy would come through the environment, transport and sustainability committee, which would consider the impact of developments within new controlled parking zones.

Conservative councillor Carol Theobald voted to refuse removing the car-free condition.

She said: “It’s a shame they didn’t get parking on site at the time. I don’t really like car-free developments, but I’m glad they’ve imposed this.

“This was approved on the basis that residents’ parking permits would not be available.”

Green councillor Sue Shanks backed Cllr Theobald.

She said: “I get that they can still be stopped from having parking permits.

“But we did agree this was car-free and local residents are keen for it to remain that way.”