Off street parking provision

[WHBM]

An article on an unauthorised garage-to-house conversion states it breached a policy for removing off-street parking

"... blocking off valuable off-road parking space was completely unacceptable."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-le ... e-43043752

However, I am aware of innumerable developments where the opposite seems to have happened. One developer I spoke to doing an office-to-flats conversion stated they were told by the council that they should put more new build flats on the old office car park. Seemingly the additional property tax annual income was in the forefront of their mind.

And in the London Docklands, where the onetime 1980s-90s developments invariably had good parking provision, they have gone the other way and now disallow it. Of course, the problem has pushed everyone's cars out onto all the surrounding streets, which are packed 24x7 with cars from flats sold with no parking provision "because it's a car free development".

[RichardA35]

A problem exacerbated (especially noticeable in cities by looking at any aerial photograph) by the proliferation of "sheds with beds" cramming more people into the same overall space.

[Piatkow]

Waltham Forest is not only building on car parks but is also taking out on street parking to provide cycle stores for houses that have sufficient space for storing two wheelers.

[Fenlander]

There's a patch of ground in town that is currently being used as car parking for the businesses on the pedestrianised part of town, planning permission was recently granted to build flats on it. That in itself will mean the removal of about 30 paid for parking spots. The flats number about 30 but the parking provision for them is 0.5 spaces per flat.
Before anyone says public transport, the pedestrianised bit of town doesn't have a bus route serving it, the town bus has reduced its frequency and the bus route that brings people in from the villages is due to be axed since Stagecoach bought out the old route provider and is now 'cost saving'.

[roadtester]

There's a lot of new housing near me that is by national standards quite low density, what with this being flat and empty East Anglia and all that.

Anyway, the point is this - pretty much all of this new housing has parking but this hasn't stopped people cluttering up the roads.

That's because lots of people can't be bothered to put their cars in their allocated spaces because e.g. it's handier to leave their cars on the street in front of their houses rather than in their parking spaces or garages which may be around the back. And of course, there are a surprising number of houses with more than two cars and these spill out onto the roads as well.

I live opposite a big five-bedroomed house that has a double garage and space for at least three further cars. A few years ago, after his family left home, the owner starting taking in a number of lodgers, and the cars of the occupants were still sometimes overflowing onto the street until he got part of his garden paved over to create an extra space.

[tipsynurse]

Waltham Forest is not only building on car parks but is also taking out on street parking to provide cycle stores for houses that have sufficient space for storing two wheelers.

Isn't the issue that houses have space but it involves pushing it through the house? And if you have young children a bike trailer too?

The idea has been trialled in Holland with the basis that if you make parking at both ends easy and secure you make the journey in the middle much easier. Bearing in mind one car space holds six bike spaces if even 20% of users ditch their second car you've already created more parking space for motorists before you get onto the traffic and health benefits.

This isn't theoretical, I've lived in places with no secure bike parking but residents permits so I've driven. In my last two houses there is bike parking so we've ditched the second car. I'm sure Waltham Forest have done their sums.

[AndyB]

Before anyone says public transport, the pedestrianised bit of town doesn't have a bus route serving it, the town bus has reduced its frequency and the bus route that brings people in from the villages is due to be axed since Stagecoach bought out the old route provider and is now 'cost saving'.

Yep, standard policy. The council planners decide everyone can use the bus and the councillors endorse it in committee and full council, but the same councillors won't allocate money to the subsidy necessary to keep the private firms running them.

[Bendo]

I believe the issue is the house itself only got planning permission on the basis that it had off street parking. The converted garage removed that required parking,

[Rob590]

Durham City has a fairly stringent restriction in which on-street permits are not available if your home was constructed or converted to a home after 2000: so any new developments need to provide off-street parking. Seems a fairly simple restriction - could more places not include similar ones?

[tipsynurse]

Durham City has a fairly stringent restriction in which on-street permits are not available if your home was constructed or converted to a home after 2000: so any new developments need to provide off-street parking. Seems a fairly simple restriction - could more places not include similar ones?

The issue around here with so many rented properties in the city is that people may rent a house unaware that they won't be able to get a parking permit - until they apply.

It isn't a very known about restriction or easy to check unless the landlord volunteers the information. Oh look a pig overhead.

[FosseWay]

Encouraging people to use/provide off-street parking where feasible strikes me as sensible, especially where on-street parking becomes a congestion or safety issue. Equally, there will be places where parking is going to be a problem if every household has a car, regardless of what anyone tries to do about it. But actively seeking to make it difficult for people to park one car per household as an end in itself seems entirely counterproductive. Sure, it's great to encourage people to cycle and use PT to the extent that they feel they don't need to own a car. But even those people are likely to need a car from time to time - they need to transport something bulky or have hired a car to go on holiday and need to park it overnight before they leave and so forth.

[Johnathan404]

I lived in an estate where most properties had space under the house, a driveway and a garage, yet still it had a serious parking problem.

Our garage was being used by our landlord, but we were the only renters on the street. Other people's were 'too far' (around the corner) or being used for storage.

[haymansafc]

The current trend (and has been for well over than a decade) is to provide as little parking provision as possible – and then complain about a car or traffic problem when there's no other choice but to park on the street or start converting gardens. Developers also have to take some of the blame for this, as properties are now built with virtually no outdoor space and built closer together to cram as much as possible into what's a small parcel of land. This current trend cannot continue because it's just making the problem worse.

Our bungalow was built in 1960. Back in those days, parking provision and future proofing was considered. There’s a garage at the bottom of the drive. Whilst there's evidence cars have been in it in the past, sadly modern cars have outgrown it's dimensions. It's basically used as an enlarged shed. A classic 'man cave'. As for the driveway, it will comfortably fit three cars (lengthways). You’d fit four supermini-sized cars on it if you closed up the gaps between the bumpers. The only downside to our driveway is that it's quite narrow in the middle and with slightly more than half of it running up against the side of the bungalow, only a small car could park there and have enough room to open the door to the neighbour's patrician fence to get out. I usually park at the bottom by the garage (where the driveway widens out a foot or so again) or about five feet further back than necessary – just a little further back than the start of the fence.

Our previous house was built in 1983 and whilst it would fit two cars – they were almost front bumper to rear bumper to keep them a sensible distance off the road. There wasn't a pavement on our side of the road, but there was on the other side… We didn't have a garage but we had a car port.

My brother's rented flat in Ipswich is a mid 90's development and the situation there is worse than it should be. Whilst there's an allocated space for each flat (two buildings with about 20 flats in each building), there's only four spaces designated for visitors and/or overspill. Needless to say, they're always taken whenever I've been down there. Fortunately, some people in those flats don't have cars (presumably the elderly) and on all bar one occasion I've managed to park in one of those spaces. On one other occasion, I had no choice but to park on the pavement on the access road. This is also almost always full. Fortunately, my brother has a letter from the owner of the buildings to basically give permission for anyone to do this as the company accepts there’s a parking problem. Given the green space around both buildings, it really wouldn't detract from it's pleasant surroundings to create an additional ten spaces – and I'm someone who appreciates open green space. Either way, it's still worrying that you've got to drive 230 miles and then run the risk of struggling to park at the end of it all.

Another problem is what's already been discussed – some people having that provision but not being bothered to use it. I see this happening on our own street. Again, driveways on our side of the road are easily long enough to get all the cars off the road. Yet, there's always two or three that simply bump them up the kerb, creating obstruction that could be avoided if they simply used their drive for it's intention. I feel it's something that does need to be tackled somehow. If there's enough provision provided – then it needs to be used.

[Truvelo]

Everyone including councils, developers and homeowners has to recognise that virtually all adult occupants of a property are likely to have their own car. Build a five bedroom house and you'll likely need as many parking spaces plus those for visitors. Councils failed miserably in the 90s by deliberately limiting the amount of off street parking on new developments. It doesn't restrict car ownership, it just turns access roads into car parks are countless earlier posts in this thread have mentioned.

Like Haymans, my house was built at a time when decent provision for off street parking was made. Including the garage I could squeeze five cars on my property if you don't mind the doors banging against one another but we only have two. The neighbour has a similar sized front garden and has two cars and a 7.5 tonner parked on it plus a van in the street. The other neighbour has a car and van in the drive. So out of 8 vehicles at 3 houses only one is in the street. Had this been a modern development with designated parking I dread to think where all these vehicles would go, especially the larger ones.

[Fenlander]

The front garden of our 60s built house was paved over by the previous owners, before that you could get 2 in a a row on the drive and a 3rd in the garage. We can get 8 on it now with a bit of shuffling.

[c2R]

There are other unforeseen consequences of a policy that discourages parking at home. I've said before, I'd have an electric car tomorrow if I had somewhere to park it, for local use like shopping/going to the local/seeing friends and family in the area - but the reality is I don't have a driveway, so use a communal car park. I can't switch my main car to electric, as electric cars aren't viable for my work. Therefore, I drive my large diesel estate to the shops rather than a second zero emission car.

[tipsynurse]

Everyone including councils, developers and homeowners has to recognise that virtually all adult occupants of a property are likely to have their own car. Build a five bedroom house and you'll likely need as many parking spaces plus those for visitors.

The problem is if you provide enough parking spaces you then get the plague of people kicking off when someone parks outside their house.

[Fenlander]

There are other unforeseen consequences of a policy that discourages parking at home. I've said before, I'd have an electric car tomorrow if I had somewhere to park it, for local use like shopping/going to the local/seeing friends and family in the area - but the reality is I don't have a driveway, so use a communal car park. I can't switch my main car to electric, as electric cars aren't viable for my work. Therefore, I drive my large diesel estate to the shops rather than a second zero emission car.

Interesting point that, I often think our family motoring would work best with 3 cars spread across the 2 drivers - 2 smaller cars for the usual driving and a bigger one for the longer distance family stuff, weekends away etc. 2 EVs & 1 diesel would fit our driving profiles nicely.
Costwise I can't get it to add up in our favour though unless we switch to older cars plus there's the problem that no one makes an EV that my wife likes (yet).

[A9NWIL]

Before anyone says public transport, the pedestrianised bit of town doesn't have a bus route serving it, the town bus has reduced its frequency and the bus route that brings people in from the villages is due to be axed since Stagecoach bought out the old route provider and is now 'cost saving'.

Yep, standard policy. The council planners decide everyone can use the bus and the councillors endorse it in committee and full council, but the same councillors won't allocate money to the subsidy necessary to keep the private firms running them.

Nationalise the bus companies along with rail, make it state run everywhere!

[c2R]

plus there's the problem that no one makes an EV that my wife likes (yet).

Yes, I would also like it if the EVs didn't look like children's toys - the designers at Renualt/Nissan and BMW have a lot to answer for....