New housing development and car parking, it's bad but it'll get worse.

[morrisminor 10]

its curious to me that when people are looking for a house with a garden, they normally specifically look for houses with gardens included as part of the property. it seems uncontroversial that those without and additional land....well....dont have any additional amenity space, such as a garden.

 

however, when it comes to some land to park a car on, people seem to expect to be able to buy a house with no private land to park their car, and yet feel that they should somehow be granted space to park a car.

 

it is pretty obvious to me that if i want a garden, i need to look for a house that has one (and be able to afford it). likewise, if i want a guaranteed parking space, i need to buy a house with a driveway and access from the street.

 

perhaps one day (its been over 100 years so far without the majority of people realising), people will actually twig that just because they have been able in many instances to leave their property on the public highway instead of within their own curtilage, this does in no way imply they have any right to be able to do so.

 

in fact, RPZs do provide those who qualify for a permit and successfully apply for one, to have the ability to leave their car on street.

[biotechpete 10]

its curious to me that when people are looking for a house with a garden, they normally specifically look for houses with gardens included as part of the property. it seems uncontroversial that those without and additional land....well....dont have any additional amenity space, such as a garden.

 

however, when it comes to some land to park a car on, people seem to expect to be able to buy a house with no private land to park their car, and yet feel that they should somehow be granted space to park a car.

 

it is pretty obvious to me that if i want a garden, i need to look for a house that has one (and be able to afford it). likewise, if i want a guaranteed parking space, i need to buy a house with a driveway and access from the street.

 

perhaps one day (its been over 100 years so far without the majority of people realising), people will actually twig that just because they have been able in many instances to leave their property on the public highway instead of within their own curtilage, this does in no way imply they have any right to be able to do so.

 

in fact, RPZs do provide those who qualify for a permit and successfully apply for one, to have the ability to leave their car on street.

 

With respect, I don't think the issue of whether or not any person should be entitled to leave their car stationary on a carriage way is the matter at hand. The council and the city's residents seem pretty happy with the provision of that entitlement in some form or other in most places.

 

The question is whether or not the council can get round the planning consideration for traffic and parking by barring applications only from certain residents within a permit zone.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2013 at 17:58 ----------

 

What legislation allows the council to introduce the zones in the first place, and what does it allow in terms of not allocating new housing permits? The council seem to think they can do exactly that.

 

Well according to wikipedia the relevant legislation for controlled parking zones is the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Act 2002, although I haven't seen any zone signs. Perhaps I have missed them but IIRC the notices I saw around the area in question were traffic regulation orders which would fall under the road traffic act.

 

TBH after a quick look, I can't see anything in either statutory instrument which sets down rules for restriction of parking permits per household or per development.

[morrisminor 10]

With respect, I don't think the issue of whether or not any person should be entitled to leave their car stationary on a carriage way is the matter at hand. The council and the city's residents seem pretty happy with the provision of that entitlement in some form or other in most places.

 

The question is whether or not the council can get round the planning consideration for traffic and parking by barring applications only from certain residents within a permit zone.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2013 at 17:58 ----------

 

 

Well according to wikipedia the relevant legislation for controlled parking zones is the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Act 2002, although I haven't seen any zone signs. Perhaps I have missed them but IIRC the notices I saw around the area in question were traffic regulation orders which would fall under the road traffic act.

 

TBH after a quick look, I can't see anything in either statutory instrument which sets down rules for restriction of parking permits per household or per development.

 

i must have missed the bit where did the idea that the council would restrict parking permits to certain residents crept in? is that something in writing from SCC? if not, i strongly doubt such a thing would be proposed or be possible.

 

 

in terms of planning obligations and planning, Labour introduced maximum parking standards for new developments. then the coalition removed this and basically said councils should set their own limits or make their own decisions. so some will have set minimum standards for parking - i.e. a new development may be refused if it doesnt provide enough off street parking.

 

see little explanation here http://www.steerdaviesgleave.com/news-and-insights/PPG13-whats-new-parking

 

Sheffield CC seems to have retained maximum standards. so developers cannot propose more parking spaces than for the type of housing and location (e.g. number of bedrooms and city centre/outside)

 

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/travel/driving/parking/guidelines.html

[Cyclone 10]

It's in the report from the planning officer, one of the last documents in the list when looking at the planning application. It says words to the effect of "the new dwellings will not be allocated any parking permits".

Perhaps there is no legislation specification and the council can issue or not issue permits as they wish.

[morrisminor 10]

ah, i see that now. the officer report says that no new permits will be issued. I dont know if legislation is particularly relevant; i would imagine that undder the residents permit scheme SCC retain the right to withhold permits for a variety of reasons and they have a policy on car free developments (https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/travel/driving/parking/parking-permits/parking-zones/car-free.html) (not clear if this Trickett Rd development is classed as that). The fact the decision notice diverges from this can only be attributed to, i imagine, the fact that the Planning Committee decided that in fact 9 permits should be allocated. The minutes of that Oct 15th planning meeting are published here (http://meetings.sheffield.gov.uk/council-meetings/planninghighways/agendas-2013/agenda-5th-november-2013).

 

The link between issuing of permits and there being availability of spaces on a specific road isnt direct. there may be 9 more permits issued but they dont guarantee you a space. They just give you the right to use a space if available, within the zone. It seems that if you live on Trickett Rd, you have the right to park anywhere in the Hillsborough zone. so anyone in the new development that gets a permit may not be able to park on their street if there is no space, but there may or may not be space on an adjoining street. perhaps they will have to park some distance away. This shouldnt be a surprise in a congested city in areas where roadspace is tight - you may have to park 2 or 3 streets away.

 

Sheffield is undergoing a signficant cultural change as car ownership grows from a low base. The painful transition that other more affluent areas of the country underwent years or even decades ago is coming here. The expectations, borne of low car ownership and therefore resulting in little competition for parking spaces, and low congestion, are being challenged by the new reality.

 

It will be up to the developer to make clear to prospective buyers that they may or may not be able to get a permit, and even if they do they may or may not be able to park their car on their street, or at all.

[Justin Smith 10]

ah, i see that now. the officer report says that no new permits will be issued. I dont know if legislation is particularly relevant; i would imagine that undder the residents permit scheme SCC retain the right to withhold permits for a variety of reasons and they have a policy on car free developments (https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/travel/driving/parking/parking-permits/parking-zones/car-free.html) (not clear if this Trickett Rd development is classed as that). The fact the decision notice diverges from this can only be attributed to, i imagine, the fact that the Planning Committee decided that in fact 9 permits should be allocated. The minutes of that Oct 15th planning meeting are published here (http://meetings.sheffield.gov.uk/council-meetings/planninghighways/agendas-2013/agenda-5th-november-2013).

 

The link between issuing of permits and there being availability of spaces on a specific road isnt direct. there may be 9 more permits issued but they dont guarantee you a space. They just give you the right to use a space if available, within the zone. It seems that if you live on Trickett Rd, you have the right to park anywhere in the Hillsborough zone. so anyone in the new development that gets a permit may not be able to park on their street if there is no space, but there may or may not be space on an adjoining street. perhaps they will have to park some distance away. This shouldnt be a surprise in a congested city in areas where roadspace is tight - you may have to park 2 or 3 streets away.

 

Sheffield is undergoing a signficant cultural change as car ownership grows from a low base. The painful transition that other more affluent areas of the country underwent years or even decades ago is coming here. The expectations, borne of low car ownership and therefore resulting in little competition for parking spaces, and low congestion, are being challenged by the new reality.

 

It will be up to the developer to make clear to prospective buyers that they may or may not be able to get a permit, and even if they do they may or may not be able to park their car on their street, or at all.

 

If that were just because more people in the existing houses bought cars (which they will sooner or later.....) that would be fair enough. But it`s not acceptable for that to apply because the council allow new development without its own off road parking.

Nine permits is the equivalent of nine new homes, parking wise that`s loads in a crowded back street location like Dodd St. I have to say the fact the council showed no interest in the fact existing residents will now struggle to find a parking space just makes me even more cynical about politicians.

[Cyclone 10]

 

Sheffield is undergoing a signficant cultural change as car ownership grows from a low base.

 

I agreed with a lot of what you said, but this, you're about 50 years late.

[Justin Smith 10]

Could someone please clarify some issues of planning law ?

 

We had an architect round a year or two ago to investigate the possibility of an extension. He said that if a house has off road parking then the planning laws mean that home must continue to have off road parking, i.e. you can`t just build over the off road parking space.

If that`s the case, then is it not illogical to allow new build homes with no off road parking ?

[Cyclone 10]

It's not illegal, it's just unlikely that planning will be granted which results in the removal of off road parking.

 

The planning in this new build case has been granted, but the intent was that no parking permits would be allocated.

[Justin Smith 10]

Could someone please clarify some issues of planning law ?

We had an architect round a year or two ago to investigate the possibility of an extension. He said that if a house has off road parking then the planning laws mean that home must continue to have off road parking, i.e. you can`t just build over the off road parking space.

If that`s the case, then is it not illogical to allow new build homes with no off road parking ?

 

It's not illegal, it's just unlikely that planning will be granted which results in the removal of off road parking.

The planning in this new build case has been granted, but the intent was that no parking permits would be allocated.

 

Maybe it`s just me, but I think that`s inconsistent on the part of the planning authorities. The fact they`re unlikely to allow development which reduces off road parking means they know there`s a shortage of parking, so allowing development with no offroad parking is just the same.

In the case of Dodd St I thought they were actually allowing 9 parking permits, but even if they weren`t allowing any there are still a number of permit free parking areas near the site which are nearly always full now, so where pray will those cars now park ? If you were a cynic like me you`d say that the Council are trying to force those residents using the permit free areas to now buy a parking permit. A nice little earner for them.....

[dosxuk 10]

If you were a cynic like me you`d say that the Council are trying to force those residents using the permit free areas to now buy a parking permit.

 

Which will be a challenge, if, as the council say, the area is already over-subscribed and demand for permits remains high.

[Justin Smith 10]

Which will be a challenge, if, as the council say, the area is already over-subscribed and demand for permits remains high.

 

There are still certain times of the day when you`d think there was no shortage of car parking spaces round here, but in the evening when everyone`s back home, it`s another story. Statistically the odd driver will always be lucky, they`ll arrive just as another vehicle is leaving. Which brings me back to the experiences of a friend of mine who lived in York. Because any parking space you left would usually be gone within 5 to 10 minutes she was loathe to use her car because there`d not be anywhere to park it when she got back. Believe me that`ll become the norm in many areas....