A question about planning permission, parking and tenancy

AnnieO1234

Speak with your university, they may be able to help even if it's just final year law students.

I think the waters are slightly muddied here. I am shocked that a building was allowed to be converted or built as flats without sufficient parking for tenants and visitors. Are you certain the road is a public road and not a private one?

I honestly don't see how in terms of the Equality Act alone and mobility vehicles that this could be enforced. I assume this is because it's student accommodation and you're upsetting the neighbours (maybe not you but just students in general).

Please OP let us know how things go. Speak with Shelter too if you are being threatened with eviction. I can't quite conceive how that can be the case from a breach of restrictive covenants unless it's just your landlord trying to get rid of you.

A restrictive covenant can only be enforced by those who are directly affected by it. I can't imagine anyone being able to prove they were adversely affected by a vehicle belonging to you parking on the road because how is it different to me deciding to park outside your property? In fact maybe you should get a bunch of people together to park on that road, no one who lives there of course and leave your cars for days on end. There's nothing illegal about it.

Hope sense is seen.

VitaK

Do you have time to obtain/view the planning permission before you go into the meeting. You can't prepare properly without it and you need to prepare for these kind of meetings.

rav007

AnnieO1234 wrote: »

Speak with your university, they may be able to help even if it's just final year law students.

I think the waters are slightly muddied here. I am shocked that a building was allowed to be converted or built as flats without sufficient parking for tenants and visitors. Are you certain the road is a public road and not a private one?

I honestly don't see how in terms of the Equality Act alone and mobility vehicles that this could be enforced. I assume this is because it's student accommodation and you're upsetting the neighbours (maybe not you but just students in general).

Please OP let us know how things go. Speak with Shelter too if you are being threatened with eviction. I can't quite conceive how that can be the case from a breach of restrictive covenants unless it's just your landlord trying to get rid of you.

A restrictive covenant can only be enforced by those who are directly affected by it. I can't imagine anyone being able to prove they were adversely affected by a vehicle belonging to you parking on the road because how is it different to me deciding to park outside your property? In fact maybe you should get a bunch of people together to park on that road, no one who lives there of course and leave your cars for days on end. There's nothing illegal about it.

Hope sense is seen.

I tried to get a parking spot in the university, but even they rejected my application on the basis of me living in this accommodation, as if they are in tune with the council. I too think that this is unreasonable. I appreciate that there are 150 students and under 20 spaces for parking, as well as it being private land, but only 11 of us have a car.

The road in the nearby residential area is definitely public, there are no restrictions signs, roadmarkings or anything like that. There is plenty of free curb space to park without affecting anybody. It is just irritating, and the more I look into this the more I am beginning to think this clause made by the council is illegal. How can you only grant planning permission for a business expressing "your tenants cannot bring a car".

In the past there have been issues closer to the university with students parking in front of peoples houses and causing an inconvenience and this spurred the council on to restrict parking to residents only, and in densely populated areas I would understand, but on just one of the nearby roads, of which there are 5, there is enough space for 5 cars to park in a line and legally, and not affect any of the residents.

The landlord is in the same boat as me too, he seems to be new and the accommodation is owned by a parent company. But he and almost everybody else I have spoken to that aren't the people who live in the residential area, and the council, have said that I am not in the wrong because it is a public road. The landlord would be out of line if he wanted to have me evicted, I mind my own business and I am one of the many sources of their income

rav007

VitaK wrote: »

Do you have time to obtain/view the planning permission before you go into the meeting. You can't prepare properly without it and you need to prepare for these kind of meetings.

I felt this was the case but I can't view it because they require a payment for the planning permission. I still can't see how telling a student accommodation that they will only receive planning permission if tenants dont bring their cars, is legal? The students make up 1/4 of the town, we pretty much own this town actually with the amount of wealth we generate for it. There's a big sainsburys 100m away from a big 24h tesco, and another 24h tesco about a mile from that! In a town whose population is 60,000, it is unsustainable and unrealistic and without the 15,000 students, the town structure would fall apart!

rav007

dm20 wrote: »

Sounds like a section 106 'car free' agreement. Not an expert, but I recall they extend to preventing, as your landlord says, private parking on-site and entitlement to a resident's parking permit. So only really effective within a controlled parking zone where residents need permits.

People who live in your flats who own cars clearly have to put them somewhere, and can park them on a road without parking controls the same as anyone else.

Perhaps see if you can found out what the planning permission actually says on you local council's planning website?

It is an s106, just confirmed via planning permission history. They created the S106. Does anybody have experience with these? I want to know if an S106 can dictate a tenant bringing a car to an accommodation and parking on a nearby public road. I am obviously doing research as I go along too so if I find anything questionable I will post it here.

Prothet_of_Doom

I can't imagine the intent of any of the original policies was this :

1) You can't park here.
2) You can't park a car that you own, anywhere locally even if the parking would be legal for someone who didn't live in this block.

Basically if the car was registered in someone else's name and you were a named driver, they could park it, but you couldn't in a legal pubic highway ?

rav007

Any person interested in land in the area of a local planning authority may, by agreement or otherwise, enter into an obligation (referred to in this section and sections 106A and 106B as “a planning obligation”), enforceable to the extent mentioned in subsection (3)—

(a)restricting the development or use of the land in any specified way;

(b)requiring specified operations or activities to be carried out in, on, under or over the land;

(c)requiring the land to be used in any specified way; or

(d)requiring a sum or sums to be paid to the authority [F2(or, in a case where section 2E applies, to the Greater London Authority)] on a specified date or dates or periodically.

This is taken directly from the S106 agreement legislation. The rest of the conditions just reinforce these 4 points. I am admit this field is new to me, and I don't fully understand the legislations and loopholes like others will, but I have taken an analytical approach here.

I suppose any parking restrictions would apply to statement 1a and 1c, with 1b being a limitation on further development on the land and 1d being a condition or consequence of the agreement.

Having said that, 1a and 1c would directly coincide with "no parking on site" therefore having a specified use for the land - the absence of parking.

I understand that if this land/building was surrounded by a restricted parking zone area, then a further clause of "not seeking parking permits" would make a lot of sense and ergo a s106 car free agreement would ensue quite effectively.

However, as the land is surrounded by a sparsely populated public area with no restricted parking zones, I think the council shot themselves in the foot and are trying to backtrack and find a loophole.

From these clauses and conditions of the legislation, I see nothing that has a direct implication on the residents of the accommodation as, though we do live on the land upon which an s106 is imposed to restrict parking specifically on that land, the s106 does not look like it can reach out further to the neighbouring land. Meaning, if I rented a house with a driveway and the landlord told me "you cannot bring your car per s106 on this land" I could either park on the public road if it was legal, or ask my next door neighbour if he/she would allow me to park in their driveway thus not breaching my agreement.

The s106 looks very specific and I feel the council have manipulated it in a fashion that may play out in their favour but I think they have done so illegally because as I have said time and time again, the local area is residential, sparsely populated, with plenty of space for cars and no parking restrictions enforced.

Does everyone agree with me? Do you see any more holes that would allow the council to pose restrictions to a tenant on private land from legally parking on public land free of restrictions? Because I think they are violating my rights

rav007

Just had a meeting with the landlord and the business representatives much higher up. They want to come to an agreement with the council (who they will meet with later today) and are willing to pay the cost for travels that would otherwise be paid for by myself having a car in Loughborough. Council is pressuring them to commence eviction processing.

They seemed very reasonable and asked me for suggestions on what to do, they were on my side and said that they too would park anywhere that is public and free. The clause is an S106 agreement.

They said the council guy has been a pain in the !!! since the beginning when they built the building, he has something against students basically. He wont allow us to have a car. He wont allow us to park privately if we pay for it, even with the university. He wont allow us any freedom essentially. He is constantly harassing people. He drives around the PUBLIC NON-RESTRICTED area every day and takes pictures of cars parking there too! He ultimately is a complete pain and wont let up at all, he doesn't care about personal situations he is just out for blood, so what do I do?

bod1467

So he's a jobsworth with an agenda.

Is HE working within the law and the specifics of the S106 agreement?

rav007

bod1467 wrote: »

So he's a jobsworth with an agenda.

Is HE working within the law and the specifics of the S106 agreement?

Not sure. S106 seems to impose laws on the use of the property only, with further implications to additional charges and changes. Owning a car doesn't affect that as long as I don't park on the property. However, he drafted the S106 3 years ago with the agreement that no cars will be brought to Loughborough to park ANYWHERE and I don't think an S106 has scope for this! This agreement was signed by the previous owner of the building, since then it has been taken over.

I don't think S106 can affect land outside the planning permission land, unless it is a car free agreement - in which case the outside land would have to be a restricted parking or car free zone to be effective meaning physically nowhere to park at all rendering the ownership of a car pointless. He shot himself in the foot because there are no restrictions around the land I live on and still looks to have me evicted even though I park legally. Any further advice on how I can proceed? I dont want to take action against my landlord or the company, they seem very reasonable and willing to cover my costs but I do have the right to park, I swear the councillor is breaking the law!