Planning permission parking stumbling block

brightsprite

Hi,
Our permitted development rights have been removed and we have submitted a planning application to turn our conservatory into an extension and put our utility room in our garage so that we have a bigger kitchen area. Local authority highways has come back with some comments on the number of parking spaces we need now the garage won't be used for a car (which like most it's not anyway).
Highways says that because it's a four bedroom house that we need three spaces within the curtilage of our property. When the houses were built we were given an internal garage and one space on a drive within the curtliage, so two spaces for a four bedroom house.
Does anyone know whether I would be able to appeal a refusal on this basis, that the council didn't give three spaces (including garage) for a four bedroom house when they were built. Or is the highways requirement now based upon newer guidance?
Thanks in advance. 

greatcrested

Don't know the answer, but I can see they might refuse to allow you to reduce the number of spaces, but don't see how you can be made to increase them...

eddddy

It sounds like you're saying that your local planning authority consulted highways, and highways responded - but a decision hasn't yet been made on your application.

If that's correct, it may be worth sending a letter of representation to the planning authority before a decision is made, objecting to the points made by highways.  That would be much quicker and cheaper than appealing after a refusal.

Doozergirl

Planning permission is always going to be assessed against the policies in force at the time of application.  The policy may well have been created because of the lack of parking on  developments like yours.  

Are you trying to reduce to one space when their policy is now three?  I could see how you could appeal if you were maintaining the current number of 2 spaces by creating a new one from the front garden, for example, but dropping to one when policy is three isn't going to met with open arms by a planning officer or someone from the planning inspectorate, I don't think.  

brightsprite

Hi, thanks for the comments so far really helpful. No were not suggesting go to one, we have had our drive extended so can fit two cars on the front. So I’m just suggesting that it remains as it was when they were built. 

pinkshoes

brightsprite said:

Hi, thanks for the comments so far really helpful. No were not suggesting go to one, we have had our drive extended so can fit two cars on the front. So I’m just suggesting that it remains as it was when they were built. 

In which case I would appeal that the house was built with 2 spaces, but as the garage was always used for other activities you have added an additional parking space already, so the house will have 2 spaces as it originally did.

My neighbour has put her utility along the back wall of the garage so she can still park a car.

AdrianC

brightsprite said:

So I’m just suggesting that it remains as it was when they were built. 

If you were to retain the rest of the property "as it was when they were built", there would be no issue whatsoever.

But you're trying to change the parking arrangements that were stipulated in that original planning permission. So that change is being tested against the current requirements...

Browntoa

Property near me , attic conversion refused as they had illegally part converted the garage . 2 spaces was part of the original planning permission , the garage and the driveway in front .

And current planning rules stipulated 3 for a property that size 

Doozergirl

brightsprite said:

Hi, thanks for the comments so far really helpful. No were not suggesting go to one, we have had our drive extended so can fit two cars on the front. So I’m just suggesting that it remains as it was when they were built. 

Has the officer been out to site? 

Have you stipulated in your application or comments about car parking?  I think it would be prudent to email and let them know that you have created an extra parking space in preparation for this subsequent project and will be maintaining the number of spaces stipulated in the original planning permission.   Point out that you are not making anything worse and that most people do not use garages for parking.  

It's imperative that you spin this as a positive thing to your advantage, not defend it (at least not to start with) - and even then, keep a positive tone).  

Get your neighbours to support the application. As many as you can.  

Everything you submit must be worded positively!! 

Ditzy_Mitzy

The difficulty here is that you are asking to 'downgrade' the house, in terms of the number of parking spaces offered.  By widening (I assume) the driveway to create side by side parking for two cars, you have moved the house into a position of compliance with the present rules.  Now that it is compliant, it's perfectly reasonable for the council to insist that it remains compliant.  By converting the garage into another room, you are asking for an exception to the rules as the work will make it non-compliant with the requirement for a minimum of three parking spaces.  Generally speaking this sort of thing works like a ratchet mechanism, in that it's only possible to move up.  

Doozergirl

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

The difficulty here is that you are asking to 'downgrade' the house, in terms of the number of parking spaces offered.  By widening (I assume) the driveway to create side by side parking for two cars, you have moved the house into a position of compliance with the present rules.  Now that it is compliant, it's perfectly reasonable for the council to insist that it remains compliant.  By converting the garage into another room, you are asking for an exception to the rules as the work will make it non-compliant with the requirement for a minimum of three parking spaces.  Generally speaking this sort of thing works like a ratchet mechanism, in that it's only possible to move up.  

The irony being that it might be more beneficial for the application that the extra parking space isn't there yet. 

It's why I've suggested trying to spin it as 'maintaining' the existing number, not reducing.