Road parking contention and garage usage

pedgepuk

I'm not one for complaining about the subject of parking, but my road has become a centre for neighbourly disputes about the increase in vehicles per property over the past few years. I've only the one vehicle where others have two or three and have seen a few rows brew between households. I just wanted to see what thoughts may be made of the below scenario.

I've applied for planning from the local council to build an extension to the home, and part of this was to also check for potential Party Wall matters with the detached 2011 build next door, which I found and advised by a chartered surveyor that there were no notifiable works to the property adjoining owner. The neighbour has a drive and garage, and two vehicles. One of which is parked on the drive that they use regularly and the other they have taken a space on the road, encroaching two spaces, where they have ample room to park over their drive.

Unfortunately this neighbour has become unreasonable and inconsiderate.

During the review of the neighbours development plans to see if there were any potential Party Wall issues with the foundation depth, I came across the initial planning application for the 2011 build, the recommendation to decline the new build development, and various residents correspondence to objecting to the proposed build due to a 3 bedroom house taking up valuable parking spaces on the road. The developers then added a drive and garage to the proposals, and therefore, the council agreed to the new proposals with an explicit condition that the driveway and garage be used, and no parking by the household would take a space on the road.

Quote of the condition:

"Many of the third party concerns have been regarding the current congestion in the area due to on street parking. Surrey County Council as highway authority original object to the proposal due to the loss of the existing off street parking for no 12. However. the applicant subsequently clarified that 12 Anytown Road does not form part of the application and that this application is for a new dwelling which does provide the satisfactory off street parking. Having regard to this Surrey County Council have removed their objection and confirms that as the proposal does provide two off street parking spaces no objection on highway ground has been raised subject to conditions. However, given the current on street parking a condition would be imposed for the garage to always remain available for the parking of a domestic motor vehicle as this will ensure that the new dwelling does not add to the current on street parking congestion."

Quote of the full planning approval:

"Erection of two storey detached house with integral garage.
at Land Adjacent to 12, Anytown Road, Anytown
in accordance with the application registered by the Council on the 27 November 2009 subject to the following conditions: -
...
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) the garage proposed as part of the development hereby permitted shall always be available for the parking of domestic motor vehicles.
..."

As far as I'm aware, the neighbour only uses the garage for storage. Both vehicles are small hatchbacks and the garage is wide enough for one.

Is the condition the council set out something that could be enforced by the council if the matter escalated due to the neighbours behaviour?

TIA

Doozergirl

The garage is available for parking, they choose not to use it.   They can't be made to.  

It's really a planning condition to stop them converting the garage to a habitable room.  

theonlywayisup

As above.  Also, what is it you are trying to achieve - more road parking? Parking on a highway is not something you should get yourself worked up about, it is first come first served and those with 10 cars are equally at liberty to park in those spaces as you. 

Jeepers_Creepers

Isn't what the OP is trying to achieve is getting two cars off the road where they are currently adding to the parking congestion? And wasn't this a condition for No 12 being granted PP in the first place?

Whether the council would enforce it, I don't know - and sadly doubt.

pedgepuk

Thanks for the replies.

The aim is to merely look at the options available since the said neighbour has become unreasonable and taking up two spaces on the road. This may be poor parking or in my view, deliberate.

My concern is that when my building contractors arrive, that the method in which the neighbour has positioned the vehicle, may either be difficult to deliver/place a skip or deliver building materials, and could potentially damage the vehicle which needs to be avoided. The width of the road is narrow, and just about allows for the fire service and lorries to crawl along the road. One side has parking on the road and my side is predominantly half pavement parking.

Appreciate that anyone can park wherever and the public road isn't owned by households, but when you see these conditions based on the initial planning application approval, then surely it could be said that they should be enforced. The council enforcing those conditions is another matter.

williamgriffin

pedgepuk said:

Thanks for the replies.

The aim is to merely look at the options available since the said neighbour has become unreasonable and taking up two spaces on the road. This may be poor parking or in my view, deliberate.

My concern is that when my building contractors arrive, that the method in which the neighbour has positioned the vehicle, may either be difficult to deliver/place a skip or deliver building materials, and could potentially damage the vehicle which needs to be avoided. The width of the road is narrow, and just about allows for the fire service and lorries to crawl along the road. One side has parking on the road and my side is predominantly half pavement parking.

Appreciate that anyone can park wherever and the public road isn't owned by households, but when you see these conditions based on the initial planning application approval, then surely it could be said that they should be enforced. The council enforcing those conditions is another matter.

What is there to enforce? The garage is still available for domestic parking.

Jeepers_Creepers

They don't use it - quite possibly deliberately. 'Cos they are 'oles.

Again, what the OP is trying to achieve is for this neighb to fulfil the obligations of their covenant - to park their 2 cars in their garage & driveway and not on the road. Something they apparently had to agree to before bing granted PP.

I can only suggest that Pedge contacts the Planning Dept to ask them how enforceable it is in practice - perhaps armed with some photos showing 2 cars on the cars adjacent to an empty driveway. And, if they say they can't really do much about it in practice, ask them why the @%&^ they bother with these covenants in the first place...

onomatopoeia99

Jeepers_Creepers said:

They don't use it - quite possibly deliberately. 'Cos they are 'oles.

Again, what the OP is trying to achieve is for this neighb to fulfil the obligations of their covenant - to park their 2 cars in their garage & driveway and not on the road. Something they apparently had to agree to before bing granted PP.

It was a condition of planning that the garage is available for parking as has been documented, is there any suggestion there is also a covenant in their deeds that they must park a car in it, rather than on the road?

George_Michael

Even if the garage is 90% full of stored items, I'm sure that there would still be room for a motor cycle or moped and this would mean that it's still  "available for the parking of domestic motor vehicles".

Jeepers_Creepers

onomatopoeia99 said:

Jeepers_Creepers said:

They don't use it - quite possibly deliberately. 'Cos they are 'oles.

Again, what the OP is trying to achieve is for this neighb to fulfil the obligations of their covenant - to park their 2 cars in their garage & driveway and not on the road. Something they apparently had to agree to before bing granted PP.

It was a condition of planning that the garage is available for parking as has been documented, is there any suggestion there is also a covenant in their deeds that they must park a car in it, rather than on the road?

Probably no enforceable requirement - which is why it's a bit of a joke.

I'm pretty sure 99.9% of the folk on here would rather park their car on their driveway of an evening rather than on the road? The fact this person doesn't, is quite revealing. And yet it was at least an 'expectation' of his receiving PP in the first place.

williamgriffin

Jeepers_Creepers said:

onomatopoeia99 said:

Jeepers_Creepers said:

They don't use it - quite possibly deliberately. 'Cos they are 'oles.

Again, what the OP is trying to achieve is for this neighb to fulfil the obligations of their covenant - to park their 2 cars in their garage & driveway and not on the road. Something they apparently had to agree to before bing granted PP.

It was a condition of planning that the garage is available for parking as has been documented, is there any suggestion there is also a covenant in their deeds that they must park a car in it, rather than on the road?

Probably no enforceable requirement - which is why it's a bit of a joke.

I'm pretty sure 99.9% of the folk on here would rather park their car on their driveway of an evening rather than on the road? The fact this person doesn't, is quite revealing. And yet it was at least an 'expectation' of his receiving PP in the first place.

Are you sure it was the neighbour who applied for the PP? From the OP there is mention of a new build, maybe the owner isn't aware of any planning conditions.

Even if they were there has been no breach.