Unreasonable planning condition: forced to sacrifice our garden for unwanted parking spaces

6am

We have a front garden and a parking space for one or two cars, which suits us perfectly since we only own one car and don’t need or want additional parking. We applied to build an extension at the back of our house. As part of the planning application, we were asked to demonstrate that we could accommodate three parking spaces, so the plan was amended to show that it’s possible - but we absolutely don’t need this parking.

But the planning application came back with a condition:

"Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, the 3 car parking spaces as shown in the proposed Block and Site Plan with proposed car parking spaces shall be provided on site and retained and maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority."

This condition makes no sense. Why are we being forced to provide and maintain three parking spaces at the expense of our front garden, especially when we neither need nor want them? If a future owner prefers more parking, they can make that change, but why are we being required to convert our garden into unnecessary parking? It’s completely unreasonable!

What can we do to remove this condition?

Section62

6am said:

We have a front garden and a parking space for one or two cars, which suits us perfectly since we only own one car and don’t need or want additional parking. We applied to build an extension at the back of our house. As part of the planning application, we were asked to demonstrate that we could accommodate three parking spaces, so the plan was amended to show that it’s possible - but we absolutely don’t need this parking.

But the planning application came back with a condition:

"Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, the 3 car parking spaces as shown in the proposed Block and Site Plan with proposed car parking spaces shall be provided on site and retained and maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority."

This condition makes no sense. Why are we being forced to provide and maintain three parking spaces at the expense of our front garden, especially when we neither need nor want them? If a future owner prefers more parking, they can make that change, but why are we being required to convert our garden into unnecessary parking? It’s completely unreasonable!

What can we do to remove this condition?

It isn't really about preferences, yours or a future owners.  This condition is about making sure the road is more likely to be available for use as a road rather than a car park.

The council has set a parking standard based either on number of bedrooms or floor area which represents typical car ownership.  The next owner may have more cars than you, but decide rather than the expense of providing an additional space within their curtilage they will park on the road (or a neighbouring road) instead - thus making their problem someone else's problem.

You could apply for planning consent to remove the condition, but since the consent is recent it is unlikely the council will approve the request.  The alternative is to forget building the extension - you aren't compelled to provide the third space if you don't make the house bigger.  The council will see it as entirely reasonable that the additional living space requires additional parking space.

Also bear in mind with the switch from ICE cars to electric, the need for people to park off-street within their own curtilage is likely to increase, so although you don't want the extra space now it is likely to be a net financial gain to you when you come to sell.

MysteryMe

Inadequate parking provision causes huge problems, especially if on street parking is limited or unsuitable.

You are concerned with yourself but the council is concerned for all residents in the locality and continues to do so long after you may have left the area.

There will be a reason why the council has imposed those conditions so perhaps speak to the planning officer in the first instance to establish the reason for the condition and if there are any compromises to be had.

chrisw

You could always just ignore the condition. It will only come to light if someone reports you to the council. Worst case scenario is that planning enforcement will make you put the additional parking space in.

silvercar

chrisw said:

You could always just ignore the condition. It will only come to light if someone reports you to the council. Worst case scenario is that planning enforcement will make you put the additional parking space in.

Friends did this. Built their extension and didn’t bother putting in the extra parking. That was 13 years ago and no one has reported them. They now think that it is too late for the council to enforce the condition.

theoretica

What is your garden at present?  If it is grass you could combine parking and lawn in a minimal way - a couple of rows of the type of grids grass grows through for the tyres?

Hoenir

If parking is  problem in your locality. Then the Council is being reasonable in granting permission with strings attached. As is addressing a wider issue in a fairer way. By everybody doing a little then the problem gets resolved. If everybody only is only interested in looking after themselves then mayhem ensures. 

Section62

chrisw said:

You could always just ignore the condition. It will only come to light if someone reports you to the council. Worst case scenario is that planning enforcement will make you put the additional parking space in.

The worst case is the planning authority issue an enforcement notice and make the OP put in the additional space.

An enforcement notice doesn't just go away, and can make it difficult to sell a property.

It isn't really good advice to suggest someone should deliberately act unlawfully and risk impacting their ability to sell the property.  We also have no idea how likely the authority are to enforce the condition - some authorities are quite relaxed, others will pick up on these issues without necessarily waiting for someone to report the breach.

6am

I am uncomfortable with the requirement to maintain three car parking spaces indefinitely, as I am not currently subject to this obligation. After reviewing recent applications, I noticed that not all have this condition imposed. This means that current and future owners in similar situations are not required to preserve parking spaces and are free to repurpose the area, such as converting it into a garden if they wish.

If I proceed and accept this condition, I would essentially be imposing a covenant-like restriction on myself and future owners, which could negatively impact the property's value. This strikes me as unfair, especially since some applications face this requirement while others do not. I haven't identified any clear pattern explaining why this inconsistency exists - perhaps it varies based on the case worker involved.

I simply want to be treated fairly. Either all applications should include this obligation to maintain parking spaces, or the requirement should be removed altogether. The arbitrary application of this rule, where only some owners are bound by it, is concerning and feels unjust.

Grumpy_chap

theoretica said:

What is your garden at present?  If it is grass you could combine parking and lawn in a minimal way - a couple of rows of the type of grids grass grows through for the tyres?

Those grids - grasscrete - if done properly to support vehicular loading are not as minimal as you might imagine.  The installation requires proper (porous) sub base to a similar standard as any other type of hard standing.  The end result is more minimal from a visual perspective.

6am said:

I am uncomfortable with the requirement to maintain three car parking spaces indefinitely,

Your choices are:
1.  Not build the extension.
2.  Build the extension and the parking.
3.   Challenge the condition on the basis of material grounds and seek to reach agreement for the extension without the need for parking (or less parking)

6am

Grumpy_chap said:

3.   Challenge the condition on the basis of material grounds and seek to reach agreement for the extension without the need for parking (or less parking)

Thank you for the suggestion to challenge the condition on material grounds. Could you clarify what specific material grounds would be appropriate in this case? For instance, could the analysis of recent applications, which shows an inconsistent application of this parking rule, be used as a valid ground?

I’ve looked into a recent application where the owner removed a garage and showed space for three cars. The application was granted without any ongoing condition to maintain those parking spaces in the future. I would like to have the same treatment and avoid this unnecessary restriction.

Any guidance on how best to approach this challenge would be greatly appreciated.