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

FreeBear

Grumpy_chap said:

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.

100-150mm of compacted hardcore, then 50mm for the grids - These can either be filled with gravel or soil ready for grass seed. A fairly substantial bit of groundwork, but once completed, could look quite nice.

A similar amount of digging out would be required for a blockwork area. If the OP were to go for concrete or tarmac, drainage and a soakaway would also be needed.

Doozergirl

6am said:

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.

You should have drawn three parking spaces on your application too as it wouldn't then be a prerequisite for something your application missed.  However, those parking spaces still form part of their planning permission, it just wasn't a condition pre-commencement for them.  

If you use them as an argument, you'll just see them slapped with an enforcement notice themselves.   

It isn't unfair, several people have expressed how common it is. The condition will almost certainly feature in any design guides produced in your area to show how to meet their legislation.  Even if you only have one car, most have more and most of us have visitors too.  Planning always accounts for future residents, not just the incumbents.  

Three parking spaces certainly isn't going to reduce your house price, quite the opposite.  House value isn't a valid argument with the planners anyway (although I've never seen the actual homeowner try to use that as an argument!) 

Section62

6am said:

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.

6am said:

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.

Each application is treated on its own merits - the fact one application is approved with conditions whereas another one is just approved isn't something you can challenge on the grounds of unfairness.  You would need to challenge the need for the condition to be imposed in your case (only) based on the material planning matters - for example that you aren't increasing the number of bedrooms (or whatever the criteria is) to a number where the additional parking space(s) are needed.

The difficulty you may have is that by disputing the need to provide and maintain the required number of spaces you will be demonstrating exactly why the planning condition may be required.

The planning consent decision notice or report should include reasoned justification for the decision as a whole, and for why each condition has been imposed.  Can you check the documents and post what the planning officer has said in regard to the parking condition.  It would also help to know which planning authority covers your area - or have a copy of the residential parking standards section of their local plan.

As I said in my previous post, having more parking available is more likely to increase the value of the property than to decrease it - in the cases I've been involved in personally I don't remember one where a householder applicant wanted less parking rather than more, other than where it was physically impossible to provide the additional parking without very significant expense (e.g. using an underground parking solution). It is far more common for householders to want more parking, but for the council to be saying 'no' to it.

If you really want to keep some of the front garden as garden, but still comply with the planning condition, then something like an underground paking solution might be worth considering, albeit they aren't cheap.

Bigphil1474

OP, It does sound like the planning officer suspects that you don't want to have a third parking space and that if they didn't require ongoing maintenance of the parking space, the space may be put in initially but later removed. Not saying that's what would happen, but your posts so far wouldn't give me any confidence if I were a planning officer. Planning teams aren't perfect, but they are there to look at the bigger picture. At least you've got permission for your extension.

fluffymuffy

I'm wondering if the extension includes converting an existing garage? The loss of a garage space counts as loss of a parking space.

outtatune

If the council don't want people parking on the road, they should be placing parking restrictions on the road.

One of the reason American cities are so horrible is the mandatory parking provisions, meaning everything has to sit in the middle of an enormous car park.

Grumpy_chap

6am said:

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? 

The PP plus Conditions should have included a link / reference to any specific policies that have been applied and also basis of grounds and process for appeal.  You need to refer to the specific notes referenced by your Local Authority, but you should find it is something similar to the following:
https://www.richmond.gov.uk/services/planning/comment_on_a_planning_application/what_is_a_valid_objection_to_a_planning_application

6am

I hired a professional to prepare the drawings and submit the planning application, expecting the process to go smoothly and without surprises. So, I’m quite irritated that they first said the application needed to include car parking arrangements, and now this additional condition has been imposed.

All we’re doing is building a single storey kitchen extension and relocating some items like the boiler and hot water cylinder into the garage. What does parking have to do with a kitchen extension? The case officer attached a guidance document which states:

When does this guidance apply?
The parking standards will apply to all developments for the provision of one or more
residential units (gross) and all developments that result in the creation of non-residential
floorspace. If a planning application for extension/alterations (residential and non residential)
involves a significant increase in area then the impact of the development on parking will be a
material consideration and additional parking spaces may be sought to ensure that a suitable
level of parking provision is made.

I wonder if we could object on the grounds that this guidance doesn’t apply in our case, as there’s no significant increase in area. The extension is only about an 18% increase. Additionally, it appears it only applies when creating new spaces. Creative reading of the guidance suggests it doesn’t apply when removing spaces, such as demolishing or converting a garage.

Kiran

How big is your kitchen extension going to be, does if fall within the realms of permitted development?

Section62

6am said:

I hired a professional to prepare the drawings and submit the planning application, expecting the process to go smoothly and without surprises. So, I’m quite irritated that they first said the application needed to include car parking arrangements, and now this additional condition has been imposed.

All we’re doing is building a single storey kitchen extension and relocating some items like the boiler and hot water cylinder into the garage. What does parking have to do with a kitchen extension? The case officer attached a guidance document which states:

When does this guidance apply?
The parking standards will apply to all developments for the provision of one or more
residential units (gross) and all developments that result in the creation of non-residential
floorspace. If a planning application for extension/alterations (residential and non residential)
involves a significant increase in area then the impact of the development on parking will be a
material consideration and additional parking spaces may be sought to ensure that a suitable
level of parking provision is made.

I wonder if we could object on the grounds that this guidance doesn’t apply in our case, as there’s no significant increase in area. The extension is only about an 18% increase. Additionally, it appears it only applies when creating new spaces. Creative reading of the guidance suggests it doesn’t apply when removing spaces, such as demolishing or converting a garage.

I don't think a planning inspector would have any hesitation in confirming that 18% is a "significant" increase (in floor area).  If the consent has already been granted then you cannot "object" to the condition - the process would be one of appeal to the independent planning appeals service.  But being realistic I don't think you have much chance of winning an appeal on the basis of what you've shared so far.

Will you demolish or convert a garage as part of this work?