Planning law in ED ,permission granted provided residents don't own cars ?

[intexasatthe moment]

I have heard that in the past planning permission was granted for a development on Lordship Lane - flats above a shop ,possibly what is now the Co Op - on condition that residents didn't own cars .

Does anyone know if this is true ?

[StraferJack]

Would that be problematic?

[Jeremy]

Not sure how it would be enforcable without a CPZ.

[intexasatthe moment]

Yes that's my thinking .

But I've got it in my head that permission was given on this basis somewhere .

I've searched Southwark Planning for the Co op site because I think it related to that property ( when it was Somerfield ) but can't find anything .

[intexasatthe moment]

Strafer - I think it would be a problem if Southwark granted permission on a condition that wasn't enforceable .

[StraferJack]

cross reference with Swansea?

It's probably more a measure of dissuasion than anything else. I'm guessing objections to the devlopment going through are partly based on extra cars taking up limited parking space? So the proviso is a good thing right?

If the objection is they shouldn't even be trying it, then the outcome matters little

if the objection is that without proof, the accomodation shouldn't go ahead - well that's not going to help house prices become affordable any time soon is it?

[Penguin68]

It would be possible to make, as a requirement for giving planning permission, a restriction on the provision of parking spaces on-site, which might have the effect of discouraging those with cars to live there, and it is possible to place a restrictive covenant on a property which would preclude future parking on site (though that would be as part of any sale requirement) - but I see no way in which any such restriction on future residents owning a car and parking anywhere not linked to the site itself could be enforced. In theory the council could get constant access to the DVL database to ensure no car was registered at the property, I suppose, but I do not believe that a flag could be placed on the database to alert the council.

Further I believe that such a general restriction would probably in itself not be legal, possibly as an infringement of human rights legislation.

[intexasatthe moment]

Thanks Penguin ,that all makes sense . It must be a myth about granting planning permission in this way . My memory is that it was a couple of years ago ,but I must be wrong .

Not quite following your post Strafer - which may be my failure ,not yours ! I understand about needing less cars and definitely needing affordable housing .

My point was - planning permission shouldn't be granted if it's dependent on a condition that can't be enforced .

[DaveR]

I'm not a land law specialist but I do know that restrictive covenants have to be capable of 'running with the land' i.e. have some connection with the use of the land. A prohibition on the occupier owning a car would be too remote (though a prohibition on using the land to park a car would be fine).

[StraferJack]

"Not quite following your post Strafer - which may be my failure ,not yours ! I understand about needing less cars and definitely needing affordable housing . "

nope, more likely my fault.

"My point was - planning permission shouldn't be granted if it's dependent on a condition that can't be enforced ."

fair point - but it's hearsay at the moment still. be intersting to see if anyone can shed more light

[James Barber]

The planning permission for those 10 flats at 56-62 Lordship Lane above the Coop was granted in February 2005:

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9514490

The only conditions imposed didn't involve any restrictions on occupiers owning cars or parking them locally. Residents on Ashbourne Grove have told me it resulted in extra parking pressure and more people building over front gardens to guarantee they could park.

In fact even the condition about waste wasnt enforced and the building was occupied without this being resolved as required. My colleague ex.Councillor Jonathan Mitchell did a lot of work trying to get this fixed - as residents were placing waste onthe street due to no other alternatives in the housing.

I have approached council officers if conditions restricting car ownership for new car free properties can be placed and enforced. It would take little to check if any car are registered with DVLA for an address. But this would be new and officers have not been minded to add this.

Hope this helps ITATM.

[Jeremy]

It wouldn't take a genius to register a car at a relative's address, for example. Don't see how it's really enforceable.

[StraferJack]

Doesn't sound like there is anything to enforce tho? ie there isn't any such restriction placed on planning

[DaveR]

"I have approached council officers if conditions restricting car ownership for new car free properties can be placed and enforced. It would take little to check if any car are registered with DVLA for an address. But this would be new and officers have not been minded to add this."

Is it that officers don't want to do it or is it because it's not legally possible? I suspect the latter.

[nxjen]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "I have approached council officers if conditions

> restricting car ownership for new car free

> properties can be placed and enforced. It would

> take little to check if any car are registered

> with DVLA for an address. But this would be new

> and officers have not been minded to add this."

>

> Is it that officers don't want to do it or is it

> because it's not legally possible? I suspect the

> latter.

Agree and even if it was, it means checking on all cars in the area for eternity to ensure planning restrictions are not being flouted.

[trizza]

I believe Southwark have done this on new developments that are within Controlled Parking Zones. Essentially, a condition is imposed that purchasers of units won't be entitled to a parking permit and buyers are well aware of this. So it's not a ban on owning a car but operates in such a way so as to mean that it's not very practical to actually own a car.

There is obviously no CPZ around East Dulwich (at least at the moment...)

[intexasatthe moment]

Thanks Trizza ,that makes sense .

( only just spotted your post )

[clockworkorange]

Planning permission can be granted subject to a section 106 agreement which means no resident can apply for parking permit. If not in a cpz the s106 is not enforceable and should not be approved on that basis. A planning condition seeking the same would also not be enforceable.

[lameduck]

I work in Deptford

They are buiding a block of luxury flats

171 in total. they are allocating 3 parking spaces

2 for disabled and one for a share car,

and they are making cpzs so no one can park in the surrounding streets.

No where is car friendly nowadays

[tfwsoll]

Clockwork Orange is correct. The majority of new developments in inner London are car free as part of planning requirements. It has nothing to do with being unfriendly to car owners. There are thousands of new properties being developed and to allow each household the right to have a car and parking space just isn't feasible.

[clockworkorange]

Lame duck - if you already live there then the imposition of a cpz doesn't stop you owning a car it simply means you now need to pay for the privilege. Appreciate having to pay as a result of development is not ideal, but that's progress! Homes need building. It is 2014, not 1814 and london is at 10m people.

[intexasatthe moment]

tfwsfoll - if there's no cpz how is the car freeness enforced ?

[tfwsoll]

My comments related to inner London, where most areas have CPZs. Normally the S106 will say something along the lines that parking permits will not be issued if a CPZ is introduced within 5 years from the date of the agreement. The planners can also prohibit or limit the amount of parking that is available within the development itself, although given how expensive land is, most developers would rather use the space for residential space.