Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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 ?

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 .

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?

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.

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 .

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).

"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

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.

"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.

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.

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...)

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.

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

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.
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.
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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...