Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Search representations
Results for P F Booton search
New searchComment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16053
Received: 04/01/2023
Respondent: P F Booton
Draft Parking Standards for New Developments
Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to make the following comments on the above document, but I would also like to thank the Central Beds for preparing this document. I feel that it should be seen in the context to trying to maintain green open space in developments and not allowing every inch of green space to be converted parking space. Though I disagree with much that Letchworth Garden City do with their restrictions on developments, their rules on no more than fifty percent any green space at a house hold being covered to parking areas I do support.
1. Page 7 I are concerned that the statement,
"It is accepted that there always be exceptions or developments that have specific circumstanc that may warrant relaxation to the standards"
would allow developers to use it as an opportunity to ignore the parking standards. I understand the need for flexibility for developers to find creative ways in which to solve parking issues, but feel the statement provides too great an opportunity for developers to opt out. Perhaps a more appropriate statement might be to change the word "always" to" maybe"?
2. Garage width
I am pleased to note the enlarged space for a single car garage which allows enough room to open the car doors so that people with disabilities can disembark a car more easily.
3 Green space set aside as car parking space
I have two concerns related to the green space located for parking. Firstly they oppose the concept that land that has been identified as garden space can be converted into parking space. Secondly, we have concerns that, "green space" which has been allocated for parking, if it is required, may be used to extend a dwelling, so possibly meaning cars may result in being parked on the road so defeating the object of the document i.e keeping cars off the roads.
4. Double Garages
The idea that a double garage counts as single parking space seems to be a little muddled, for it accepts that part of the garage will be used for storage rather than parking. Why not get developers to create a storage area in the first place?
Secondly the proposed size of a double garage will provide opportunity for residents to convert it into a games room, another bedroom, a granny flat (as may single garages have been) all of whic may be reasonable but is counter the idea of reducing parking on the roads.
5. Increased use of land
I am also very concerned that by increasing the parking requirements and counting double garages as one space for parking purposes that this may lead to developers to ask for more land as they will be able to build less houses on a site.
For example, a development set aside for 65 homes with a large proportion of four bedroom houses would only be able to build approximately 52 dwellings. Would a developer therefore come back and ask/demand more land so that they could build the 65 properties so increasing the footprint of the site?
Yours sincerely,
Draft Parking Standards for New Developments
Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to make the following comments on the above document, but I would also like to thank the Central Beds for preparing this document. I feel that it should be seen in the context to trying to maintain green open space in developments and not allowing every inch of green space to be converted parking space. Though I disagree with much that Letchworth Garden City do with their restrictions on developments, their rules on no more than fifty percent any green space at a house hold being covered to parking areas I do support.
1. Page 7 I are concerned that the statement,
"It is accepted that there always be exceptions or developments that have specific circumstanc that may warrant relaxation to the standards"
would allow developers to use it as an opportunity to ignore the parking standards. I understand the need for flexibility for developers to find creative ways in which to solve parking issues, but feel the statement provides too great an opportunity for developers to opt out. Perhaps a more appropriate statement might be to change the word "always" to" maybe"?
2. Garage width
I am pleased to note the enlarged space for a single car garage which allows enough room to open the car doors so that people with disabilities can disembark a car more easily.
3 Green space set aside as car parking space
I have two concerns related to the green space located for parking. Firstly they oppose the concept that land that has been identified as garden space can be converted into parking space. Secondly, we have concerns that, "green space" which has been allocated for parking, if it is required, may be used to extend a dwelling, so possibly meaning cars may result in being parked on the road so defeating the object of the document i.e keeping cars off the roads.
4. Double Garages
The idea that a double garage counts as single parking space seems to be a little muddled, for it accepts that part of the garage will be used for storage rather than parking. Why not get developers to create a storage area in the first place?
Secondly the proposed size of a double garage will provide opportunity for residents to convert it into a games room, another bedroom, a granny flat (as may single garages have been) all of whic may be reasonable but is counter the idea of reducing parking on the roads.
5. Increased use of land
I am also very concerned that by increasing the parking requirements and counting double garages as one space for parking purposes that this may lead to developers to ask for more land as they will be able to build less houses on a site.
For example, a development set aside for 65 homes with a large proportion of four bedroom houses would only be able to build approximately 52 dwellings. Would a developer therefore come back and ask/demand more land so that they could build the 65 properties so increasing the footprint of the site?
Yours sincerely,
