New parking standards for housing developments

I felt really depressed at today’s County Council Cabinet meeting.

My feelings had nothing to do with the paper that I had to present on the outcome of this year's budget to the end of September;  (£3million overspent on a budget of over £500m, but improving as the year progresses).

I was upset by the agenda item about guidance on the number of car parking spaces that builders will in future need to provide in new housing developments in the County.  In the past the County Council have insisted on a minimum of 1.5 car spaces per dwelling regardless of the size of the house.  Of course where developers have wanted to they have provided more, but in many cases the minimum standard has been adhered to.  This has resulted is some appalling situations for home owners, where the lack of sufficient provision has resulted in  a chaotic car parking situation, and in some cases serious neighbour issues, as inconsiderate parking has caused unpleasantness.

So relating the number of car parking spaces to the size of the houses can only be seen as an improvement, and a change long overdue.  Although smaller properties will only get one space, a three bedroom house will qualify for two, and a four bedroom house, three.  In addition visitor spaces of 0.25 to each house on a development will be required.  This means that overall more car parking spaces must be provided, and developments will be all the better for it.  Garage sizes are also to be larger, meaning that more people might actually use them as places to put the car rather than general storeage.

This all seems a good thing, so why was I depressed?  A year or so ago I argued strongly that the car parking arrangements at the new development at the Armorex Site in Lavenham were totally inadequate for the number of properties proposed.  I predicted, and continue to predict, the sort of parking mayhem at the site that these new rules are designed to avoid.  Sadly my concerns were ignored by both the planners and the Development Committee.

If the plans were to be submitted now it would be a different matter and a much better development would have been the outcome.  What a pity that the application did not come later, and fall under these new rules.