New homes could be created with extra car parking space across Castle Point in a bid to unclutter the streets.Up until now, in an effort to ensure that Gaia isn’t unnecessarily troubled by these car-driving plebs, the maximum (in order to secure planning permission) has been 1.5.
The borough council is backing proposing that would see all new two-bedroom homes have a minimum of two parking spaces.
With the inevitable result that the roads clog up with the home owners ‘excess’ cars, because who the hell has .5 of a car?
The council is also championing a number of other methods to ease parking congestion, including larger garages to cater for modern cars and larger parking bays for cars parked on the road.Well, well, well. Looks like at least one council is realising that the progressive’s dreams of conformity butt up against reality and….reality wins hands down.
This is particularly refreshing:
Steve Rogers, the council’s head of regeneration and homes, said: “Maximum car parking levels do not reflect the actual ways residents use their homes and cars.A council official with a level head and a pragmatic approach to problems? Who is prepared to throw out the dogma when reality deals it a good shoeing, rather than persevere?
“To continue will simply lead to more on-street car parking and will result in congestion.”
I feel like I’ve just spotted some rare beast, long presumed extinct. Quick! Someone set up a captive breeding programme…
5 comments:
A council official with a level head and a pragmatic approach to problems?
He's doomed, of course, when the Greens get in, the poor sod.
Still, let's enjoy this brief interlude of sanity now we can...
This man is obviously a dangerous extremist. Sea levels rose an inch after he spoke.
Sure you weren't reading the Daily Mash?
"...let's enjoy this brief interlude of sanity now we can..."
Oh, for sure!
"This man is obviously a dangerous extremist."
Indeed. In the States, he'd probably be on some kind of watch list for such non-progressive speech....
"Sure you weren't reading the Daily Mash?"
Nah, too outlandish even for them!
This all sounds good, and I am sure has created some good publicity for the council; but the "maximum of 1.5 per property" rule is imposed by central gov't in revised PPG (and successor) documents. This was one of John Precott's moves when he was Deputy Prime Minister, and I do not believe it has been revoked since.
The problem will come when a developer is refused planning permission because of inadequate parking, by keeping to the PPG3 (now a PPS), and then taking the refusing to appeal at the Planning Inspectorate at Bristol.
If that happens, I'd guess that the appeal would be upheld and the council's 2-per-property stipulation found to be unlawful (or equivalent).
I hope not; but I have seen too many such applications refused on such grounds and then allowed by the Inspector, over the years since that and other planning rules (dressed up as "guidance") were changed by Prescott.
Post a Comment