Car parking spaces.

[Temp]

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/under-30-car-parking-spaces-29650204.amp

 

Just 1 per 3 flats, and they ain't retirement flats.

 

Quote

 

A developer has won a fight to cut the number of car parking spaces at a new development on the edge of Cambridge by nearly half. A planning inspector allowed the appeal to reduce the spaces after they said 26 spaces and two car club spaces would be enough for the 80 new homes due to be built off Neal Drive in Orchard Park.

 

This was despite acknowledging there are existing issues with pavement parking in the area and an increase in car ownership. Plans to build the new flats were originally approved back in 2020. The proposals at that point planned for there to be 47 car parking spaces with some included in an underground car park.

 

However, the developer, Cammaro Limited, wanted to remove the underground car park and cut the number of car parking spaces to 26 parking spaces and two car club spaces. South Cambridgeshire District Council refused to give permission to the developer to do this when it considered the changes back in September 2023.

 

A representative of the developer told councillors at the time that they wanted to reduce the number of car parking spaces based on evidence that there was less demand for parking in build to rent schemes. However, councillors said they could not support the plans to nearly half the number of spaces, arguing it would have a “detrimental” impact on the area highlighting the existing parking problems faced in Orchard Park.

 

The developer appealed to the planning inspectorate to try and overturn this decision. The planning inspector said they acknowledged that the number of spaces approved originally was below the district council’s policy requirements, and therefore the reduction would fall further short of policy.

 

However, they said the cut would be ok taking into account the car club spaces, which they said the highways authority equated to around 12 parking spaces. They said: “Given the evidence, the proposed number of parking spaces along with car club spaces would provide adequate levels of parking for the development. Therefore the proposals would provide adequate provision of car parking for future occupiers.”

 

The planning inspector added that the development site was in a “sustainable location” with a number of facilities and services within walking distance. Therefore they said they did not believed the development would result in an “unacceptable effect on highway safety” and said a £10,000 contribution towards measures to prevent parking on junctions and footways with 200metres of the site was “not necessary”.

 

Continues.

 

 

 

 

[ProDave]

I hope nobody buys them.  I would not.

[Alan Ambrose]

Yeah, you can bet that all the planners and the inspectors own cars and have places to park them, thank you.

 

I met a guy recently who designs cycleways in London and whose job involved removing road space for buses and cars, sometimes ending up with ridiculously big pavement areas. 'We should all be moving to sustainable transport he said'.

 

Yeah somewhat true for the younger and more physically able segments of society - but what about parents with young kids / old people who are not strong enough to be thrown around in buses / delivery vans / contractors who need to take their van and tools to site / people who need to pick up heavy or bulky stuff that they can't take on public transport etc etc etc. Yep, no provision for them.

[ProDave]

It's all about the misconception that we can transition to net zero / sustainability without any negative impact on our lifestyle.

 

Starting with we can all swap to ev's and they are just as good as an ICE car.  No in many ways they are not.

 

We can all switch to heat pumps for heating.  Well you can under the right circumstances with the right upgrades but that is not always easy or affordable.

 

We can all switch to cycling.  Well you can for short journeys but that won't help most with a 20 mile commute to work each day.  Cue they want us all to live in 15 minute cities.

 

You don't need a car parking space because you should not be thinking about owning your own car when you can have a bicycle and use public tranport.

 

Yes I accept we have to reduce our use on fossil fuel etc, but what irks me is the LIE  we can do it with no impact on our lifestyle.  I would have a LOT more respect for the people planning this, if they were just honest and had a grown up conversation with is, that not only do we need to change how we do things, we need to change WHAT we do and that means travelling less and doing less, which for most of us means our lives will be a lot less fulfilling.

[MikeSharp01]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

that not only do we need to change how we do things, we need to change WHAT we do and that means

Yes we should build fast reliable railways with cheap fares so we don't need to drive places.

[Kelvin]

My son (25) doesn’t drive and has no interest in learning. He works in London and commutes in by train. About a third of his friends can’t drive either and more than half don’t own a car. Car ownership is trending downward. Cambridge is relatively well set up to commute by public transport or cycle. 

[saveasteading]

7 hours ago, ProDave said:

I would not.

I think it is ok to build these 

IF

they are in a substantial and self contained town or city, with good access to all facilities by public transport or on foot.

AND they sign a contract acknowledging that they won't have  a car, and that agreement is enforceable.

AND that the Town Plan is somehow able to ensure that services remain in place.

 

People buying them will pay a fair bit less because of the cost of the parking space. They will have bought into the concept.

 

Anyway, people with nice cars generally want to see them out of the front window, or know they are secure,  and will not park them a street away.

[ProDave]

9 hours ago, saveasteading said:

People buying them will pay a fair bit less because of the cost of the parking space. They will have bought into the concept.

I very much doubt they will pay less.

 

A long time ago now, when I was looking for my first house, I saw a Victorian terrace house for sale.  It was not in a village but just a row of houses out on their own, fronting right onto a busy road, no off road parking, the only parking was a public car park about 200 metres away.  I looked up the details expecting it to be cheap because of the lack of parking and inconvenient location.  My bubble was burst very quickly when I saw the silly money being asked, and presumably someone paid for it.

[SteamyTea]

These places are rentals.

 

So may well be rented out to the 'hard to home' people.

 

In a developing country we call these ghettos.

[saveasteading]

36 minutes ago, ProDave said:

much doubt they will pay less.

It must affect perceived value if enough, like you, don't consider them.

Omitting parking saves cost. The market decides whether that is more profit or a lower price or both.

 

I wasn't being cynical although the multiple conditions may suggest that.

In attractive, self contained places like Edinburgh, there are tens of thousands of people who live centrally in nice flats and don't need or have a car. 

In the suburbs it is quicker to take a bus to town than to drive.

A reliable bus service with bus priority is an important factor.

 

[SteamyTea]

Does beg the question where the fire engine will turn around.

[Adrian Walker]

5 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Does beg the question where the fire engine will turn around.

That is the least of any developers worries, worst case is sprinklers or misting system. 

[markocosic]

This lands is in "South Cambs" legally for council tax / planning but functionally it's in "Cambridge City"

 

My place is down the road from here. I've had dozens of lodgers over the years. Only two have had cars. None have been nice cars. Many have had nice bikes. Often worth more than the average car.

 

The folks with nice cars are the working class folks with families; and they'll not be living here; they'll be living in Cambourne etc and commuting. Old money has a beat up old Volvo / Merc estate. The only difference between these and no money is how much work the car needs for the MOT and how expensve the dog inside it is.

 

I have a car; for visiting family in Rugby/Corby or for when work demands a bunch of stuff be moved.

 

It otherwise sits there rusting on the driveway. Pushbike for anything/everything in Cambridge; hop on the train to London or Stansted for everything else.

 

We also once had an office in Orchard Park. (Future Business Centre)

 

The only people who park in Orchard Park are the "park and ride" crowd. (see: Cambourne) They'll come thumping in off the A14, abandon car in Orchard Park to the infuriation of the half dozen people living there who actually have cars; then catch the bus into the city or dig the Brompton out the boot. Many are BMWs, Teslas, etc (knobbers from the provinces - you karens and tesco store managers etc) parking on the pavements)

 

30 spaces is absolutely ok here. The infrastructure not to need cars exists. They should be underground though because car parks are fugly. 

 

Planners are right but wrong to allow it. Bury the cars underground. And put in bloody nice secure bicycle storage underground whilst your'e at it; so that you're not dragging £10k bikes up into the flats.

[SteamyTea]

17 minutes ago, markocosic said:

This lands is in "South Cambs" legally for council tax / planning but functionally it's in "Cambridge City"

Back in the 1980's, had a girlfriend that moved to Cambridge, the place was so (expletive deleted)ing backwards that on a Sunday you needed a car as nothing was ever open.

 

[markocosic]

2 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Back in the 1980's, had a girlfriend that moved to Cambridge, the place was so (expletive deleted)ing backwards that on a Sunday you needed a car as nothing was ever open.

 

Sadly on Sundays it's now the cars coming into the city from the provinces to shop at the fancy shops on the high street that aren't in the surrounding towns and villages.

[Kelvin]

Cambridge has a good park and ride facility. I always used when I lived in Cambridgeshire. 

[mjc55]

On 02/08/2024 at 22:36, Kelvin said:

My son (25) doesn’t drive and has no interest in learning. He works in London and commutes in by train. About a third of his friends can’t drive either and more than half don’t own a car. Car ownership is trending downward. Cambridge is relatively well set up to commute by public transport or cycle. 

 

London is a very different place in comparison to most areas when it comes to public transport.  I have never lived there personally but both kids have and our niece also.  They rarely used cars to move around relying on the public transport.

[Kelvin]

He’s lived in Leeds and Manchester too. Was the same there. 

[LSB]

On 02/08/2024 at 22:36, Kelvin said:

My son (25) doesn’t drive and has no interest in learning. He works in London and commutes in by train. About a third of his friends can’t drive either and more than half don’t own a car. Car ownership is trending downward. Cambridge is relatively well set up to commute by public transport or cycle. 

my daughters partner doesn't drive and isn't interested in learning.

that is until he needs to get somewhere and she isn't available to taxi him.

it's feasible to reduce the no. of cars, but we need the public transport for evenings / weekends / emergencies without having to get expensive taxis.

another daughter came to stay and couldn't believe that we have no uber here and that's East Anglia