Parking – Object!

Parking It looks as if we are not going to win this one:

Update – unfortunately, it looks as if they definitely win on parking: Someone found this in the London plan:

After reading the planing statement it says with regards to car parking and the PTAL that “ 6.11.12 Policy T6.1 (London Plan) states that “these standards are a hierarchy with the more restrictive standard applying when a Sitefalls into more than one category”, so the development should be car free.”

This might not be the best reason to challenge the development on.

=============================================================

Here’s what we thought initially:

The London Plan T6 states that wherever possible, developments should be car free, but the residential parking required or permitted is dependent on PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) rating.

Hadley say that the site is mostly in PTAL 5 where no parking is required. See map below – the site is split betwen PTAL 4 and 5:

Here are the maximum parking spaces recommended in the London Plan:

The Bromley Plan 4.0.8 states:

4.0.8 The use of the minimum standards in Table 1 uses the flexibility provided by the
London Plan to ensure that, as far as possible, parking at new developments is sufficient.

We need to determine the number of units in the PTAL 4 sector, and their number of bedrooms. Based on that, the number of required parking spaces can be calculated.

In addition, the current PTAL rating was created before the train services in the area were drastically cut. Clearly there are grounds to appeal the rating, which would change the validity of the plans altogether.

Currently, the Hadley proposal will mean almost no parking anywhere in Penge. Everywhere will be residents only, and if you live in the new towers you won’t be allowed to have a permit. If you are a business and your trade will be affected, you may have further grounds to object.. Take a survey of your customers and present it as evidence that no parking=no bizz.