S106 "Car Free" housing - prohibition on residents renting *private* parking?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    S106 "Car Free" housing - prohibition on residents renting *private* parking?

    Hi there - I have a question the s106 agreement in respect the development of a flat I'm looking to buy. It says:

    The Owner hereby covenants with the Council to ensure that the Residential Element shall for all purposes be treated as being designated as "car free" housing and prior to occupying any residential unit forming part of the Residential Element each new resident of the development is informed by the Owner of the Council's policy that they shall not be entitled... to be granted a Residents Parking Permit to park a vehicle in a Residents Parking bay and will not be able to buy a contract to park within any car park owner, controlled or licenced by the Counsil and the Owner for itself and its successors in title...

    The concerning part is around the wording about a car park being "licenced" by the council - would that refer to *any* car park within the council (even if privately owned)? I.e. essentially I wouldn't be able to buy a car and park it in on a long-term basis anywhere within the council?

    Thanks very much!

    #2
    Well you can park in a private drive or rent a LUG as long as it's not licensed, but it looks like the intention is to reduce traffic and keep it car free.

    Presumably there's a local car club and plenty of public transport in the area. ?

    Comment


      #3
      Thanks. Any idea what specifically it means for a car park to be licnesed by a council?

      I can understand the council not wanting allowing you a permit to access essentially subsidised parking, but it seems highly unusual to be prohibited from essentially renting space from a private landlord just because you live in a particular development.

      Comment


        #4
        Ask them at what point you get your free car.

        Comment


          #5
          Don’t buy the flat if you have a car

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by lek28 View Post
            I can understand the council not wanting allowing you a permit to access essentially subsidised parking, but it seems highly unusual to be prohibited from essentially renting space from a private landlord just because you live in a particular development.
            The intention would seem to be to keep temporary parking spaces temporary, and not reserved by a particular person.
            No doubt the council have an obligation to provide a particular number of 'non-exclusive' parking spaces in the borough? Either spaces on their own property or licenced to/from a third party.
            And no doubt such a licence will also forbid exclusive assignation of space(s).

            Not much point having a car park that's empty all day but can't be used because the 'exclusive renter' of a space may come back at any time and want to use it.

            All/most residential developments have to provide space for a certain amount of parking to get planning permission.
            It looks as if in this case that requirement has been waived provided that such a clause about (not) parking elswhere local was made mandatory on the residents.

            Presumably there is deemed to be adequate public transport available.

            There is nothing to stop you getting a car as long as you can find somewhere private to park it, or are willing to pay the normal, non-exclusive, fees on a public car park.

            Comment


              #7
              Personally I wouldn't buy a property with that clause, as it severely reduces the future value, unless the purchase price is considerably below the market average.

              Comment


                #8
                I wouldn't imagine that local authority licence private car parks, but I'd take professional advice, because the wording is quite ominous.
                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                Comment


                  #9
                  There was a case on this point. See here: https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/p...t-restrictions. Whether there has been any change in the law since I do not know. If there has not, whether such an obligation is enforceable would seem to depend on whether the property is in Greater London and, if it is, if the agreement was made under section 16 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Interesting find; and it appears to still be the case that s106 of the Town and County Act cannot be used to restrict access to parking or residents parking permits, although s16 of the Greater London Act can because of the different scope of the two Acts.

                    Parlimentary written question from June 2021: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans...-06-16.16841.h

                    Comment


                      #11
                      It's be interested in the outcome of this, how can the council restrict you or a future tenant from taking a contract with a private parking company say 0.5miles from your flat in a private car park?

                      I get they can restrict the parking on the development for which the permission is granted but if I owned a car park near your building I'd sell you a space, what am I meant to check with the council that it's OK if I rent you a car park space?!

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Dan_Manchester View Post
                        It's be interested in the outcome of this, how can the council restrict you or a future tenant from taking a contract with a private parking company say 0.5miles from your flat in a private car park?

                        I get they can restrict the parking on the development for which the permission is granted ....
                        That's exactly why s106 of the T&C Act was ruled not to be able to make such a restriction. The T&C act only applies to the property/development and not any surrounding area or amenities.

                        However the GL Act has wider powers relating to traffic management, so such a restriction can be made on property developments that come under the GL Act.

                        Your point about just how such a restriction would be checked and enforced is valid, I guess that's up to GL council.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Similarly, in my city, many planning permissions have been granted with the condition that the rental leases for the properties will prohibit the occupiers from parking a car within a 2 mile radius of the property.
                          Can a residential lease dictate the tenant's behaviour outside the property that is being leased?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            That's a weird one. I guess a landlord can put whatever he wants in a lease but that would clearly be unreasonable and unenforceable - the tenant would be in immediate breach as soon as they parked a car club car outside to move in
                            Is this some special development like student accommodation ? What about owner occupiers , are they forbidden from parking too ?
                            This seems to be beyond local authority's remit and raises a lot of questions ......

                            Comment


                              #15
                              The problem here is that if a developer wants to create more dwellings by infilling or subdivision and the proposals do not include on site parking, the planning authority may not wish to grant planning permission on the grounds that there is insufficient on road parking space available. Some developers, faced with the possibility of either no development at all or a less profitable development with on site parking, went for the section 106 route with conditions such as those under discussion. Looked at from that perspective it all looks very reasonable.

                              I wonder how many planning authorities outside Greater London are now declining to grant planning permissions they would have granted with a section 106 agreement. It is a tricky problem with no immediately apparent solution. Even if the section 106 agreements were valid it is difficult to see how they could be enforced.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X