Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.

[platinumsage]

 

[gosub]

It’s all new build so how about if you don’t have room for the car live somewhere else or don’t have it rather than killing people.

Here’s the estate - if this doesn’t have enough parking god help us.

View attachment 297984

I note that this topic is even too low for Saul & Spy to get involved with.

I suspect it was the couple would used his space (and while not sure of the assalents personal circumstances ) if he'd been in a relationship his other half might have stopped doing something so tragically insane.

Either way the help to buy mortgages type stuff can only be taken out on new builds so may well have had no options

 

[edcraw]

Sorry, what's the point you're trying to make?

It seems you're using a double murder to further some issue you have with planning permissions.

 

[platinumsage]

Sorry, what's the point you're trying to make?

It seems you're using a double murder to further some issue you have with planning permissions.

I did nothing of the sort. Meanwhile you’re persistently bringing up the details of the case on this thread and messing with quotes etc to engage in some sort of banter, perhaps you should take a look at yourself because it’s not funny.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Sorry, what's the point you're trying to make?

It seems you're using a double murder to further some issue you have with planning permissions.

Fucking around with quotes is both fucking sad, and against the rules.

Grow the fuck up.

 

[edcraw]

I did nothing of the sort. Meanwhile you’re persistently bringing up the details of the case on this thread and messing with quotes etc to engage in some sort of banter, perhaps you should take a look at yourself because it’s not funny.

Okay, what point are you making by bringing up this case?

 

[Spymaster]

I note that this topic is even too low for Saul & Spy to get involved with.

 

[teuchter]

But not for you seemingly.

Speaking in general terms, as I did earlier and unlike you who seem keen on screenshots of the victims' house - if a family are living in a house with only one parking space their circumstances can change so that they both require a car to get to work for example (e.g. perhaps a bus route is changed). The fact planners expect such people to be unemployed or move house is pretty pathetic.

Why such a different approach to number of dedicated parking spaces than, say, number of bedrooms?

But in any case it looks like there's loads of on street parking a few minutes walk away.

 

[platinumsage]

Why such a different approach to number of dedicated parking spaces than, say, number of bedrooms?

But in any case it looks like there's loads of on street parking a few minutes walk away.

I’m not aware that any planning departments seek to limit the size of families by specifying a maximum number of bedrooms that is well below that required by the average family.

 

[teuchter]

I’m not aware that any planning departments seek to limit the size of families by specifying a maximum number of bedrooms that is well below that required by the average family.

The average number of cars per household in the UK is 1.2. Here they specify a maximum average of 1.5 dedicated spaces per household. If someone buys a house with one dedicated parking space, and then find they need a second car, parking that car immediately at their front door is not necessary for their survival, nor does having to walk a short distance to their second car mean that they have to move house. So what's the problem exactly?

 

[Pickman's model]

I’m not aware that any planning departments seek to limit the size of families by specifying a maximum number of bedrooms that is well below that required by the average family.

your awareness of things isn't the criterion here

 

[platinumsage]

The average number of cars per household in the UK is 1.2. Here they specify a maximum average of 1.5 dedicated spaces per household. If someone buys a house with one dedicated parking space, and then find they need a second car, parking that car immediately at their front door is not necessary for their survival, nor does having to walk a short distance to their second car mean that they have to move house. So what's the problem exactly?

You think new-build estates should have the number of parking spaces restricted to such an extent that people park in surrounding streets? That would be a policy with no benefit and numerous negative effects.

Using your bedrooms analogy, the average household size is 2.39, so three-bedroom houses would be banned. Should couples with more than one child make them sleep in a tent in a nearby park?

 

[teuchter]

You think new-build estates should have the number of parking spaces restricted to such an extent that people park in surrounding streets? That would be a policy with no benefit and numerous negative effects.

If people park in large numbers in surrounding streets in areas which already have high parking pressure yes this could be a problem. However, if you provide a development that provides a level of dedicated parking that is broadly in line with the average level of car ownership, then the overflow to surrounding streets is likely to be modest and not especially problematic. In this case, looking at Google streetview would appear to confirm this.

Making it slightly inconvenient but not impossible for people who buy a house with one dedicated parking space, to own an additional car, has benefits in providing a disincentive to own more cars than is really necessary.

It is also an alternative to the negative effects of policy which simply provides as much dedicated parking as the free market dictates, which creates sprawling suburban development that makes public transport even more feasible, and disadvantages those who don't have the option of owning a car.

 

[teuchter]

Using your bedrooms analogy, the average household size is 2.39, so three-bedroom houses would be banned. Should couples with more than one child make them sleep in a tent in a nearby park?

Under your free market approach to planning policy, we would not have any planning policy on dwelling size mix, which in many places seeks to retain houses suitable for family occupation, because the most profitable dwelling sizes for developers are often one and two bed flats. So, you'd have families squashed into undersized properties or barred from areas popular with demographics looking for small flats.

 

[Teaboy]

Under a free market approach there is no way volume house builders would waste space on additional parking spaces. They are far too savvy for that and know full well how to maximise their capital return and parking spaces are most certainly not it.

You do get small scale developers (plots of 10 homes and below) who seem to think every house needs space for 4 cars but these are rare and reflect the personality of the small scale developer mostly.

 

[Spymaster]

Under a free market approach there is no way volume house builders would waste space on additional parking spaces. They are far too savvy for that and know full well how to maximise their capital return and parking spaces are most certainly not it.

You do get small scale developers (plots of 10 homes and below) who seem to think every house needs space for 4 cars but these are rare and reflect the personality of the small scale developer mostly.

You should pay heed to what Teaboy says teuchter

 

[teuchter]

Under a free market approach there is no way volume house builders would waste space on additional parking spaces. They are far too savvy for that and know full well how to maximise their capital return and parking spaces are most certainly not it.

You do get small scale developers (plots of 10 homes and below) who seem to think every house needs space for 4 cars but these are rare and reflect the personality of the small scale developer mostly.

The economics will depend completely on the locality surely. If there are no scenarios where developers were inclined to provide 2 or more parking places per dwelling, why do we have planning policies which state maximums per dwelling?

 

[Teaboy]

The economics will depend completely on the locality surely. If there are no scenarios where developers were inclined to provide 2 or more parking places per dwelling, why do we have planning policies which state maximums per dwelling?

The locality is of course important but planning laws have to apply to all. It's those smaller developers and historical issues rather than what the likes of Persimmon are building these days.

 

[Spymaster]

The locality is of course important but planning laws have to apply to all. It's those smaller developers and historical issues rather than what the likes of Persimmon are building these days.

Teuchter completely on the ropes here

 

[teuchter]

The locality is of course important but planning laws have to apply to all. It's those smaller developers and historical issues rather than what the likes of Persimmon are building these days.

Not sure what your point is. There are scenarios where I'm sure developers would provide 2 or more places per dwelling given free reign, and there are scenarios where they wouldn't. Which category this development in Taunton would fall into, I don't know. In any case this all started with platinumsage saying that the problems there spring from planners failing to allow people to have as much parking as they want.

Also, planning policy has to apply to all but is frequently different according to the location, especially as far as things like parking provision are concerned.

 

[edcraw]

 

[cupid_stunt]

What a load of bollocks ^. just what we expect from edcraw.

 

[teuchter]

It's not - that's quite an accurate description of what it's like when you are with car people, even if it's an American version.

I guess car people don't realise what their lives look like from the outside.

 

[Spymaster]

It's not - that's quite an accurate description of what it's like when you are with car people, even if it's an American version.

I guess car people don't realise what their lives look like from the outside.

Teaboy was right and you were wrong.

 

[cupid_stunt]

It's not - that's quite an accurate description of what it's like when you are with car people, even if it's an American version.

I guess car people don't realise what their lives look like from the outside.

Your endorsement just confirms it's bollocks.

 

[platinumsage]

It's not - that's quite an accurate description of what it's like when you are with car people, even if it's an American version.

I guess car people don't realise what their lives look like from the outside.

Try re-running it when the car-free rural farmer is trying to get to A&E, or the car-free urban pedestrian is trying to take their child to a forest camp.

 

[edcraw]

What a load of bollocks ^. just what we expect from edcraw.

Amazing take down, really well put.

 

[edcraw]

Your endorsement just confirms it's bollocks.

Another excellent explanation, great stuff

 

[Aladdin]

I can see why edcraw doesn't use cars.
Nobody would want to share a ride with him.
He's a total absolute bore.
Good lord..I mean I bet he whinges to other passengers on the bus as he sticks his tongue out at the drivers. Probably banned to the back seat.

 

[edcraw]

I can see why edcraw doesn't use cars.
Nobody would want to share a ride with him.
He's a total absolute bore.
Good lord..I mean I bet he whinges to other passengers on the bus as he sticks his tongue out at the drivers. Probably banned to the back seat.

From what I see most people using cars aren’t sharing a ride so I should be okay