parking rights, apparant conflict

[fourtwentyfour]

My new build on-street property has a marked layby for me, and other properties, initially within the plot, and the transfer stated that I have a right to park. I assume that the planning permission was granted on the basis of parking being available for the site.

At completion the Council adopted the layby such that it became part of the road, and their agreement stated that the public have a right to park. This now means at times I cannot park and sometimes there is a large van under my window.

I believe that the planning permission was invalidated by the adoption agreement as I cannot exercise my right to park if the space is occupied, so effectively the house was built without parking being available, if that were a condition.

I would like some advice, if anyone knows about planning law or guidelines, or where might I go for a definite answer to find out if parking spaces are a requirement for a new-build and if the permission was breached by the adoption, and a possible solution. The local authority don't seem to want to help me with the matter.

My two possible routes to an answer are a firm of planners who might know the law regarding planning permission and the requirement for parking spaces, and a law firm who might advise on the conflict between the transfer and the adoption agreement.

I have approached a planning firm but the response was less than helpful, maybe a conflict of (their) interest with the advice and the local authority whom they may work with, or a lack of clarity in the planning law?

I am not sure how a firm of solicitors might react, I feel it might be a little complicated for them such that they might not be interested? The initial conveyancer does not respond helpfully.

Thanks.

[quelquod]

The nub of your argument is that you are assuming that planning permission was conditional on private parking being provided. I think you might have difficulty proving this in the first place. Following that you say that you have a ‘right’ to park in that particular space though it’s perhaps not exclusive. You still do even though on occasions someone else has exercised their corresponding right which temporarily prevents you. It sounds a real pain, but I feel that you would have to demonstrate that the parking place was originally part of your freehold which has been taken away to stand much chance. AFAIAW it’s pretty normal for councils to adopt roadways (including lay-bys, parking and loading bays and the like).

[fourtwentyfour]

Thank you for your reply.

"....I feel that you would have to demonstrate that the parking place was originally part of your freehold which has been taken away to stand much chance."

The building site contained the land for the houses and the parking layby in a rectangle immediately adjacent to a local road, with no pavement in-between. So it was in the site freehold.

The individual plot land certificates show the plots excluding the new footpath and layby, but with a right to use. The layby is inset into the site, adjacent to the road. The layby was bought, as part of the site, by the developer and later given to the council as part of the adoption agreement. So the layby is not within the plot freehold.

I am not sure if this satisfies your query and helps me or not?

[JohnB]

Are you after sole rights to park in a particular part of the layby, or merely that you and your neighbours have collectively rights to the layby as a whole? Are you seeking a 'residents only' notice, or mechanism to stop other residents crowding you out?

[fourtwentyfour]

Yes, I would like sole right to park outside my house, but collective rights for the neighbours would be ok, as a compromise, I guess.

Residents only would be acceptable, although the mechanism for getting that could not work due to the way the rules are structured, ie much of the time residents cars are present which seems to nullify the application. To be more precise, residents being there much of the time seems ok, to the council, but anyone blocking a space is a problem to us.

Oh, I see the point you are making, no, other residents are not a problem, just passing traffic that chooses to fill our spaces.

[scrumpyjack]

I suppose the problem is that as now that the land has been adopted by the Local Authority, public funds are being used to maintain it, so it may be hard to argue that the public should not be able to use it.

You say the plan shows that the lay by does not belong to you but you have the right to use it. You still have that right, but unfortunately so does every one else!

[quelquod]

Thank you for your reply.

"....I feel that you would have to demonstrate that the parking place was originally part of your freehold which has been taken away to stand much chance."

The building site contained the land for the houses and the parking layby in a rectangle immediately adjacent to a local road, with no pavement in-between. So it was in the site freehold.

I am not sure if this satisfies your query and helps me or not?

I don’t feel that really advances your case. It’s common for larger development plans to include the likes of roads, footpaths and even car parks in the “site freehold” which are subsequently adopted by the council by agreement with the developer and don’t belong or imply any rights to house buyers/residents. It’s still my view that unless the parking space was included in your own freehold, or the deeds specifically refer to a residents-only parking area that you haven’t much of a case. As mentioned before you’ve not lost any rights, only a shared semi-exclusivity. I think if there were exclusive rights there would be a clause in your deeds.

[Infrasonic]

Apply for a residents only permit scheme with the council, (first hit from Google)...https://www.trafford.gov.uk/residents/t ... rking.aspx

You'll probably have to 'persuade' them of your need, fight dirty and use the local press if necessary.
If it isn't a major issue for you and all of your neighbours then you'd be unlikely to succeed.

[fourtwentyfour]

Ok, thanks again.

Given the right to park for anyone, in the adoption agreement, there seems no point in having the resident's right to park in the transfer, as the residents would be covered by the adoption agreement.

So the question is, why was that right present in the transfer, if there was no use in having it?

I can guess that it was there because there was an intention that the spaces were for residents only, or that there was a requirement to show an intention for private parking at an early stage in order to have planning permission granted?

[JohnB]

Why do non-residents park there? If the planning permission required a certain number of spaces, it may be just to maintain the status quo for parking supply and demand, and if the council judged it to not need residents parking before, your concerns may not sway them. Residents parking schemes are often unpopular because of the cost and the fiddle of permits and guest permits, so unless the problem is severe you probably wont't get much traction from your neighbours

[SteelCamel]

Ok, thanks again.
Given the right to park for anyone, in the adoption agreement, there seems no point in having the resident's right to park in the transfer, as the residents would be covered by the adoption agreement.
So the question is, why was that right present in the transfer, if there was no use in having it?

Yes, they would - but only after that agreement was signed. Did any of the residents use the layby before it was adopted? If so they were using the right in their transfer. Even if they didn't, the developers may have put that clause there in case the adoption agreement took longer than expected to go through.

I can guess that it was there because there was an intention that the spaces were for residents only, or that there was a requirement to show an intention for private parking at an early stage in order to have planning permission granted?

Planning permissions are public documents - you can download it from your Council's website to see what the terms were. If the planning permission doesn't include a requirement for private parking, then there doesn't have to be private parking.

[fourtwentyfour]

Thanks to everyone. You have given me something to think about...