Forum Topic

No worries regarding the confusion re. the clarification.Regarding the lack of parking, from a personal perspective I'm not sure this would be an issue.  Yes 38 units are proposed but it's a town centre site with medium access to public transport, and also the vast majority of surrounding streets are covered by a CPZ on Mondays to Saturdays.As I've said before we need to get away from the mistaken belief many people have in London that we all need cars.  Nor should developments always provide parking as the only way to solve congestion and traffic pollution problems is by reducing the number of cars on the road and improving public transport services and the quality of cycling and pedestrian facilities.During my typical working week I drive, I cycle, I walk and I use public transport as part of both my daily commute and my business related journeys.  I've never lived anywhere where I couldn't park my car off-street, and nor would I, because I'd hate the worry and inconvenience of not knowing whether or not I'm going to be able to park near my home.  And I do think that is a very persuasive factor when people with cars come to deciding where to live, or indeed for people to reconsider whether they actually really need a car or nor - often it's a underused luxury rather than a necessary essential.The development does provide for 42 cycle spaces and through a legal agreement occupiers wouldn't be able to apply for a CPZ permit, which given the fact the CPZ times of operation include Saturday would make life difficult for those occupiers with a car.The only 'flaw' I see in the application on parking grounds is that the parking survey provided doesn't include data for the evenings (only covers the period from midnight until 5pm) which to me (as a planner not a transport consultant) is somewhat flaw because there's no assessment of on-street parking demand in the locality when the CPZ has ceased operation for the day (at 18.30) and people are returning home from work.

Adam Beamish ● 3973d