Parking? Should it be a free-for-all?

Can someone explain Parking Provisions as they relate to Planning Regulations to me?

On-road 'parking' is raised as one of the most contentious subjects in Whitchurch and creates a wide range of opinions from many different viewpoints. Many believe that more should be provided, while others argue the opposite.

What is generally agreed by Planning rules is that new housing should have space for vehicles incorporated, so as not to add pressures to our over-crowded road systems. Roads are in place primarily for the movement of people and goods, including for personal travel, commercial services and emergency vehicles. They are not provided as private parking spaces, although some have specific areas allocated for parking.

As a result there are Planning standards laid down for incorporation of off-road parking into developments. This may be in the form of garage spaces or off-road hard-standings, or a combination of both.

So what happens when someone wants to convert a garage (a vehicle space) into a bedroom or office and they then submit a planning application?

I have no problems with such conversions except that they displace 'parking/vehicle' spaces – but should not part of a planning application require the provision of a replacement off-road space?

Or doesn't it matter?

Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council seem to think not as they have allowed such applications, which add more pressure to our roads.

So if it doesn't matter, why do we have any standards being imposed in the first place?

Which raises the question: Should parking be a complete free-for-all?

Remember that pothole?

UPDATE 12th April 2015.
Remember that Evingar Road pothole that Hampshire County Council had claimed they had fixed – but hadn't? Previous article:  FIXING THOSE POTHOLES

After apparently carrying out the work, saying they had fixed the pothole, it STILL looked like this:

I decided to follow up this unacceptable misinformation with our County Councillor Tom Thacker.

I was pleased to receive the following response:

**********************
20th March 2015

Dear John,

Having had a look at the photograph on your attachment, highway engineers have located the pothole in question... [and] ...this morning have raised an order for the pothole to be repaired.
This should be done by Monday 24 March at the latest. (my emphasis)

Kind Regards

Tom T

**********************

It is now April 12th and have Hampshire carried out the work as Councillor Thacker had promised?

NO.

This picture was taken TODAY, 12th April, - compare it to the one above:

Nothing – zilch - has been done. Zero; nothing.

This pothole and road surface is potentially lethal and could easily throw someone off a cycle or motorbike, and could possibly damage motor vehicles too.
In fact it is now getting worse with considerable amounts of loose grit now being thrown on to the pavement and a further hole developing.
Hampshire County Council continue to claim to have fixed it while road users lives continue to remain at risk.

Meanwhile we are also paying for our roads to be maintained.

Housing in Whitchurch – Local views ignored

Most local people will be aware of the planning application that was made for housing on the Bloswood Lane allotments in Whitchurch.

The owners, the Hospital of St Cross, had applied for permission to build 34 houses on this very special site.

The Whitchurch Town Council opposed the development,

• so did the Whitchurch Neighbourhood Plan team,
• so did the local Borough Councillor,
• so did Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council,
• so too did many residents,
• as did many allotment holders themselves.

BUT – Despite this overwhelming local opposition a Government Inspector dismissed all these objections and has allowed the building to proceed.

This is a real sad decision for the town and for local democracy and shows we ALL need to work together against awful decisions like this that over-ride Whitchurch wishes.

So much for localism.

With a national election coming up I hope our candidates will be thinking hard about how they will represent local views.

THEY SHOULD BE ASKED