The problem started when the developer sold their properties with something of a Utopian dream; the vision being an environmentally friendly estate with a road free of cars.
However, to avoid the guaranteed objections by residents in the already congested Petersfield area, and in order to get their planning application approved, the developer made reassurances including proposing on-street parking for residents since the available off-street parking spaces did not add up to the ratio required by the Council (see below).
When reality struck, and people started to park around the estate, the poor home buyer who had paid a fortune for their home was dismayed to see that the vision they had been sold was not a reality and a division was formed amongst the residents; one group not accepting anything less than total parking restrictions and the other group mainly consisting of those left with no parking space, namely Granta Housing residents and those with more than one car/ or frequent visitors. This has created ill feeling in the estate between the two groups over the years, and has not been helped by the Steering Group who have continuously harrassed residents who are parked on the road with their threatening notices.
To understand the extent of the parking problem one needs to take a look at the facts and figures.
The development consists of 88 houses and 122 flats. Four of the flats are located in New Street with four allocated off-street parking spaces behind the flats.
A total of 191 parking spaces are supposed to serve all the 210 dwellings according to the approved planning application with the potential for additional on-street parking within the development in the form of a Resident's Parking Scheme subject to a TRO.
Within the current paradigm that all new developments must provide 'on site' parking because new residents cannot join a local Residents Parking scheme.
In the planning application, the developer claimed to have provided the ratio of 1 parking space for every 0.9 dwelling units, in line with Council development guidelines, which proved not to be the case.
The fact that the developer has denied all 38 Granta Housing units any parking spaces on the development and forced the residents of these units to park on surounding streets makes the actual ratio of 1 parking space for every 0.73 dwelling units, this is well below the development guidelines and it is questionable how the Council Planning department allowed the developer to get away with this.
If the allocation is 1 to 1 for the privately owned properties this leaves 19 parking spaces to spare that are in the control of the management company and its employees, in addition to the few properties that do not have a car. One should not, therefore, be surprised to find available parking spaces for rent advertised locally!
What also defies all governmental policies and standards is that there are 2, 3 and 4 bedroom family houses with not a single parking space where there are parking spaces for 1 bedrom flats and many to spare/rent.
Maybe some owners are completely against on-street parking because it will have a negative impact on their lucrative business of renting out car spaces!
