Today's most viewed
WALTHAM FOREST: Car-free projects 'a complete waste of time'
 |
| Cllr Alan Siggers is not convinced 'car-free' developments are viable |
SO-CALLED "car-free" developments are unenforceable, morally wrong and have never been tested in court, opposition councillors have claimed.
Over the past few years the council has granted permission for homes or flats on the condition that they be registered as car-free.
This means that leaseholders will not be able to apply for a parking permit if the development is in a controlled parking zone (CPZ).
As of the end of 2007, there were 13 car-free developments in the borough.
At a planning meeting Conservative Cllr Alan Siggers said he is not convinced car-free developments were actually viable.
After the meeting Tory group leader Cllr Matt Davis told the Guardian: "This is all about the council's anti-car policy and the politics of envy.
"It is ludicrous because people can get hold of a permit anyway if they really want to. It is impossible to enforce.
"There are also car-free developments on the edge of CPZs, meaning that nearby streets suffer from large numbers of parked cars."
Cllr Davis added that car-free developments suited developers because they didn't have to pay to provide parking spaces, thereby increasing their profit margins.
Cllr Davis also questioned whether the car-free agreement would apply to future tenants in a development.
A council spokesman said that residents living in car-free developments were not able to apply for permits because proof of address was required to obtain one.
He added that the agreements apply to all future occupiers.
The council's enterprise cabinet member Terry Wheeler said: "History has shown that planning developments based on the needs of the car have resulted in the under-use of increasingly-precious land resources.
"Car-free development is seen as a legitimate means of reducing congestion and pollution, as well as making best use of available space with improved residential quality.
"Such developments in Waltham Forest are only permitted within controlled parking zones, where public transport is more accessible and the issuing of permits can be monitored and regulated.
"The decision of whether to live in a property without access to parking remains one for individuals themselves, and there is no evidence to suggest that car-free developments are less well occupied than developments in the surrounding area where parking permits are available."
The comments on car-free developments were prompted by an application to demolish a building at 1A Greenleaf Road and build ten flats.
The application was passed on the condition that the applicant, Somal Property Ltd, register the development as car-free.
12:55pm Monday 19th May 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Gary, e17 on 2:46pm Mon 19 May 08
Car free developments send a signal that if you want to live here you will have to think about not owning a car. I do not and don't think I need to, we have limited space for cars and this is one way of reducing this, it should be supported by all parties?
Car free developments send a signal that if you want to live here you will have to think about not owning a car. I do not and don't think I need to, we have limited space for cars and this is one way of reducing this, it should be supported by all parties?
Posted by: Tom, Chingford on 3:09pm Mon 19 May 08
The idea of car free developments is perfectly sound. However, it is disturbing to learn that the legality of the restriction has never been tested.
The comments of councillors Siggers and Davis are a useful reminder that the Conservative Party has always been the most backward of all the parties when it comes to car ownership and use. Local streets are at bursting point and anything which discourages additional car ownership is to be welcomed.
The idea of car free developments is perfectly sound. However, it is disturbing to learn that the legality of the restriction has never been tested.
The comments of councillors Siggers and Davis are a useful reminder that the Conservative Party has always been the most backward of all the parties when it comes to car ownership and use. Local streets are at bursting point and anything which discourages additional car ownership is to be welcomed.
Posted by: Keith on 3:53pm Mon 19 May 08
NO car free developments are not perfectly sound. They are yet another way of ghettoising the less well off. Of course that suits the Labour Party's electoral ambitions so they love it.
NO car free developments are not perfectly sound. They are yet another way of ghettoising the less well off. Of course that suits the Labour Party's electoral ambitions so they love it.
Posted by: CG, Chingford on 4:25pm Mon 19 May 08
I absolutely disagree with this. When any new development is considered the need for adequate parking should be incorporated. It is because so many houses have been split into flats without ever considering the effect on parking that residential side streets have become packed to the brim with cars.
I think that more parking and not less should be created and councillors should stop kidding themselves that restricting parking will make less people use cars. it will never happen.
I absolutely disagree with this. When any new development is considered the need for adequate parking should be incorporated. It is because so many houses have been split into flats without ever considering the effect on parking that residential side streets have become packed to the brim with cars.
I think that more parking and not less should be created and councillors should stop kidding themselves that restricting parking will make less people use cars. it will never happen.
Posted by: Tom, Chingford on 5:04pm Mon 19 May 08
The less well-off cannot afford cars. Over forty per cent of local households do not own a car. The explosion in car ownership is among the well-off. A quarter of all local households now possess three vehicles.
It is a bitter irony that our rubbish Labour council is actually more progressive on transport than the Lib Dems (who sabotaged charging to use Council employee car parks), while the Consevatives are as they have always been, haters of everything from cycling to public transport.
The less well-off cannot afford cars. Over forty per cent of local households do not own a car. The explosion in car ownership is among the well-off. A quarter of all local households now possess three vehicles.
It is a bitter irony that our rubbish Labour council is actually more progressive on transport than the Lib Dems (who sabotaged charging to use Council employee car parks), while the Consevatives are as they have always been, haters of everything from cycling to public transport.
Posted by: Get Your Facts Right, E4 on 6:17pm Mon 19 May 08
Actually Tom you are completely factually wrong. The wards in Waltham Forest with the highest car ownership (by the Council's own figures) are Leytonstone, Leyton and Cathall wards. All of them in the South of the Borough and amongst the more deprived in waltham Forest. In our Borough it is in fact the poorer individuals who own the most cars.
The blinkered and knee jerk anti car hatred that motivates nonsense such as car free developments and Waltham Forest's punitive and oppressive parking policies will never achive the modal shift of getting people out of cars and onto public transport.
What will do that is considerably better, more convienient, safer and most of all cheaper public transport. In London, thanks to Labour, we have the most expensive public transport in Europe and it often fails miserably to provide an acceptable service.
If Labour, and the likes of Tom above, were really serious about increasing public transport usage then that is what they would concentrate their attentions on. The fact that all they can do is to have a go at motorists and the car in general totally proves that their views are born solely of the politics of envy and dogmatic anti car hatred and not genuine efforts to achieve the modal shift.
Actually Tom you are completely factually wrong. The wards in Waltham Forest with the highest car ownership (by the Council's own figures) are Leytonstone, Leyton and Cathall wards. All of them in the South of the Borough and amongst the more deprived in waltham Forest. In our Borough it is in fact the poorer individuals who own the most cars.
The blinkered and knee jerk anti car hatred that motivates nonsense such as car free developments and Waltham Forest's punitive and oppressive parking policies will never achive the modal shift of getting people out of cars and onto public transport.
What will do that is considerably better, more convienient, safer and most of all cheaper public transport. In London, thanks to Labour, we have the most expensive public transport in Europe and it often fails miserably to provide an acceptable service.
If Labour, and the likes of Tom above, were really serious about increasing public transport usage then that is what they would concentrate their attentions on. The fact that all they can do is to have a go at motorists and the car in general totally proves that their views are born solely of the politics of envy and dogmatic anti car hatred and not genuine efforts to achieve the modal shift.
Posted by: Anon on 7:37pm Mon 19 May 08
I am a car owner who also uses public transport. It is the poor reliability of that transport, however, that often pushes me and others to take the car instead.
Tomorrow I have to go for a specialised eye test that precludes me from driving afterwards. I will therefore use the bus; BUT - the car journey is 15 minutes door to door. The bus journey (because of the route it follows) will take 35 minutes once I am actually on the bus. How long will I have to wait for it? Will it run? Will it run to time? Might it be cancelled? Public transport will be better used only when it becomes more reliable.
I am a car owner who also uses public transport. It is the poor reliability of that transport, however, that often pushes me and others to take the car instead.
Tomorrow I have to go for a specialised eye test that precludes me from driving afterwards. I will therefore use the bus; BUT - the car journey is 15 minutes door to door. The bus journey (because of the route it follows) will take 35 minutes once I am actually on the bus. How long will I have to wait for it? Will it run? Will it run to time? Might it be cancelled? Public transport will be better used only when it becomes more reliable.
Posted by: Anon, E17 on 8:59pm Mon 19 May 08
Using the council logic...Why not go the whole hog?? ban children so you will eliminate any potential anti-social problem!! Has anyone else noticed that Waltham Forest is fast becoming a CPZ, its getting to a point that you need to pay the council just to go visit friends in form of permits!!
Using the council logic...Why not go the whole hog?? ban children so you will eliminate any potential anti-social problem!! Has anyone else noticed that Waltham Forest is fast becoming a CPZ, its getting to a point that you need to pay the council just to go visit friends in form of permits!!
Posted by: its obvious, e.10 on 2:53pm Tue 20 May 08
[quote][bold]Anon[/bold] wrote:
Using the council logic...Why not go the whole hog?? ban children so you will eliminate any potential anti-social problem!! Has anyone else noticed that Waltham Forest is fast becoming a CPZ, its getting to a point that you need to pay the council just to go visit friends in form of permits!! [/quote] your need a air permit to breathe in that khazi soon.
moronic, utterly moronic
Anon wrote:
Using the council logic...Why not go the whole hog?? ban children so you will eliminate any potential anti-social problem!! Has anyone else noticed that Waltham Forest is fast becoming a CPZ, its getting to a point that you need to pay the council just to go visit friends in form of permits!!
your need a air permit to breathe in that khazi soon.
moronic, utterly moronic
Posted by: Walthamster, E17 on 3:02pm Tue 20 May 08
Anon has a point. I don't own a car and never want to. Public transport is the only fair way of getting people around cities, it's by far the most efficient and it's now very clearly the only sane future.
But as I stand on a crowded tube platform, or hand over a king's ransom to buy a railway ticket, I do sometimes wonder if the people now running public transport are trying to persuade us to buy cars.
Anon has a point. I don't own a car and never want to. Public transport is the only fair way of getting people around cities, it's by far the most efficient and it's now very clearly the only sane future.
But as I stand on a crowded tube platform, or hand over a king's ransom to buy a railway ticket, I do sometimes wonder if the people now running public transport are trying to persuade us to buy cars.
Posted by: caroline, walthamstow on 11:48pm Tue 20 May 08
[quote][bold]Get Your Facts Right[/bold] wrote:
Actually Tom you are completely factually wrong. The wards in Waltham Forest with the highest car ownership (by the Council's own figures) are Leytonstone, Leyton and Cathall wards. All of them in the South of the Borough and amongst the more deprived in waltham Forest. In our Borough it is in fact the poorer individuals who own the most cars.
The blinkered and knee jerk anti car hatred that motivates nonsense such as car free developments and Waltham Forest's punitive and oppressive parking policies will never achive the modal shift of getting people out of cars and onto public transport.
What will do that is considerably better, more convienient, safer and most of all cheaper public transport. In London, thanks to Labour, we have the most expensive public transport in Europe and it often fails miserably to provide an acceptable service.
If Labour, and the likes of Tom above, were really serious about increasing public transport usage then that is what they would concentrate their attentions on. The fact that all they can do is to have a go at motorists and the car in general totally proves that their views are born solely of the politics of envy and dogmatic anti car hatred and not genuine efforts to achieve the modal shift.[/quote] hi, please could you post the link to the council report that you state shows car ownership being higher in the poorer wards? This would be very unusual and i'd be interested in seeing the source of this statistic - not to say i don't believe you, i just like to check these things out for myself!
Get Your Facts Right wrote:
Actually Tom you are completely factually wrong. The wards in Waltham Forest with the highest car ownership (by the Council's own figures) are Leytonstone, Leyton and Cathall wards. All of them in the South of the Borough and amongst the more deprived in waltham Forest. In our Borough it is in fact the poorer individuals who own the most cars.
The blinkered and knee jerk anti car hatred that motivates nonsense such as car free developments and Waltham Forest's punitive and oppressive parking policies will never achive the modal shift of getting people out of cars and onto public transport.
What will do that is considerably better, more convienient, safer and most of all cheaper public transport. In London, thanks to Labour, we have the most expensive public transport in Europe and it often fails miserably to provide an acceptable service.
If Labour, and the likes of Tom above, were really serious about increasing public transport usage then that is what they would concentrate their attentions on. The fact that all they can do is to have a go at motorists and the car in general totally proves that their views are born solely of the politics of envy and dogmatic anti car hatred and not genuine efforts to achieve the modal shift.
hi, please could you post the link to the council report that you state shows car ownership being higher in the poorer wards? This would be very unusual and i'd be interested in seeing the source of this statistic - not to say i don't believe you, i just like to check these things out for myself!
Posted by: Steve Melia on 3:15pm Sat 24 May 08
Can I point out that 'carfree' as it defined here has nothing whatsoever to do with 'carfree development' as it is practised elsewhere in Europe. The key point about any carfree development is that it offers people who live there a traffic-free environment, with all the quality of life advantages that come with that. By definition, any development of 10 flats cannot possibly be carfree. What Whaltham Forest means by 'carfree' is - we don't give you a parking permit. For more information about genuine carfree development see: www.carfree.org.uk
Can I point out that 'carfree' as it defined here has nothing whatsoever to do with 'carfree development' as it is practised elsewhere in Europe. The key point about any carfree development is that it offers people who live there a traffic-free environment, with all the quality of life advantages that come with that. By definition, any development of 10 flats cannot possibly be carfree. What Whaltham Forest means by 'carfree' is - we don't give you a parking permit. For more information about genuine carfree development see: www.carfree.org.uk
Posted by: harry, Not in Enfield on 8:19pm Sat 24 May 08
I think the council should be congratulated in its efforts to make this a car free Borough. By working with the police to encourage PCs to spend more time on bureaucracy, form filling, pointless meetings, following inept crime strategies and generally making sure that no-one is every held accountable for their actions if they are a criminal, the statistics for the uninterrupted enjoyment of car ownership round here are well below the national average. Keeping the vehicle crime statistics up and making it a greener Borough in the process. Brilliant.
I think the council should be congratulated in its efforts to make this a car free Borough. By working with the police to encourage PCs to spend more time on bureaucracy, form filling, pointless meetings, following inept crime strategies and generally making sure that no-one is every held accountable for their actions if they are a criminal, the statistics for the uninterrupted enjoyment of car ownership round here are well below the national average. Keeping the vehicle crime statistics up and making it a greener Borough in the process. Brilliant.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
