Residents paying for parking permits claim they are forced to park in unsafe area half-a-mile away due to a lack of spaces

Parking 'mayhem' at Tesco housing development

Parking 'mayhem' at Tesco housing development

Residents appalled by council's over-subscribed permit policy

First published in News
Last updated
East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter, covering Chingford, Highams Park and Woodford. Call me on 07795 476 625

People living in a new Tesco development claim there is parking mayhem as too many permits have been issued for the number of spaces available.

Some Highams Green residents living behind the Tesco superstore in Highams Park say they are reluctant to drive their cars over fears they will lose their spot. 

They claim an unlimited amount of parking permits approved by Waltham Forest council for a limited amount of bays has led to tensions in the community.

Drivers say their cars have been broken into, damaged or towed away when they are forced to leave them in side streets, such as Hickman Avenue.

Tesco was granted permission to build the superstore in 2009 if it made a financial contribution to the local community and provided affordable housing. 

The first people moved into the 253-home development in 2012.   

But resident Lorraine Bradley, 28, of Repton House in Jacks Farm Way, estimates there to be only 60 spaces available. 

She said: "We're being charged for a permit but parking ten minutes walk away in a poorly-lit street and face having our cars damaged or towed."

Father-of-one Asif Yusuf said he "feels cheated and powerless" over the situation.   

The 39-year-old moved in with his wife and son eighteen months ago, but says he would have thought twice about living there had he been aware of the problem.

He was forced to pay £275 to get his car back after it was towed from Hickman Avenue five weeks ago.   

"We don't want to go out for the simple fact we can't park anywhere - it infuriates me," he said. 

Ongar MP and secretary of state for communities and local government, Eric Pickles, has recently called for more parking spaces at new housing developments to end the "vicious cycle of clogged up streets".  

Waltham Forest council has been contacted for a comment.

For more on this story, see this week's Guardian - out Thursday

Comments (41)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:46am Tue 2 Sep 14

Villagecranberry says...

It will only get worse around Waltham Forest, simply is not enough parking for the amount of cars on the road and flats being built.

Cycling is the only answer.
It will only get worse around Waltham Forest, simply is not enough parking for the amount of cars on the road and flats being built. Cycling is the only answer. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -20

8:00am Tue 2 Sep 14

chingford lad says...

When this estate was planned there was to be no or limited parking, car ownership to be discourage. Disabled parking had to be legally provided.
Residents knew of the limited parking, knew of the permit charges, knew of no visitor parking, and certainly knew there was never going to be additional parking. The only people they can blame are themselves, cut your suit to fit.
When this estate was planned there was to be no or limited parking, car ownership to be discourage. Disabled parking had to be legally provided. Residents knew of the limited parking, knew of the permit charges, knew of no visitor parking, and certainly knew there was never going to be additional parking. The only people they can blame are themselves, cut your suit to fit. chingford lad
  • Score: 8

8:54am Tue 2 Sep 14

Paul Skinner says...

chingford lad wrote:
When this estate was planned there was to be no or limited parking, car ownership to be discourage. Disabled parking had to be legally provided.
Residents knew of the limited parking, knew of the permit charges, knew of no visitor parking, and certainly knew there was never going to be additional parking. The only people they can blame are themselves, cut your suit to fit.
Doesn't really explain why they've over-provisioned the parking permits though, does it.
[quote][p][bold]chingford lad[/bold] wrote: When this estate was planned there was to be no or limited parking, car ownership to be discourage. Disabled parking had to be legally provided. Residents knew of the limited parking, knew of the permit charges, knew of no visitor parking, and certainly knew there was never going to be additional parking. The only people they can blame are themselves, cut your suit to fit.[/p][/quote]Doesn't really explain why they've over-provisioned the parking permits though, does it. Paul Skinner
  • Score: 10

9:36am Tue 2 Sep 14

driftingcowboy says...

We have to get away from this silly idea of building homes without car parking spaces. A car is a necessity and will remain so. Build multi-story car parks for residents who contribute so much to the local economy anyway in local taxes and consumer spending. Most people need a car, stop this nonsense of providing homes to people on the basis that they can't have a car. Its daft!
We have to get away from this silly idea of building homes without car parking spaces. A car is a necessity and will remain so. Build multi-story car parks for residents who contribute so much to the local economy anyway in local taxes and consumer spending. Most people need a car, stop this nonsense of providing homes to people on the basis that they can't have a car. Its daft! driftingcowboy
  • Score: 23

9:41am Tue 2 Sep 14

Megamix says...

This is their idea of turning WF into mini Holland, and making money out of people with these parking permits.
This is their idea of turning WF into mini Holland, and making money out of people with these parking permits. Megamix
  • Score: 16

9:47am Tue 2 Sep 14

chingford lad says...

Paul Skinner wrote:
chingford lad wrote:
When this estate was planned there was to be no or limited parking, car ownership to be discourage. Disabled parking had to be legally provided.
Residents knew of the limited parking, knew of the permit charges, knew of no visitor parking, and certainly knew there was never going to be additional parking. The only people they can blame are themselves, cut your suit to fit.
Doesn't really explain why they've over-provisioned the parking permits though, does it.
Every household would be issued with one parking permit if requested, discrimination if otherwise, unless there was an allocation system in place which would have been know to residents. This is the same as every road, turning, estate with R.P. in the borough. On this Highams Park estate my original statement is true. You can`t fit `a quart into a pint pot` Its not rocket science.
[quote][p][bold]Paul Skinner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chingford lad[/bold] wrote: When this estate was planned there was to be no or limited parking, car ownership to be discourage. Disabled parking had to be legally provided. Residents knew of the limited parking, knew of the permit charges, knew of no visitor parking, and certainly knew there was never going to be additional parking. The only people they can blame are themselves, cut your suit to fit.[/p][/quote]Doesn't really explain why they've over-provisioned the parking permits though, does it.[/p][/quote]Every household would be issued with one parking permit if requested, discrimination if otherwise, unless there was an allocation system in place which would have been know to residents. This is the same as every road, turning, estate with R.P. in the borough. On this Highams Park estate my original statement is true. You can`t fit `a quart into a pint pot` Its not rocket science. chingford lad
  • Score: 6

10:04am Tue 2 Sep 14

Howard Wolowitz says...

This lack of providing spaces is council policy. It is deemed if there are good transport links then you do not need your own form of transport.

Ideological claptrap?

Continue the discussion.
This lack of providing spaces is council policy. It is deemed if there are good transport links then you do not need your own form of transport. Ideological claptrap? Continue the discussion. Howard Wolowitz
  • Score: 8

11:26am Tue 2 Sep 14

Villagecranberry says...

driftingcowboy wrote:
We have to get away from this silly idea of building homes without car parking spaces. A car is a necessity and will remain so. Build multi-story car parks for residents who contribute so much to the local economy anyway in local taxes and consumer spending. Most people need a car, stop this nonsense of providing homes to people on the basis that they can't have a car. Its daft!
No a car is unnecessary.
[quote][p][bold]driftingcowboy[/bold] wrote: We have to get away from this silly idea of building homes without car parking spaces. A car is a necessity and will remain so. Build multi-story car parks for residents who contribute so much to the local economy anyway in local taxes and consumer spending. Most people need a car, stop this nonsense of providing homes to people on the basis that they can't have a car. Its daft![/p][/quote]No a car is unnecessary. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -14

12:24pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Howard Wolowitz says...

On yer bike VC
On yer bike VC Howard Wolowitz
  • Score: 6

12:26pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Howard Wolowitz says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
driftingcowboy wrote:
We have to get away from this silly idea of building homes without car parking spaces. A car is a necessity and will remain so. Build multi-story car parks for residents who contribute so much to the local economy anyway in local taxes and consumer spending. Most people need a car, stop this nonsense of providing homes to people on the basis that they can't have a car. Its daft!
No a car is unnecessary.
"No a car is unnecessary."
Was that meant as a double negative?
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]driftingcowboy[/bold] wrote: We have to get away from this silly idea of building homes without car parking spaces. A car is a necessity and will remain so. Build multi-story car parks for residents who contribute so much to the local economy anyway in local taxes and consumer spending. Most people need a car, stop this nonsense of providing homes to people on the basis that they can't have a car. Its daft![/p][/quote]No a car is unnecessary.[/p][/quote]"No a car is unnecessary." Was that meant as a double negative? Howard Wolowitz
  • Score: -5

1:31pm Tue 2 Sep 14

me_not happy says...

As a resident of this development, which apart from the parking situation is a very nice place. None of us were told of the inadequate parking when we purchased our homes. We were told that there would be a CPZ which is perfectly acceptable with the close proximity of the station, but to have to buy a permit and not be able to park is not fair. We were told that most of the development would have an underground car park but this has not helped as there are only a small number of spaces allocated to specific flats. I for one will not be able to stay on this development if I can't freely use my car as I have been used to. I have lived and worked in the borough all my life and wanted to stay here but the council seem to want to make it impossible for anyone who owns a car. Most of the residents own a car, mayhem doesn't begin to describe the issue.
As a resident of this development, which apart from the parking situation is a very nice place. None of us were told of the inadequate parking when we purchased our homes. We were told that there would be a CPZ which is perfectly acceptable with the close proximity of the station, but to have to buy a permit and not be able to park is not fair. We were told that most of the development would have an underground car park but this has not helped as there are only a small number of spaces allocated to specific flats. I for one will not be able to stay on this development if I can't freely use my car as I have been used to. I have lived and worked in the borough all my life and wanted to stay here but the council seem to want to make it impossible for anyone who owns a car. Most of the residents own a car, mayhem doesn't begin to describe the issue. me_not happy
  • Score: 11

2:03pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Paul Skinner says...

chingford lad wrote:
Paul Skinner wrote:
chingford lad wrote:
When this estate was planned there was to be no or limited parking, car ownership to be discourage. Disabled parking had to be legally provided.
Residents knew of the limited parking, knew of the permit charges, knew of no visitor parking, and certainly knew there was never going to be additional parking. The only people they can blame are themselves, cut your suit to fit.
Doesn't really explain why they've over-provisioned the parking permits though, does it.
Every household would be issued with one parking permit if requested, discrimination if otherwise, unless there was an allocation system in place which would have been know to residents. This is the same as every road, turning, estate with R.P. in the borough. On this Highams Park estate my original statement is true. You can`t fit `a quart into a pint pot` Its not rocket science.
I don't think you've actually read the article.

They've sold more permits than there is parking spaces. That is ridiculous.

A one-in/one-out policy with a waiting list is the only sensible solution, but obviously it's too late for that now.
[quote][p][bold]chingford lad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paul Skinner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chingford lad[/bold] wrote: When this estate was planned there was to be no or limited parking, car ownership to be discourage. Disabled parking had to be legally provided. Residents knew of the limited parking, knew of the permit charges, knew of no visitor parking, and certainly knew there was never going to be additional parking. The only people they can blame are themselves, cut your suit to fit.[/p][/quote]Doesn't really explain why they've over-provisioned the parking permits though, does it.[/p][/quote]Every household would be issued with one parking permit if requested, discrimination if otherwise, unless there was an allocation system in place which would have been know to residents. This is the same as every road, turning, estate with R.P. in the borough. On this Highams Park estate my original statement is true. You can`t fit `a quart into a pint pot` Its not rocket science.[/p][/quote]I don't think you've actually read the article. They've sold more permits than there is parking spaces. That is ridiculous. A one-in/one-out policy with a waiting list is the only sensible solution, but obviously it's too late for that now. Paul Skinner
  • Score: 8

2:35pm Tue 2 Sep 14

rachbans1 says...

Paul Skinner wrote:
chingford lad wrote:
Paul Skinner wrote:
chingford lad wrote:
When this estate was planned there was to be no or limited parking, car ownership to be discourage. Disabled parking had to be legally provided.
Residents knew of the limited parking, knew of the permit charges, knew of no visitor parking, and certainly knew there was never going to be additional parking. The only people they can blame are themselves, cut your suit to fit.
Doesn't really explain why they've over-provisioned the parking permits though, does it.
Every household would be issued with one parking permit if requested, discrimination if otherwise, unless there was an allocation system in place which would have been know to residents. This is the same as every road, turning, estate with R.P. in the borough. On this Highams Park estate my original statement is true. You can`t fit `a quart into a pint pot` Its not rocket science.
I don't think you've actually read the article.

They've sold more permits than there is parking spaces. That is ridiculous.

A one-in/one-out policy with a waiting list is the only sensible solution, but obviously it's too late for that now.
Yes READ the article properly Chingford Lad !!!!
[quote][p][bold]Paul Skinner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chingford lad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paul Skinner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chingford lad[/bold] wrote: When this estate was planned there was to be no or limited parking, car ownership to be discourage. Disabled parking had to be legally provided. Residents knew of the limited parking, knew of the permit charges, knew of no visitor parking, and certainly knew there was never going to be additional parking. The only people they can blame are themselves, cut your suit to fit.[/p][/quote]Doesn't really explain why they've over-provisioned the parking permits though, does it.[/p][/quote]Every household would be issued with one parking permit if requested, discrimination if otherwise, unless there was an allocation system in place which would have been know to residents. This is the same as every road, turning, estate with R.P. in the borough. On this Highams Park estate my original statement is true. You can`t fit `a quart into a pint pot` Its not rocket science.[/p][/quote]I don't think you've actually read the article. They've sold more permits than there is parking spaces. That is ridiculous. A one-in/one-out policy with a waiting list is the only sensible solution, but obviously it's too late for that now.[/p][/quote]Yes READ the article properly Chingford Lad !!!! rachbans1
  • Score: 5

2:49pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Villagecranberry says...

Ultimately there are just too many cars, some households have more than two cars even.

Get cycles, walk, get thin, lose belly, live long and healthy and save money.

Save the planet also.
Ultimately there are just too many cars, some households have more than two cars even. Get cycles, walk, get thin, lose belly, live long and healthy and save money. Save the planet also. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -13

3:14pm Tue 2 Sep 14

chingford lad says...

To Paul Skinner & Rachbans1,
I have read & addressed the issue, THE COUNCIL ARE REQUIRED TO OFFER ONE PARKING PERMIT TO ALL HOUSEHOLD THAT APPLY OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATION WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED. People have moved in owning a car only to find out there is nowhere to park them because there are only 74 places including disabled bays above ground for over 250 units.
Did they buy without seeing? did they think they were the only car owners? did they not think at all? if that is the case my last word on the matter is TOUGH.
To Paul Skinner & Rachbans1, I have read & addressed the issue, THE COUNCIL ARE REQUIRED TO OFFER ONE PARKING PERMIT TO ALL HOUSEHOLD THAT APPLY OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATION WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED. People have moved in owning a car only to find out there is nowhere to park them because there are only 74 places including disabled bays above ground for over 250 units. Did they buy without seeing? did they think they were the only car owners? did they not think at all? if that is the case my last word on the matter is TOUGH. chingford lad
  • Score: 6

3:20pm Tue 2 Sep 14

HATE TREES says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Ultimately there are just too many cars, some households have more than two cars even.

Get cycles, walk, get thin, lose belly, live long and healthy and save money.

Save the planet also.
stop hugging trees & get a life.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: Ultimately there are just too many cars, some households have more than two cars even. Get cycles, walk, get thin, lose belly, live long and healthy and save money. Save the planet also.[/p][/quote]stop hugging trees & get a life. HATE TREES
  • Score: 10

3:21pm Tue 2 Sep 14

HATE TREES says...

HATE TREES wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Ultimately there are just too many cars, some households have more than two cars even.

Get cycles, walk, get thin, lose belly, live long and healthy and save money.

Save the planet also.
stop hugging trees & get a life.
Stop hugging trees & get some friends…that aren’t your pets.
[quote][p][bold]HATE TREES[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: Ultimately there are just too many cars, some households have more than two cars even. Get cycles, walk, get thin, lose belly, live long and healthy and save money. Save the planet also.[/p][/quote]stop hugging trees & get a life.[/p][/quote]Stop hugging trees & get some friends…that aren’t your pets. HATE TREES
  • Score: 2

3:29pm Tue 2 Sep 14

rachbans1 says...

chingford lad wrote:
To Paul Skinner & Rachbans1,
I have read & addressed the issue, THE COUNCIL ARE REQUIRED TO OFFER ONE PARKING PERMIT TO ALL HOUSEHOLD THAT APPLY OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATION WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED. People have moved in owning a car only to find out there is nowhere to park them because there are only 74 places including disabled bays above ground for over 250 units.
Did they buy without seeing? did they think they were the only car owners? did they not think at all? if that is the case my last word on the matter is TOUGH.
Chingford Lad MY FINAL COMMENT IS ............... NEW FLATS have been built since the original residents moved in, so the whole thing is a money making scam!!! If you have nothing to say in support of your local community - then maybe keep your opinions to yourself !!
[quote][p][bold]chingford lad[/bold] wrote: To Paul Skinner & Rachbans1, I have read & addressed the issue, THE COUNCIL ARE REQUIRED TO OFFER ONE PARKING PERMIT TO ALL HOUSEHOLD THAT APPLY OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATION WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED. People have moved in owning a car only to find out there is nowhere to park them because there are only 74 places including disabled bays above ground for over 250 units. Did they buy without seeing? did they think they were the only car owners? did they not think at all? if that is the case my last word on the matter is TOUGH.[/p][/quote]Chingford Lad MY FINAL COMMENT IS ............... NEW FLATS have been built since the original residents moved in, so the whole thing is a money making scam!!! If you have nothing to say in support of your local community - then maybe keep your opinions to yourself !! rachbans1
  • Score: 1

3:32pm Tue 2 Sep 14

rachbans1 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Ultimately there are just too many cars, some households have more than two cars even.

Get cycles, walk, get thin, lose belly, live long and healthy and save money.

Save the planet also.
What a pointless comment !!!!
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: Ultimately there are just too many cars, some households have more than two cars even. Get cycles, walk, get thin, lose belly, live long and healthy and save money. Save the planet also.[/p][/quote]What a pointless comment !!!! rachbans1
  • Score: 0

3:33pm Tue 2 Sep 14

rachbans1 says...

HATE TREES wrote:
chingford lad wrote:
To Paul Skinner & Rachbans1,
I have read & addressed the issue, THE COUNCIL ARE REQUIRED TO OFFER ONE PARKING PERMIT TO ALL HOUSEHOLD THAT APPLY OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATION WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED. People have moved in owning a car only to find out there is nowhere to park them because there are only 74 places including disabled bays above ground for over 250 units.
Did they buy without seeing? did they think they were the only car owners? did they not think at all? if that is the case my last word on the matter is TOUGH.
you don't sound like a lad, you sound like a RETARD
Ageed !!!!!
[quote][p][bold]HATE TREES[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chingford lad[/bold] wrote: To Paul Skinner & Rachbans1, I have read & addressed the issue, THE COUNCIL ARE REQUIRED TO OFFER ONE PARKING PERMIT TO ALL HOUSEHOLD THAT APPLY OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATION WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED. People have moved in owning a car only to find out there is nowhere to park them because there are only 74 places including disabled bays above ground for over 250 units. Did they buy without seeing? did they think they were the only car owners? did they not think at all? if that is the case my last word on the matter is TOUGH.[/p][/quote]you don't sound like a lad, you sound like a RETARD[/p][/quote]Ageed !!!!! rachbans1
  • Score: -9

4:32pm Tue 2 Sep 14

me_not happy says...

Most of the residents moved in to a building site, it has only become much worse since the two new blocks have become occupied. There were no plans given to us on spaces etc, we had nothing to look at. I'm not sure blaming residents is the way forward, we work hard and just want to be able to come home in the evening and park our cars, it's not much to ask . I wanted to stay locally to my family, friends and job, this development was perfect for me accept I can't enjoy the freedom of owning a car anymore.
Most of the residents moved in to a building site, it has only become much worse since the two new blocks have become occupied. There were no plans given to us on spaces etc, we had nothing to look at. I'm not sure blaming residents is the way forward, we work hard and just want to be able to come home in the evening and park our cars, it's not much to ask . I wanted to stay locally to my family, friends and job, this development was perfect for me accept I can't enjoy the freedom of owning a car anymore. me_not happy
  • Score: 5

4:54pm Tue 2 Sep 14

escapefrome17 says...

I see another parking story becomes another troll magnet! Marvellous!
I'm in two minds on this issue, it's within spitting distance of the station, there's umpteen bus routes going past, I would have thought that as a development it would appeal more to a non car owner who wants good public transport links, I can't see how anyone would think they would be getting parking spaces there, it's in Waltham forest after all.... It's not the sort of place I'd move to and expect to need to keep my car. The thing is, perhaps the time has come to make these sort of developments, which are sold on the huge advantage of being very close to a station, totally car free, and I say that not as a tree hugger but as someone with two cars .
I see another parking story becomes another troll magnet! Marvellous! I'm in two minds on this issue, it's within spitting distance of the station, there's umpteen bus routes going past, I would have thought that as a development it would appeal more to a non car owner who wants good public transport links, I can't see how anyone would think they would be getting parking spaces there, it's in Waltham forest after all.... It's not the sort of place I'd move to and expect to need to keep my car. The thing is, perhaps the time has come to make these sort of developments, which are sold on the huge advantage of being very close to a station, totally car free, and I say that not as a tree hugger but as someone with two cars . escapefrome17
  • Score: 9

7:19pm Tue 2 Sep 14

HATE TREES says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
It will only get worse around Waltham Forest, simply is not enough parking for the amount of cars on the road and flats being built.

Cycling is the only answer.
why don't you cycle to mars?
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: It will only get worse around Waltham Forest, simply is not enough parking for the amount of cars on the road and flats being built. Cycling is the only answer.[/p][/quote]why don't you cycle to mars? HATE TREES
  • Score: 3

10:48pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Villagecranberry says...

HATE TREES wrote:
HATE TREES wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Ultimately there are just too many cars, some households have more than two cars even.

Get cycles, walk, get thin, lose belly, live long and healthy and save money.

Save the planet also.
stop hugging trees & get a life.
Stop hugging trees & get some friends…that aren’t your pets.
Trees good.

Cars bad, smelly.
[quote][p][bold]HATE TREES[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HATE TREES[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: Ultimately there are just too many cars, some households have more than two cars even. Get cycles, walk, get thin, lose belly, live long and healthy and save money. Save the planet also.[/p][/quote]stop hugging trees & get a life.[/p][/quote]Stop hugging trees & get some friends…that aren’t your pets.[/p][/quote]Trees good. Cars bad, smelly. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 3

11:00pm Tue 2 Sep 14

John J C Moss says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
It will only get worse around Waltham Forest, simply is not enough parking for the amount of cars on the road and flats being built.

Cycling is the only answer.
More parking provided by developers is the answer. That might mean fewer homes and lower profits, but when a two bed flat gets one space, but potentially creates demand for four cars, (if occupied by two adult couples), it's a disaster for residents.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: It will only get worse around Waltham Forest, simply is not enough parking for the amount of cars on the road and flats being built. Cycling is the only answer.[/p][/quote]More parking provided by developers is the answer. That might mean fewer homes and lower profits, but when a two bed flat gets one space, but potentially creates demand for four cars, (if occupied by two adult couples), it's a disaster for residents. John J C Moss
  • Score: 0

11:22pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Villagecranberry says...

John J C Moss wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
It will only get worse around Waltham Forest, simply is not enough parking for the amount of cars on the road and flats being built.

Cycling is the only answer.
More parking provided by developers is the answer. That might mean fewer homes and lower profits, but when a two bed flat gets one space, but potentially creates demand for four cars, (if occupied by two adult couples), it's a disaster for residents.
Do not be silly. People cannot live in cars, they need accommodation.
[quote][p][bold]John J C Moss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: It will only get worse around Waltham Forest, simply is not enough parking for the amount of cars on the road and flats being built. Cycling is the only answer.[/p][/quote]More parking provided by developers is the answer. That might mean fewer homes and lower profits, but when a two bed flat gets one space, but potentially creates demand for four cars, (if occupied by two adult couples), it's a disaster for residents.[/p][/quote]Do not be silly. People cannot live in cars, they need accommodation. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 3

10:34am Wed 3 Sep 14

rachbans1 says...

The point of this story is - PEOPLE ON THIS DEVELOPMENT HAVE BEEN MISS-SOLD PERMITS, AS MORE PERMITS HAVE BEEN SOLD THAN THERE ARE PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE ON THE DEVELOPMENT.
The 'green' arugment about car ownership (although inetersting and topical) isn't really the point here!
The point of this story is - PEOPLE ON THIS DEVELOPMENT HAVE BEEN MISS-SOLD PERMITS, AS MORE PERMITS HAVE BEEN SOLD THAN THERE ARE PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE ON THE DEVELOPMENT. The 'green' arugment about car ownership (although inetersting and topical) isn't really the point here! rachbans1
  • Score: 3

1:09pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Paul Skinner says...

chingford lad wrote:
To Paul Skinner & Rachbans1,
I have read & addressed the issue, THE COUNCIL ARE REQUIRED TO OFFER ONE PARKING PERMIT TO ALL HOUSEHOLD THAT APPLY OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATION WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED. People have moved in owning a car only to find out there is nowhere to park them because there are only 74 places including disabled bays above ground for over 250 units.
Did they buy without seeing? did they think they were the only car owners? did they not think at all? if that is the case my last word on the matter is TOUGH.
Erm. No.

Take this scenario:

There are 5 garages for lease by the council.
There are 10 potentially eligible households who can get a garage.

In your "non discriminatory" scheme, you are saying:

Everyone who applies from the 10 households can get a permit for the garages.
Whoever gets to the garage first each day can park in it.
Tough.

Whereas in real life, the scenario is one of:

10 households apply. Permits are doled out on a first come first served basis until 5 is reached. From then on, once a garage becomes available the remaining 5 applications are filled in the order the applications were received (a waiting list).

OR

10 households apply. The first 5 are decided by ballot, and the waiting list order for the remaining 5 are decided by ballot. Then first-come first-served for applications after that once a garage becomes available.

But apparently, that's discriminatory... even though that's how the council actually works already...

It's quite sad that it had to be spelt out like that, but hey ho.
[quote][p][bold]chingford lad[/bold] wrote: To Paul Skinner & Rachbans1, I have read & addressed the issue, THE COUNCIL ARE REQUIRED TO OFFER ONE PARKING PERMIT TO ALL HOUSEHOLD THAT APPLY OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATION WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED. People have moved in owning a car only to find out there is nowhere to park them because there are only 74 places including disabled bays above ground for over 250 units. Did they buy without seeing? did they think they were the only car owners? did they not think at all? if that is the case my last word on the matter is TOUGH.[/p][/quote]Erm. No. Take this scenario: There are 5 garages for lease by the council. There are 10 potentially eligible households who can get a garage. In your "non discriminatory" scheme, you are saying: Everyone who applies from the 10 households can get a permit for the garages. Whoever gets to the garage first each day can park in it. Tough. Whereas in real life, the scenario is one of: 10 households apply. Permits are doled out on a first come first served basis until 5 is reached. From then on, once a garage becomes available the remaining 5 applications are filled in the order the applications were received (a waiting list). OR 10 households apply. The first 5 are decided by ballot, and the waiting list order for the remaining 5 are decided by ballot. Then first-come first-served for applications after that once a garage becomes available. But apparently, that's discriminatory... even though that's how the council actually works already... It's quite sad that it had to be spelt out like that, but hey ho. Paul Skinner
  • Score: 4

3:57pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Don't Give Up says...

The facts are as follows:
The problems arise from the restrictive car parking policies imposed on developers by the Greater London Authority (GLA) of a maximum of 1.1 parking spaces per dwelling. Although this may be fine for some areas of London, a "one size fits all" parking policy for the whole of London does not work: inner and outer London have different demographics.
This problem has been made worse by LBWF imposing even greater restrictions on parking spaces per dwelling and building on town centre car parks. Ostensibly they are trying to create a car free environment and encourage cycling. However, the reality is the Council are desperate to meet their housing quotas and providing parking eats space and reduces the number of homes that can be built in a given area.
The current situation is as follows:
The parking problems associated with the Highams Green (Tesco) development are not restricted to the site itself and has spread to the surrounding streets (Coolgardie, Larkshall Road etc).
The overspill has created problems for shops in Larkshall Road as customers cannot park.
Residents are using the E4 Gym car park and blocking up West Essex Sports Club.
Add to this the fact that the council have recently approved a further development (Block H) on the Tesco site of 83 premises. This has an average of 0.66 parking spaces per dwelling which is less than what was provided for Highams Green and will obviously make the problem a whole lot worse.
I just hope measures will be taken to not only improve the situation but make potential incoming residents fully aware of the parking situation.
The facts are as follows: The problems arise from the restrictive car parking policies imposed on developers by the Greater London Authority (GLA) of a maximum of 1.1 parking spaces per dwelling. Although this may be fine for some areas of London, a "one size fits all" parking policy for the whole of London does not work: inner and outer London have different demographics. This problem has been made worse by LBWF imposing even greater restrictions on parking spaces per dwelling and building on town centre car parks. Ostensibly they are trying to create a car free environment and encourage cycling. However, the reality is the Council are desperate to meet their housing quotas and providing parking eats space and reduces the number of homes that can be built in a given area. The current situation is as follows: The parking problems associated with the Highams Green (Tesco) development are not restricted to the site itself and has spread to the surrounding streets (Coolgardie, Larkshall Road etc). The overspill has created problems for shops in Larkshall Road as customers cannot park. Residents are using the E4 Gym car park and blocking up West Essex Sports Club. Add to this the fact that the council have recently approved a further development (Block H) on the Tesco site of 83 premises. This has an average of 0.66 parking spaces per dwelling which is less than what was provided for Highams Green and will obviously make the problem a whole lot worse. I just hope measures will be taken to not only improve the situation but make potential incoming residents fully aware of the parking situation. Don't Give Up
  • Score: 9

10:22pm Wed 3 Sep 14

jackblack007 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Ultimately there are just too many cars, some households have more than two cars even.

Get cycles, walk, get thin, lose belly, live long and healthy and save money.

Save the planet also.
we'd all save the planet if you fell off it, you complete clown, are'nt there any ' off licence; stories this week you can comment on.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: Ultimately there are just too many cars, some households have more than two cars even. Get cycles, walk, get thin, lose belly, live long and healthy and save money. Save the planet also.[/p][/quote]we'd all save the planet if you fell off it, you complete clown, are'nt there any ' off licence; stories this week you can comment on. jackblack007
  • Score: 2

10:46pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Blyton123 says...

I also live on this development and have to stress we were not told of how little spaces would be supplied when we moved in. The new blocks do have spaces underneath but only 30... that's more than double the amount of flats built and add to that the other block of flats and the houses. It is absolute chaos trying to park, I need a car to get to work it is not possible for me to get to work without one as my place of work is not along any of our nearby transport links. I have had my car bashed in and found it with other cars stuck so far up my bumper they have scraped my paint off. It doesn't help that we also have commuters parking on Hickman Avenue and at the moment huge lorries and trucks for the building of new warehouses. People may be saying to cycle but it is not as easy as that and the council is responsible for first of all not giving residents ample space to park and secondly over subscribing the spaces we have been given! It is a shambles and unfortunately, I am very much looking forward to being able to move out of my flat if the issue is not resolved.
I also live on this development and have to stress we were not told of how little spaces would be supplied when we moved in. The new blocks do have spaces underneath but only 30... that's more than double the amount of flats built and add to that the other block of flats and the houses. It is absolute chaos trying to park, I need a car to get to work it is not possible for me to get to work without one as my place of work is not along any of our nearby transport links. I have had my car bashed in and found it with other cars stuck so far up my bumper they have scraped my paint off. It doesn't help that we also have commuters parking on Hickman Avenue and at the moment huge lorries and trucks for the building of new warehouses. People may be saying to cycle but it is not as easy as that and the council is responsible for first of all not giving residents ample space to park and secondly over subscribing the spaces we have been given! It is a shambles and unfortunately, I am very much looking forward to being able to move out of my flat if the issue is not resolved. Blyton123
  • Score: 3

1:01am Thu 4 Sep 14

Villagecranberry says...

Don't Give Up wrote:
The facts are as follows:
The problems arise from the restrictive car parking policies imposed on developers by the Greater London Authority (GLA) of a maximum of 1.1 parking spaces per dwelling. Although this may be fine for some areas of London, a "one size fits all" parking policy for the whole of London does not work: inner and outer London have different demographics.
This problem has been made worse by LBWF imposing even greater restrictions on parking spaces per dwelling and building on town centre car parks. Ostensibly they are trying to create a car free environment and encourage cycling. However, the reality is the Council are desperate to meet their housing quotas and providing parking eats space and reduces the number of homes that can be built in a given area.
The current situation is as follows:
The parking problems associated with the Highams Green (Tesco) development are not restricted to the site itself and has spread to the surrounding streets (Coolgardie, Larkshall Road etc).
The overspill has created problems for shops in Larkshall Road as customers cannot park.
Residents are using the E4 Gym car park and blocking up West Essex Sports Club.
Add to this the fact that the council have recently approved a further development (Block H) on the Tesco site of 83 premises. This has an average of 0.66 parking spaces per dwelling which is less than what was provided for Highams Green and will obviously make the problem a whole lot worse.
I just hope measures will be taken to not only improve the situation but make potential incoming residents fully aware of the parking situation.
More importantly, why are you not trying to defend convicted thieves and liars in charge of teaching children?

You obviously are either an alcoholic or an Off Licence owner?
[quote][p][bold]Don't Give Up[/bold] wrote: The facts are as follows: The problems arise from the restrictive car parking policies imposed on developers by the Greater London Authority (GLA) of a maximum of 1.1 parking spaces per dwelling. Although this may be fine for some areas of London, a "one size fits all" parking policy for the whole of London does not work: inner and outer London have different demographics. This problem has been made worse by LBWF imposing even greater restrictions on parking spaces per dwelling and building on town centre car parks. Ostensibly they are trying to create a car free environment and encourage cycling. However, the reality is the Council are desperate to meet their housing quotas and providing parking eats space and reduces the number of homes that can be built in a given area. The current situation is as follows: The parking problems associated with the Highams Green (Tesco) development are not restricted to the site itself and has spread to the surrounding streets (Coolgardie, Larkshall Road etc). The overspill has created problems for shops in Larkshall Road as customers cannot park. Residents are using the E4 Gym car park and blocking up West Essex Sports Club. Add to this the fact that the council have recently approved a further development (Block H) on the Tesco site of 83 premises. This has an average of 0.66 parking spaces per dwelling which is less than what was provided for Highams Green and will obviously make the problem a whole lot worse. I just hope measures will be taken to not only improve the situation but make potential incoming residents fully aware of the parking situation.[/p][/quote]More importantly, why are you not trying to defend convicted thieves and liars in charge of teaching children? You obviously are either an alcoholic or an Off Licence owner? Villagecranberry
  • Score: -6

8:15am Thu 4 Sep 14

Don't Give Up says...

In reply to the insatiable Villlagecranberry's comments, I am neither an alcoholic or an Off Licence owner. In fact, if you care to speak to the residents of the Tesco site you will discover the extent of the misinformation they were given when they purchased their properties. You will also discover that even the times of the Permit Parking signs are different to what they were told but the residents have been told by the Council they will not be changed as they are already up.
Whilst responding, am I correct in assuming Villagecranberry does own and drive a car on the basis of his/her previous comments (on another matter) of driving through Highams Park at night?
In reply to the insatiable Villlagecranberry's comments, I am neither an alcoholic or an Off Licence owner. In fact, if you care to speak to the residents of the Tesco site you will discover the extent of the misinformation they were given when they purchased their properties. You will also discover that even the times of the Permit Parking signs are different to what they were told but the residents have been told by the Council they will not be changed as they are already up. Whilst responding, am I correct in assuming Villagecranberry does own and drive a car on the basis of his/her previous comments (on another matter) of driving through Highams Park at night? Don't Give Up
  • Score: 4

2:55pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Kerim69 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
It will only get worse around Waltham Forest, simply is not enough parking for the amount of cars on the road and flats being built.

Cycling is the only answer.
KERIM
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: It will only get worse around Waltham Forest, simply is not enough parking for the amount of cars on the road and flats being built. Cycling is the only answer.[/p][/quote]KERIM Kerim69
  • Score: -1

2:55pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Kerim69 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
driftingcowboy wrote:
We have to get away from this silly idea of building homes without car parking spaces. A car is a necessity and will remain so. Build multi-story car parks for residents who contribute so much to the local economy anyway in local taxes and consumer spending. Most people need a car, stop this nonsense of providing homes to people on the basis that they can't have a car. Its daft!
No a car is unnecessary.
KERIM
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]driftingcowboy[/bold] wrote: We have to get away from this silly idea of building homes without car parking spaces. A car is a necessity and will remain so. Build multi-story car parks for residents who contribute so much to the local economy anyway in local taxes and consumer spending. Most people need a car, stop this nonsense of providing homes to people on the basis that they can't have a car. Its daft![/p][/quote]No a car is unnecessary.[/p][/quote]KERIM Kerim69
  • Score: -1

2:55pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Kerim69 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Ultimately there are just too many cars, some households have more than two cars even.

Get cycles, walk, get thin, lose belly, live long and healthy and save money.

Save the planet also.
KERIM
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: Ultimately there are just too many cars, some households have more than two cars even. Get cycles, walk, get thin, lose belly, live long and healthy and save money. Save the planet also.[/p][/quote]KERIM Kerim69
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Kerim69 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
HATE TREES wrote:
HATE TREES wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Ultimately there are just too many cars, some households have more than two cars even.

Get cycles, walk, get thin, lose belly, live long and healthy and save money.

Save the planet also.
stop hugging trees & get a life.
Stop hugging trees & get some friends…that aren’t your pets.
Trees good.

Cars bad, smelly.
KERIM
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HATE TREES[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HATE TREES[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: Ultimately there are just too many cars, some households have more than two cars even. Get cycles, walk, get thin, lose belly, live long and healthy and save money. Save the planet also.[/p][/quote]stop hugging trees & get a life.[/p][/quote]Stop hugging trees & get some friends…that aren’t your pets.[/p][/quote]Trees good. Cars bad, smelly.[/p][/quote]KERIM Kerim69
  • Score: -2

2:56pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Kerim69 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Don't Give Up wrote:
The facts are as follows:
The problems arise from the restrictive car parking policies imposed on developers by the Greater London Authority (GLA) of a maximum of 1.1 parking spaces per dwelling. Although this may be fine for some areas of London, a "one size fits all" parking policy for the whole of London does not work: inner and outer London have different demographics.
This problem has been made worse by LBWF imposing even greater restrictions on parking spaces per dwelling and building on town centre car parks. Ostensibly they are trying to create a car free environment and encourage cycling. However, the reality is the Council are desperate to meet their housing quotas and providing parking eats space and reduces the number of homes that can be built in a given area.
The current situation is as follows:
The parking problems associated with the Highams Green (Tesco) development are not restricted to the site itself and has spread to the surrounding streets (Coolgardie, Larkshall Road etc).
The overspill has created problems for shops in Larkshall Road as customers cannot park.
Residents are using the E4 Gym car park and blocking up West Essex Sports Club.
Add to this the fact that the council have recently approved a further development (Block H) on the Tesco site of 83 premises. This has an average of 0.66 parking spaces per dwelling which is less than what was provided for Highams Green and will obviously make the problem a whole lot worse.
I just hope measures will be taken to not only improve the situation but make potential incoming residents fully aware of the parking situation.
More importantly, why are you not trying to defend convicted thieves and liars in charge of teaching children?

You obviously are either an alcoholic or an Off Licence owner?
KERIM
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Don't Give Up[/bold] wrote: The facts are as follows: The problems arise from the restrictive car parking policies imposed on developers by the Greater London Authority (GLA) of a maximum of 1.1 parking spaces per dwelling. Although this may be fine for some areas of London, a "one size fits all" parking policy for the whole of London does not work: inner and outer London have different demographics. This problem has been made worse by LBWF imposing even greater restrictions on parking spaces per dwelling and building on town centre car parks. Ostensibly they are trying to create a car free environment and encourage cycling. However, the reality is the Council are desperate to meet their housing quotas and providing parking eats space and reduces the number of homes that can be built in a given area. The current situation is as follows: The parking problems associated with the Highams Green (Tesco) development are not restricted to the site itself and has spread to the surrounding streets (Coolgardie, Larkshall Road etc). The overspill has created problems for shops in Larkshall Road as customers cannot park. Residents are using the E4 Gym car park and blocking up West Essex Sports Club. Add to this the fact that the council have recently approved a further development (Block H) on the Tesco site of 83 premises. This has an average of 0.66 parking spaces per dwelling which is less than what was provided for Highams Green and will obviously make the problem a whole lot worse. I just hope measures will be taken to not only improve the situation but make potential incoming residents fully aware of the parking situation.[/p][/quote]More importantly, why are you not trying to defend convicted thieves and liars in charge of teaching children? You obviously are either an alcoholic or an Off Licence owner?[/p][/quote]KERIM Kerim69
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Madam Lazonga says...

This situation is exactly what those who opposed Tescos coming to town said would happen. Therefore it should come as a surprise to no-one. It will of course get worse with more flats being built on this development which we have Boris Johnson to thank for giving the final sign off. The level crossing has now become extremely dangerous with all the additional traffic, particularly when school kids are around and I believe it is only a matter of time before it is completely closed off. Still it's all ok because we have another supermarket! Be careful what you wish for...
This situation is exactly what those who opposed Tescos coming to town said would happen. Therefore it should come as a surprise to no-one. It will of course get worse with more flats being built on this development which we have Boris Johnson to thank for giving the final sign off. The level crossing has now become extremely dangerous with all the additional traffic, particularly when school kids are around and I believe it is only a matter of time before it is completely closed off. Still it's all ok because we have another supermarket! Be careful what you wish for... Madam Lazonga
  • Score: 5

8:51pm Thu 4 Sep 14

You know it makes sense .... says...

Here's the thing.
Parking was not flagged as an issue when the properties were bought (not given away!) for a significant cost, I moved here on the premise of being able to travel to work by train easily. But also having direct motorway access to be able to visit my mother who has health issues, I visit regularly and can only get to my parents by car and at unsociable hours as I work during the day, I think it is a right I have paid for and earnt to be able to move freely and not have to worry about walking around an industrial area which is not well lit late at night! Most cpzs (controlled parking zones) are exactly that a "zone" not just a lucky dip selection of 60 bays! Whilst I don't always expect to have a space outside my house I do expect to be able to park within the area I live? Having lived here for a year I enjoy the local area and I contribute to local businesses and in the main found that people in highams park are very friendly. This would be my only gripe and living in a 2 bedroom house with 1 car I don't believe this is unreasonable. Our circumstances are all different so please don't judge why people have cars.
Here's the thing. Parking was not flagged as an issue when the properties were bought (not given away!) for a significant cost, I moved here on the premise of being able to travel to work by train easily. But also having direct motorway access to be able to visit my mother who has health issues, I visit regularly and can only get to my parents by car and at unsociable hours as I work during the day, I think it is a right I have paid for and earnt to be able to move freely and not have to worry about walking around an industrial area which is not well lit late at night! Most cpzs (controlled parking zones) are exactly that a "zone" not just a lucky dip selection of 60 bays! Whilst I don't always expect to have a space outside my house I do expect to be able to park within the area I live? Having lived here for a year I enjoy the local area and I contribute to local businesses and in the main found that people in highams park are very friendly. This would be my only gripe and living in a 2 bedroom house with 1 car I don't believe this is unreasonable. Our circumstances are all different so please don't judge why people have cars. You know it makes sense ....
  • Score: 9

6:03pm Sat 6 Sep 14

roundthetwist says...

Parking is a problem in other parts of Highams Park too. There is another article on the website at the moment about a stolen moped that was only placed out due to lack of parking in the area.
Parking is a problem in other parts of Highams Park too. There is another article on the website at the moment about a stolen moped that was only placed out due to lack of parking in the area. roundthetwist
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree