Development Intent
Planning AtlasHavering24
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Havering · Local Plan · Policy

24 — Parking provision and design.

How Havering actually applies 24: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

24 is a published Havering planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: Havering Local Plan (adopted)

Havering · 24
Where 24 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~7
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
59
times cited
in parsed decision notices
appeal survival
no PINS appeal decisions cite it
8 of 14
officer reach
57% of officers recorded in this period
Rainham & Wennington
top hotspot ward
7 citations
What this policy is about

Policy 24 requires developments to meet London Plan parking standards, with minimum parking standards in areas with low public transport access. It applies to residential and commercial developments, and the Council will support proposals with well-designed parking and car club membership. The Council will restrict parking permits if necessary.

Plain-English summary of the adopted policy text below. The full text is the rule; this is the gist.

The policy — as adopted

Parking provision and design

London Plan maximums standards apply across the borough. In areas of the borough that have low public transport access (PTAL 0-1) where no improvements are planned, the minimum residential parking standards set out in Table 11 (below) will also apply: Table 11 Minimum Parking – PTAL 0-1 (Outside of the Opportunity Areas) 1 Bedroom 2 bedrooms 3+ bedrooms 0.5 spaces per unit 1 space per unit 1.5 spaces per unit In all areas, subject to the standards set out in Table 11 being met, the Council will support proposals that: i. Consider the location and layout of parking provision at the earliest stage and as an integral part of the design process; ii. Locate parking close to people’s homes and in areas with natural surveillance; iii. Provide intensive and durable planting in regular intervals that visually screens the continuity of car parking to the front of dwellings and provides a green street scene; and iv. Include car club membership open to all and provide on-site car club parking spaces. Where a development proposal would result in a net loss of car parking spaces the applicant will be required to robustly demonstrate that there is no need for these spaces. Planning conditions and legal agreements may be used to restrict eligibility for on-street residential and commercial parking permits, irrespective of the amount of parking spaces provided off street as part of the development. Parking provision in new shopping and leisure developments should serve the area/centre as a whole. It should not be reserved solely for use in connection with the development proposed and be provided as short stay parking. Disabled parking and cycle parking should be located closest to town centres and the entrance to the facilities and should include provision for long and short stay use. The Council will support development proposals that provide adequate off street servicing arrangements for commercial vehicles and general servicing. 10.2.1 Car parking for development should aim to strike an appropriate balance between meeting the essential parking needs of the site whilst neither acting as a discouragement to using public transport nor adding to demand for on-street parking. Discussion of the appropriate balance should form a key part of Transport Assessments. Travel Plans should be developed to minimise the need for car-based access. Local Plan 2016-2031 Adopted 2021 London Borough of Havering 10 Connections Developments should seek to provide the minimum realistic amount of car parking for the scheme, without undue risk of overspill parking onto surrounding streets. The allocation of car parking should consider the needs of disabled people, both in terms of quantity and location. 10.2.2 Developments will be supported that comply with the London Plan parking standards for all other forms of parking including for cycles, motor-cycles, cars for disabled people, electric vehicle charging points and coaches; 10.2.3 The Council’s approach to off-street car parking standards is to ensure that parking is not over-provided at destinations served by good public transport (maximum levels of provision), but to recognise and respect the decision many residents make to continue to own a car and ensure that adequate levels of off-street parking are provided in new residential development in areas with lower levels of accessibility to public transport. The Council considers this is justified and appropriate in Havering because the borough is not well provided with public transport services for some journeys and there are no practical alternatives to making journeys by car. 10.2.4 The London Plan Parking Standards clearly outline the need for more sustainable travel. The parking standards for outer London boroughs allow for additional parking in comparison to central London boroughs. This is determined by the access to public transport, as identified by the TfL's Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL). 10.2.5 Table 11 sets out minimum parking standards for PTAL’s 0-1. Applying minimum standards to some specific parts of the borough that are PTAL 0-1 recognises that the London Plan provides outer London boroughs with the opportunity to apply a more flexible approach to parking standards in these areas. 10.2.6 Some areas of the borough (such as central Romford and Upminster) have good or very good access to public transport. In areas well served by public transport and therefore with high PTAL levels, the Council has an obligation under the London Plan to reduce private car use and provide fewer parking spaces in comparison to other parts of the borough. 10.2.7 Car clubs and pool car schemes are becoming increasingly popular as a means of reducing the need for people to own a car, particularly in areas of good public transport accessibility where there may only be occasional need to use a car. The Council will expect the inclusion of a publicly accessible car club scheme where the scale of development would support the provision of such a scheme. 10.2.8 The London Plan has also set out a requirement for electric vehicle charging point parking spaces to be included within a development. Therefore, developments will need to include the minimum required electric vehicle parking spaces as required at the time of the application. 10.2.9 The Council will expect parking provision to be provided on site, however it is recognised that this may not always be sufficient. In situations where in-curtilage parking is required, it should be located close to the home to avoid inconvenience and increase natural surveillance. Large, isolated car parks should be avoided. Whilst parking will be provided within private areas, it should be recognised that people will wish to park where they consider convenient and this is often on the existing or proposed street. This should be taken into consideration, and parking designed to be convenient for residents so that streets are not dominated by cars.

Verbatim from the adopted Havering plan · source document. The council's published plan is the authoritative version.

How it lands
0% in approvals · 100% in refusals
59 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Rainham & Wennington7
St Edward's5
Hylands & Harrow Lg5
What cites it — application types
all years on record · click a slice to filter
What it means in practice

Not filled in yet. This will hold how officers actually argue 24 case by case, classified from their decision reports — the classification pass hasn't run. Nothing is paraphrased in its place.

What the published record shows

24 appears most often in Rainham & Wennington, St Edward's, Hylands & Harrow Lg. It appears across 8 of 14 officers recorded in this period. The map shows the pattern for the selected period.

Who cites it — case-officer spreadfrom parsed decision notices · click an officer
Who leans on this policy — and how often — is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Why it is cited — and what follows
0%
in approvals
0 citations
100%
in refusals
59 citations

This shows the decision reports in which 24 appears. It does not yet claim that the policy caused those outcomes.

Reason · role · consequence

Not filled in yet — the classification pass over the citing passages hasn't run. When it has, this shows why 24 was used, whether it supported approval or refusal, and what changed as a result. No conclusion is shown until that classification has been checked.

Why this policy is cited, and what follows, is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Does it hold up? — appeal performance

No Planning Inspectorate appeal decisions on record cite 24. When one lands (the appeals table refreshes each weekday), the dismissed/allowed record appears here — never estimated.

Related — follow the thread
Havering
Back to the borough policy record
Open →
Committee record
What reaches members, and what they do with it
Open →
Case officers
Havering's decision-makers
Open →
Citations, officer spread, ward and application-type counts parsed from published Havering decision notices (high-confidence parses, approvals and refusals), joined to the canonical application record. One citation = one decision citing the policy. See the policy overview for every policy cited.

Atlas intelligence summarises patterns and observations from published planning records. Past decisions do not indicate how any future application will be determined. Every application is assessed on its own merits, having regard to the proposal, site, evidence and policies applying at the time. This information is provided for general information only and is not planning, legal, financial or professional advice.