because planning means they have to restrict the parking spaces
Actually planning does not mean they have to restrict the parking spaces. There is a minimum number of car parking spaces per house that are forced as part of planning. They are not obliged to stick to that. They could have more parking spaces but developers don't do this, because they won't make as much profit as they can use the space they save for cramming in another house. The trouble is that the minimum number of car parking spaces does not reflect modern living patterns and the availably of public transport. If there is no viable reliable public transport then people have to rely on cars and both people in a couple have to work, thus meaning two cars. Yet the building regs are for 1 and a half parking spaces on a 3 bed I believe - or something utterly daft like that which really does work in half spaces.
On my new build estate is was written into the contract of sale you were no allowed to park on the street - you had to park in your own spaces. We deliberately bought a rare thing - a two bed with two whole car parking spaces. We paid a £15,000 premium for the privilege of it.
However, since there were not enough spaces for the people who bought the houses elsewhere on the estate it was ignored from the word go. The estate is unadopted by the council and is run by a management group - which again is not uncommon for many new build estates these days.
This means that the parking on the deliberately narrow street (because no one was supposed to park on it) was done from the word go. As the council have no jurisdiction here, the way to tackle it was initially to threaten with clamping, as yellow lines could not be used. Then the law changes and this couldn't be done anymore.
We have had problems with delivery vehicles, rubbish collection and emergency services being unable to get their large vehicles onto the estate. The management company have written in the past to tell people, but as people move on and new people come in, they are simply unaware of the issue and its becomes even less respected.
Not to mention there is no parking whatsoever in the planning for visitors.
The issue is not that planning restricts parking. Its an issue of pure profit.
Our estate is in the same area my parents live. I know no one who stayed local long term when I left school. Not a sole. They couldn't get work here AND afford to live here. The choice was move out of home or run a car. If you stayed, you lived with your parents and commuted until you were well established in your career and found a partner. (Thus adding to that car problem in some places) and then had to go somewhere cheaper.
If you moved out whilst young, the only thing you could do was move into a high occupancy house in an area with good public transport. Until you were well established in your career and found a partner and generally stayed in the area you'd move to.
The only reason I'm still here is I took option a, and when I found a partner and was ready to buy there happened to be a shared ownership scheme aimed at locals which we took advantage of. We are a rarity in that we managed to buy our way out of it. I know others on the estate who have been screwed by the scheme and are struggling. It relied on house prices increasing in order to help people and for them to move on. Our house is currently worth exactly the same as it was 10 years ago when we bought. Whilst it helped us, I think we are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to shared ownership. They are a complete sham imho. And course now we are stuck here unable to move up the chain locally anyway, as although we have over paid our mortgage and our income has gone up, we STILL don't have the equity to get a mortgage big enough to move up the chain.
If we can't move up then people ten years younger can't move here because there is no more building going on (there isn't the land available and what land there is, has problems which developers don't want to deal with because that hits profit). The only houses they want to build here are 4 bed detached which carry more profit. They even managed to get away with palming off the low cost housing as part of planning to the opposite side of town (where its cheaper to build) recently rather than adding to the community they want to build in.
The local parish council has now taken the attitude that they will oppose any new building here of this nature. They know that building is going to happen and they have to allow it. Its not NIMBY. They, instead, what to make sure that any new building schemes are predominately at the lower end of the scale - either smaller properties for first time buyers or the elderly, or smaller / cheaper family homes. The trouble is that the local borough council don't get it and are just trying to push housing. Any housing. And the national government just want to push developments. Any developments.
So the local parish council are under huge pressure to capitulate.
The bottom line is though, that you can remove the education from the equation. Young people from the suburbs will still end up moving to these High Occupancy Properties in the city, because they can't afford property in the suburbs and there work is in the city. The city at least has public transport so they don't have to pay to run a car (with the stupid insurance premiums the young have) as well as pay for high rents.
Its an issue particularly true of middle classes as well as they live in more expensive areas. If you are working class, you already live in an area that is cheaper so the option to stay closer by is more likely, thus preserving any community that is there. Out of my middle class friends not a single one I met at university stayed in the university area in the long term. But neither did a single one move back close to their parents. It simply was not a choice nor opportunity in life. Many of them live abroad now too.
So the young middle classes get blamed for being young and middle class and the idea is now that this will somehow stop because they won't be going to a university and therefore won't be moving to the city and a High Occupancy Property. I'd like to know where they are supposed to go instead?! Are they supposed to live with their parents forever more? Its not so much a lifestyle choice, but a necessity forced upon them by accident of birth due to when and where they were born just as much as the working class have their lives mapped out. Some have done well. Some haven't.
The issue is that planning in this country is 100% about profit. Its not about sustainability. Its not about reflecting the needs of people. Its not about reflecting what communities actively want and are trying to encourage. Its not about building suitable property. Its not about community space or living.
My estate is actually great despite its flaws. It was taken to the high court three times to get the plans changed as it was a site that was sensitive. The result is its a mix of different property types with lots of smaller ones as well as the bigger ones. The design is nice. Its not 'legoland' endless boxes without character. It has two communal areas. The neighbours do know each other. Our parking issues are annoying but actually not the worst. The same can not be said for the two other developments built at the same time which didn't get the same scrutiny and thought put into them. The streets are far more packed together and parking is utterly horrendous.
I think solutions are actually pretty simple. Its just that successive governments are quite frankly, thick and short sighted. And profit remains king. Plus this is backed up by older generations just not realising how limited options for the young - of all classes - are in terms of housing.
I feel lucky. We bought at the top of the market in the middle of the building boom. Property prices crashed locally, but it didn't mean it was easy to get a property. There are no more big estates being built locally and its unlikely to happen too. There isn't enough profit to be made. People ten years younger haven't got a chance. Even fewer will stay locally.