Idea for a grant to modify driveways to accommodate cars

Ush1

Not sure where to post this but it's an idea I had.

One thing that doesn't sit right with me is private property aka cars being stored on public roads. I notice in my estate that cars are parked all along the sides of the roads making it annoying to navigate. Many of the houses have driveways big enough for the extra cars but you would need to adjust the walls.

My idea is the government give a grant to modify your driveway to accommodate your car or cars. Do you think this is something government would entertain and that people would avail of?

Zebra3

Put down double yellow lines and enforce it.

hurikane

So you don’t want private cars on public property and want to pay people with public money to park them on their private property?

MJohnston

There should in no way be a grant for this imo. Governments should be spending on money on public transport that reduces people's need to store a car anywhere.

This modification requires planning permission anyway, which should tell you that the government/local authorities don't want it to happen.

Pete_Cavan

There are many streets around Dublin of early 20th century houses with a small front garden, these are generally totally unused and often not maintained. The residents park on the sside of the public road which is not wide enough to accommodate driving and parked cars resulting in insufficient space for cars to pass, parking on footpaths, or both. God help a cyclist trying to get down the road or someone pushing a buggy on the footpath. This is not just residential side streets, it is on artery roads as well.

I have often thought that it would be a good idea to incentivise residents to convert their front garden into a parking space, even if that is covering part of the cost or doing the work for them. Everyone gets a space for one car and that's it. In return the public get their road and footpath back.

magicbastarder

'government incentivises private car ownership' is not a policy position which makes any sense.
i used to live in a house without a driveway (in phibsboro). one of the reasons i bought the house was because it would remove a lot of the need for me to own a car.

MJohnston

Let me see, we want to tear up lawns and flora and replace them with driveways for cars....sure, of course, this is great.

Caranica

If you remove on street parking where are visitors, tradespeople, officials going to park? It's all very well to say in the driveway but each would have limited capacity, much less than might be available on the street at any given time.

Vic_08

Unless an entire street was done at the same time with the road being double yellowed as well it will do no good, some will have driveways but the street will just fill up with other parked cars.

work

Ush1 wrote: »

Not sure where to post this but it's an idea I had.

One thing that doesn't sit right with me is private property aka cars being stored on public roads. I notice in my estate that cars are parked all along the sides of the roads making it annoying to navigate. Many of the houses have driveways big enough for the extra cars but you would need to adjust the walls.

My idea is the government give a grant to modify your driveway to accommodate your car or cars. Do you think this is something government would entertain and that people would avail of?

No just ban parking on the road and you must park privately. Simple I belive has already been done

Ush1

Zebra3 wrote: »

Put down double yellow lines and enforce it.

I agree but carrot as well as stick. This gives people help to move the cars off the road if they have the space to.

Ush1

hurikane wrote: »

So you don’t want private cars on public property and want to pay people with public money to park them on their private property?

Yes, there's no inherent contradiction there. It doesn't even have to be public money, you could make the works VAT exempt same as the HRI.

Ush1

MJohnston wrote: »

There should in no way be a grant for this imo. Governments should be spending on money on public transport that reduces people's need to store a car anywhere.

This modification requires planning permission anyway, which should tell you that the government/local authorities don't want it to happen.

I don't think lack of money has been an issue of late for public transport projects and I can't see an incentive of this type costing much. It would be a drop in the ocean in terms of budgets.

It wouldn't always require planning I don't think. Does any modification of a driveway require planning? Changing grass to tarmac?

Ush1

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

There are many streets around Dublin of early 20th century houses with a small front garden, these are generally totally unused and often not maintained. The residents park on the sside of the public road which is not wide enough to accommodate driving and parked cars resulting in insufficient space for cars to pass, parking on footpaths, or both. God help a cyclist trying to get down the road or someone pushing a buggy on the footpath. This is not just residential side streets, it is on artery roads as well.

I have often thought that it would be a good idea to incentivise residents to convert their front garden into a parking space, even if that is covering part of the cost or doing the work for them. Everyone gets a space for one car and that's it. In return the public get their road and footpath back.

Exactly my point. It would also lower their car insurance premium and access for ambulances and emergency services should improve.

Ush1

magicbastarder wrote: »

'government incentivises private car ownership' is not a policy position which makes any sense.
i used to live in a house without a driveway (in phibsboro). one of the reasons i bought the house was because it would remove a lot of the need for me to own a car.

You think it would induce demand like that? I don't think it would but if that was the case you could add clauses. Maybe the car or cars have to be registered to you before a certain date to avail?

Ush1

Caranica wrote: »

If you remove on street parking where are visitors, tradespeople, officials going to park? It's all very well to say in the driveway but each would have limited capacity, much less than might be available on the street at any given time.

Most housing estate streets are not clogged up by visitors or temporary access, it is by people who live there parking their car on the road.

To be honest I never mentioned double yellow lines but if the incentive is widely took up in an area you could look to introduce that.

antix80

I park in front of my driveway. Half on the footpath and half on the road.

Op, there is a serious cost involved in what you're suggesting. Youre talking thousands, it's not just a case of knocking a wall and pouring some concrete along the footpath to make a ramp.

Plus it solves absolutely nothing. Some households have 2 cars and some have none. So if the households without cars don't take up the offer to ruin their garden, it still leaves cars of residents and their visitors on the road.

If street parking was restricted you'd probably find people without cars renting out their driveways.. And you'd be giving them a grant to do it.

Ush1

Vic_08 wrote: »

Unless an entire street was done at the same time with the road being double yellowed as well it will do no good, some will have driveways but the street will just fill up with other parked cars.

Perhaps, but at least you've cleared a number of vehicles from the road. I don't even know if their would be much uptake in such an incentive but it could at least be an option.

Any reduction of cars on roads is a good thing. Obviously less car ownership should be a long term goal but this would be a short term help.

Ush1

Weepsie wrote: »

If they can afford multiple cars, too many to fit all in driveway, they can afford to get the work done themselves. car ownership is too high as is and should be moves to encourage less of it

Many people can't afford to get that work done and you can get a car for 500 euro, it's hardly any symbol of status or wealth. Some folks need it for work and would prefer increased security of having it on their own property.

magicbastarder

you need PP to change the access at the front of the house. the public kerb will also need to be dished, probably.

magicbastarder

antix80 wrote: »

I park in front of my driveway. Half on the footpath and half on the road.

you know it's (technically) illegal to park on a footpath? not that you'd notice with the absolute zero level of policing this in ireland.

Ush1

antix80 wrote: »

I park in front of my driveway. Half on the footpath and half on the road.

Op, there is a serious cost involved in what you're suggesting. Youre talking thousands, it's not just a case of knocking a wall and pouring some concrete along the footpath to make a ramp.

Plus it solves absolutely nothing. Some households have 2 cars and some have none. So if the households without cars don't take up the offer to ruin their garden, it still leaves cars of residents and their visitors on the road.

If street parking was restricted you'd probably find people without cars renting out their driveways.. And you'd be giving them a grant to do it.

I don't understand what you mean. If people have the room to park their car on their property but don't have money to get the work done, they could avail of it. That is how it would reduce the number of cars on the road.

If someone doesn't have a car and has a driveway, obviously there is no issue as they don't have a car.

Plus you can easily show you need to be registered owner of at least one car to avail of the grant.

blackbox

Some people park on the road to keep their driveway free for the kids to play on.

Ush1

magicbastarder wrote: »

you need PP to change the access at the front of the house. the public kerb will also need to be dished, probably.

It's case by case. In my own estate in many cases it's simply changing grass for tarmac/paving and sometimes perhaps removing part of there front wall.

Ush1

blackbox wrote: »

Some people park on the road to keep their driveway free for the kids to play on.

I personally find that a bad reason. Perhaps if the roads outside their driveway were clearer the kids could play there?

magicbastarder

Ush1 wrote: »

It's case by case. In my own estate in many cases it's simply changing grass for tarmac/paving and sometimes perhaps removing part of there front wall.

removing any part of the wall specifically needs PP.

Can I provide car parking in my garden without permission?

Yes. To the front or side for not more than 2 cars.
(Page 157, Class 6, Part B(ii))
NB. The widening of vehicular entrances is not exempt. (3.5 meters max with permission)

https://www.dlrcoco.ie/en/planning/planning-applications/do-i-need-planning-application

Peregrinus

Essentially, up to now, the taxpayer has provided free storage space to car owners, by allowing them to store their cars on the public highway when not actually using them.

This is arguably a bad policy for at least two reasons. One, it represents a transfer of wealth from taxpayers generally to car owners specifically. Why would we think this was a good idea? Secondly, it diminishes the utility of the highway for other users, particularly footpath users (when cars are parked on or partly on the footpath), cyclists (who tend to cycle at the margins of the road, where cars park) and people who live in built-up areas (where traffic flows are signficantly restricted because so much road surface is taken out of action to provide storage for stationary private vehicles).

We can effectively withdraw taxpayer support by banning parking on the street. It's then up to car owners to find somewhere to store their cars.

One possiblity is "in the front garden", if space permits. There's no obvious reason to pay people to adapt their front gardens; the whole point of this is that the taxpayer should stop subsidising storage for vehicles while they are not being used. There's also the objection that the people most adversely affected by the on-street parking ban are those who don't have front gardens - they are going to have to pay possibly quite a lot to store their cars at what might be an inconvenient distance from their homes. If there's a case to be made for public money being spent to alleviate the plight of those disadvantaged by the change in policy regarding on-street parking, surely that money should be directed first of all towards this group?

JustAThought

some houses or streets, their aspect, walls and iorn fencing /streetscaping are considered of historic or architectural interest snd are protected.particularly georgian, edwardian etc which you find quite a lot of in the city centre - hemce the need for planning permission. An Taisce also keep a wry eye on these as do local preservation and special architectural interest groups.

MJohnston

Ush1 wrote: »

I don't think lack of money has been an issue of late for public transport projects and I can't see an incentive of this type costing much. It would be a drop in the ocean in terms of budgets.

It wouldn't always require planning I don't think. Does any modification of a driveway require planning? Changing grass to tarmac?

Hold on a second - you're literally talking about creating a budget to pay people to have a driveway put in.

No.

No, no, no, no, no.

And you're complaining that we're spending money on public transport projects??

This is a nutto thread, it's an idea that's completely going against the tides of where we're headed as a society, I'm out!

Peregrinus

JustAThought wrote: »

some houses or streets, their aspect, walls and iorn fencing /streetscaping are considered of historic or architectural interest snd are protected.particularly georgian, edwardian etc which you find quite a lot of in the city centre - hemce the need for planning permission. An Taisce also keep a wry eye on these as do local preservation and special architectural interest groups.

But it's not just a matter of historical or architectural interest. Any creation of a vehicular entrance on/off the street needs to be looked at - traffic engineers want to know how close it is to any junction, whether it creates a hazard, how it relates to or affects streetlamps, street trees or other street furniture, what the sight-lines are like, etc, etc.

Ush1

Peregrinus wrote: »

We can effectively withdraw taxpayer support by banning parking on the street. It's then up to car owners to find somewhere to store their cars.

One possiblity is "in the front garden", if space permits. There's no obvious reason to pay people to adapt their front gardens; the whole point of this is that the taxpayer should stop subsidising storage for vehicles while they are not being used.

The obvious reason is that it would clear roads, leaving them for use as they were intended. You only have to pay the grant once and that's the road one or many cars clearer for many years. Or they can leave the car on the public road indefinitely as they have been doing as an ongoing cost(and disruption more to the point).

It doesn't have to cover the entire cost of works, could be a VAT exemption like the HRI was. That's not tax payers money as it hasn't gone to revenue yet.

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's also the objection that the people most adversely affected by the on-street parking ban are those who don't have front gardens - they are going to have to pay possibly quite a lot to store their cars at what might be an inconvenient distance from their homes. If there's a case to be made for public money being spent to alleviate the plight of those disadvantaged by the change in policy regarding on-street parking, surely that money should be directed first of all towards this group?

Sort of whataboutery isn't it again? If there was a convenient and sensical way to help those without driveways, I'm sure many would be happy to hear it but obviously this is for people who would have room to store the vehicle.

Ush1

JustAThought wrote: »

some houses or streets, their aspect, walls and iorn fencing /streetscaping are considered of historic or architectural interest snd are protected.particularly georgian, edwardian etc which you find quite a lot of in the city centre - hemce the need for planning permission. An Taisce also keep a wry eye on these as do local preservation and special architectural interest groups.

Of course, it's obviously not suitable for all cases.

tigerboon

Without getting into the car ownership debate, planning for new developments should require parking for 2 cars per unit for the simple reason that's what most families have. If they don't have this, they are forced to park on the street. this blocks access for emergency services in a lot of estates. There's not much point in the regulations requiring fire retardant measures if the fire brigade can't get to the fire.

magicbastarder

as an aside, i mentioned earlier in the thread that i lived in phibsboro once. interestingly, the house i was in had a small front garden, but what makes it unusual is that the garden was not there until maybe four or five decades ago. the road was really wide, and the people living in the houses asked the corpo could they had some of it for front gardens, and the corpo agreed. if you dug down about eight inches in the front garden, you'd hit the hardcore of the old road bed.

there are other places in dublin where there are bizarre amounts of space given over to cars, with an obviously inefficient use of space available, e.g. griffith avenue extension:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.379329,-6.2727767,3a,75y,313.84h,85.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1st-j-hQxm1oy3PvBVQVQsBw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dt-j-hQxm1oy3PvBVQVQsBw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D343.7623%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

magicbastarder

tigerboon wrote: »

planning for new developments should require parking for 2 cars per unit for the simple reason that's what most families have.

induced demand, no?

Ush1

MJohnston wrote: »

Hold on a second - you're literally talking about creating a budget to pay people to have a driveway put in.

Not necessarily, many cases from what I can see is a modification to an existing driveway. It's also not "paying" people anything. There are many ways a grant can be leveraged, again the HRI being a good example. That wasn't "paying people" to do up their house.

MJohnston wrote: »

And you're complaining that we're spending money on public transport projects??

Where did I complain about spending money on public transport?

MJohnston wrote: »

This is a nutto thread, it's an idea that's completely going against the tides of where we're headed as a society, I'm out!

I think clearing public roads is a good thing in terms of where society is heading? As with most changes in public behaviour, a carrot and stick approach is required. This could be the carrot, double yellow lines the stick.

Peregrinus

Ush1 wrote: »

The obvious reason is that it would clear roads, leaving them for use as they were intended. You only have to pay the grant once and that's the road one or many cars clearer for many years. Or they can leave the car on the public road indefinitely as they have been doing as an ongoing cost(and disruption more to the point).

You're missing the point. Banning on-street parking will clear the roads anyway; you don't have to in addition pay money to people who have front gardens capable of being converted. They'll convert at their own expense if its cheaper than the alternative of paying for off-site parking.

Ush1 wrote: »

It doesn't have to cover the entire cost of works, could be a VAT exemption like the HRI was. That's not tax payers money as it hasn't gone to revenue yet.

Tax breaks are provided at taxpayer expense just as subsidies are. Different mechanism, but it all comes out in the wash.

Ush1 wrote: »

Sort of whataboutery isn't it again? If there was a convenient and sensical way to help those without driveways, I'm sure many would be happy to hear it but obviously this is for people who would have room to store the vehicle.

Who are, by definition, the people in less need of help. The people who have the really expensive problem are those who don't have a front garden capable of conversion.

If you're determined to compensate people for the loss of the taxpayer subvention they have enjoyed for free up to now, I think the first thing you would do is give them a tax deduction for amounts spent on paying for off-street parking. That would certainly come before a grant or tax deduction for front garden conversion.

Ush1

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it's not just a matter of historical or architectural interest. Any creation of a vehicular entrance on/off the street needs to be looked at - traffic engineers want to know how close it is to any junction, whether it creates a hazard, how it relates to or affects streetlamps, street trees or other street furniture, what the sight-lines are like, etc, etc.

This would not apply to many housing estates though.

Peregrinus

Ush1 wrote: »

This would not apply to many housing estates though.

Housing estate or not, in every case you need to examine each proposal separately. Even housing estates have junctions, street furniture and sight-lines.

In some areas you might approve a much higher proportion of garden conversions than in others, but each does require consideration on its own merits, and therefore all require planning permission.

Ush1

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're missing the point. Banning on-street parking will clear the roads anyway; you don't have to in addition pay money to people who have front gardens capable of being converted. They'll convert at their own expense if its cheaper than the alternative of paying for off-site parking.

I never mentioned banning on street parking, which can obviously cause issues of it's own. This would be a more passive method of clearing roads.

Being realistic most housing estates are not going to outright ban parking on the roads, certainly not overnight without the local government offering alternative solutions. This is an alternative solution.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Tax breaks are provided at taxpayer expense just as subsidies are. Different mechanism, but it all comes out in the wash.

It's a different argument, regardless this would be a drop in the ocean. If peoples only issues were cost I wouldn't be too worried. Again, look at the HRI.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Who are, by definition, the people in less need of help. The people who have the really expensive problem are those who don't have a front garden capable of conversion.

If you're determined to compensate people for the loss of the taxpayer subvention they have enjoyed for free up to now, I think the first thing you would do is give them a tax deduction for amounts spent on paying for off-street parking. That would certainly come before a grant or tax deduction for front garden conversion.

Why not do both? Again, it's whataboutery.

Ush1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Housing estate or not, in every case you need to examine each proposal separately. Even housing estates have junctions, street furniture and sight-lines.

In some areas you might approve a much higher proportion of garden conversions than in others, but each does require consideration on its own merits, and therefore all require planning permission.

Does changing grass to tarmac or paving require planning permission?

dazberry

Ush1 wrote: »

Does changing grass to tarmac or paving require planning permission?

If it's a change of use it requires PP, i.e. front garden to car parking.

D.

Ush1

dazberry wrote: »

If it's a change of use it requires PP, i.e. front garden to car parking.

D.

Thanks for that.

Interesting, I would have thought most people getting there driveways redone including any garden part would not have applied for planning permission. Certainly plenty around where I live have had the work done and I haven't seen any planning application signs up.

Peregrinus

Ush1 wrote: »

I never mentioned banning on street parking, which can obviously cause issues of it's own. This would be a more passive method of clearing roads.

It would just increase the taxpayer support for private motorists; instead of funding one storage option for them, you'd be funding two. This only make sense, if at all, as a mechanism for alleviating the impact of an on-street parking ban. There is no case at all for subsiding garden conversions as well as providing free storage on the street.

Ush1 wrote: »

Being realistic most housing estates are not going to outright ban parking on the roads, certainly not overnight without the local government offering alternative solutions. This is an alternative solution.

It's not the optimal alternative solution, for the reason already pointed out.

Ush1 wrote: »

It's a different argument, regardless this would be a drop in the ocean. If peoples only issues were cost I wouldn't be too worried. Again, look at the HRI.

There's a difference, though, from HRI. We want the country's housing stock improved, so there's a case for public support for improving houses. We don't want more private motoring - we'd like less - so there's a case against public support for storing private cars while they're not being used.

Ush1 wrote: »

Why not do both? Again, it's whataboutery.

Not whataboutery at all; if we care about the people adversely affected by an on-street parking ban, we presumably care about all the people affected.

And the reason not to do both is obvious; it costs more. If taxpayer subsidies for private motoring are a bad thing, then bigger taxpayer subsidies for private motoring are a worse thing.

But, if we are going to provide some taxpayer subsidy to ease the impact of this change of policy, then the fairest way is probably a subsidy for the provision of of public off-street parking in residential areas. This is fair, because it provides a similar benefit to everyone affected, whether they own a convertible front garden or not. You might offer a front garden conversion subsidy only to those who can't reasonably be expected to use neighbourhood parking, e.g. those with a mobility disability.

Peregrinus

Ush1 wrote: »

Does changing grass to tarmac or paving require planning permission?

Generally not. It's opening or widening a vehicle entrance that will require PP. Converting a one-car drive to a two-car drive will often require PP because, unless the garden is quite large, it means an existing entrance has to be widened.

Peregrinus

dazberry wrote: »

If it's a change of use it requires PP, i.e. front garden to car parking.

D.

From memory, parking a car in your garden is considered an aspect of garden use, so doesn't count as a change of use. The usual trigger for a PP requirement in this context is the need to create or widen the entrance.

You'll also need approval from the local authority, separately from PP, for the work needed to dish the footpath, or any other work that may need to be done outside your boundary, e.g. moving street furniture.

Ush1

Peregrinus wrote: »

It would just increase the taxpayer support for private motorists; instead of funding one storage option for them, you'd be funding two. This only make sense, if at all, as a mechanism for alleviating the impact of an on-street parking ban. There is no case at all for subsiding garden conversions as well as providing free storage on the street.

You can coincide with double yellow lines and parking restrictions but this offers people a solution before those measures are in place. Carrot and stick.

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not the optimal alternative solution, for the reason already pointed out.

There really is no "optimal" solution, because that's going to depend on your viewpoint. This is a solution where people can voluntarily opt in.

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's a difference, though, from HRI. We want the country's housing stock improved, so there's a case for public support for improving houses. We don't want more private motoring - we'd like less - so there's a case against public support for storing private cars while they're not being used.

We do want clearer roads though. This is a short term solution. We would like everyone on public transport or electric cars but these things won't happen overnight so you have interim solutions.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not whataboutery at all; if we care about the people adversely affected by an on-street parking ban, we presumably care about all the people affected.

It is whataboutery, you can start another thread if you would like to introduce a grant to subsidise people with no driveways parking.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And the reason not to do both is obvious; it costs more. If taxpayer subsidies for private motoring are a bad thing, then bigger taxpayer subsidies for private motoring are a worse thing.

But it's not subsidising private motoring, it's subsidising the clearing of public roads. As I said, you could introduce a date limit for when the car was purchased if there was a fear of induced demand.

I don't think it would cost much regardless compared to many other incentives.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, if we are going to provide some taxpayer subsidy to ease the impact of this change of policy, then the fairest way is probably a subsidy for the provision of of public off-street parking in residential areas. This is fair, because it provides a similar benefit to everyone affected, whether they own a convertible front garden or not. You might offer a front garden conversion subsidy only to those who can't reasonably be expected to use neighbourhood parking, e.g. those with a mobility disability.

Okay but it's not the grant I'm proposing, feel free to start another thread.

dazberry

Ush1 wrote: »

Thanks for that.

Interesting, I would have thought most people getting there driveways redone including any garden part would not have applied for planning permission. Certainly plenty around where I live have had the work done and I haven't seen any planning application signs up.

I've seen a few around my way with retention planning permissions - so they do get noticed. I had to get PP when we did ours. The planning conditions waffled on about DCC car usage policy not encouraging car usage and being close to a bend in the road (although there are other driveways nearer to the bend) but we got PP for it no problem. I guess some people get paid to write reports

Peregrinus

Nah, it's a subsidy that only goes to (a) private car owners who also own (b) convertible front gardens. Why single out these people? If there is to be a subsidy for storage of private cars to replace on-street parking, it should be available on equal terms to all car-owners (just like on-street parking is). That's obviously fair. Focussing the subsidy on the group who can most easily adapt to the ban is (a) unfair and (b) an inefficient use of taxpayer resources.

Zebra3

Is on street parking not illegal as it changes the use of the public road to a car park without planning permission?

(Thinking of the cul-de-sac I live on).

magicbastarder

many areas affected with this proposal would be under the paid parking scheme, yes?
i am curious as to how much change the proposed grant would bring about. because if you've paid parking outside your house for €40 a year, unless the grant was a 100% grant, most people would opt for the much cheaper on street parking option.