In message , at 10:58:27 on
Thu, 12 Sep 2019, David Walters remarked:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 12:41:59 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:06:22 on Wed,
This is nothing to do with electric cars as such - these houses are not
designed for cars at all (even if they claim otherwise).

The claim we need to be interested in is that 40% of houses have
garages, and are therefore suitable for hosting chargers and electric
cars. The 40% figure ignores the fact that $foo% of those "garages" are
entirely unsuitable for that task.

My claim was about half of homes could have an electric charger based
on 40% having a garage and 26% having other off street parking. 3 million
of those homes might be unsuitable for installing an electric charger
and we still get to my about half.

I've been unable to find better figures, perhaps someone else can?

I think there are unlikely to be any official figures, because they
won't be compiling stats for whether the garages are integral/attached
to the house (and therefore potentially suitable), too narrow (and
therefore unsuitable again), or disjoint from the house (in a block, at
the end of the garden etc) and again unsuitable.

[I'm ignoring the garages that would be suitable, if they weren't full
of junk and households where the number of cars exceeds the garages].

The same (apart from the width and the junk) is also true of off-street
parking.

More of the 'you can't stick anything on the front of your house and the
door has to be grey' kind of covenants.

I've seen door colour restrictions in conservation areas, but nothing as
generic as "anything on front".

I lived in a 2001 build house which didn't allow a change in front door
colour.

Was it in a conservation area, or on a development with private roads
and a management company?

Street View shows my old door has been replaced and is now a different
colour but the developer has long gone so I expect the covenant isn't
enforceable.

What about covenants for "things on the front", other than satellite
dishes?
--
Roland Perry