Archived decisions
Summary of responses from local planning authorities to the
HCC Review of Parking Strategy and Standards 2001
· Basingstoke and Deane BC
Resolution of the Cabinet,
16 May 2001
The purpose and general thrust of introducing revised parking standards is welcomed, however the following reservations and concerns raised by officers be noted:
Policy 3: The provision of guidance on the means of monitoring and enforcing Company Travel Plans would be beneficial.
Policy 5c: In association with the proposal for suitable enforcement measures to control possible off-site parking impacts, it may be beneficial to incorporate this as part of a negotiated planning agreement for parking provision at new developments.
Greater emphasis should be placed on the need to utilise land in an efficient manner - whether for parking or more efficient land-uses (advised by PPG1 and PPG3).
Section 2, Appendix 1: Clarity is required in the determination of appropriate parking provision for new development. Parking adjustments between different categories of development may undermine parking levels.
The method of applying the proposed standards is thought to be overly complicated. Therefore enforcement of parking regulations may be impeded by resource/staff constraints.
¬ This falls outside the scope of the parking strategy review and it is appropriate to leave local planning authorities to determine the best method of enforcing planning conditions.
¬ This suggestion would appear to be a reasonable way of mitigating the impacts of development over the surrounding area.
¬ This strategy seeks to work with existing planning policy guidance.
¬ This approach is intended to combine a uniform, consistent basis across the County, yet allow local conditions to be reflected in the final decision.
Clarification is required for the use of the accessibility model in determining the appropriate category, whether it will be made more generally available, and with an explanation for the computer-based software package. Further; the model would need to reflect continuous improvement as a result of the implementation of BEST (Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport).
Developers may seek to maximise parking on-site by under-developing Company Travel Plans. Parking Standards and Travel Plans therefore require equal importance to be effective.
Clarification is sought regarding the level of parking for mobility impaired persons (need calculated as 5% of the maximum number of spaces). It is unclear whether this relates to a national requirement or local determination.
It is considered that there is insufficient justification for the percentages of the maximum parking provision, applied to each category. Greater explanation is required.
Further guidance is required on parking facilities for Heavy Commercial Vehicles, as the current guidance is considered obsolete.
The application of the standards is too restrictive, particularly the case for B1(a) office use in central areas. This is because the proposed standards result in lower levels of parking than advocated in draft PPG 13.
_______________________________
¬ This aspect will need to be monitored.
¬ Reference is made to national best practice.
¬ A more simplified approach is now proposed.
¬ This falls outside the current review.
¬ The PPG 13 maximum standard corresponds with the proposed Hampshire maximum
· Eastleigh BC
Resolutions agreed by Council Executive, 15/03/01
It is recommended that The Executive endorses the Consultation Document and the proposed standards subject to:
Confirmation of national standards in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Note 13:Transport (Draft); and
The amendments suggested in the "Comments" section of this report being incorporated into the final document:
Figure 1 should be removed - it does not relate to the accessibility categories referred to, and is therefore at best misleading and at worst in conflict with the overall objectives.
The reference to the demand for long-term parking at rail stations (para.4.1, proposal 1d), should be removed or amended - this is not the case at all stations.
Policy 3B should be amended to suggest that " new development areas should assist..." - it is the package provided by the development and not merely the parking areas that is critical.
The final sentence of the supporting text for proposal 3c should be reworded to make the intention clearer.
Table 1 - the reference to on-street parking being discouraged should be removed. The "new agenda" will in some instances rely on an element of
¬ Hampshire standards and PPG 13 standards are now one.
¬ Figure 1 is intended to display a "snapshot" of public transport accessibility at peak hours. The accessibility model will reflect individual time and location characteristics more fully.
¬ A separate study is underway into devising a methodology for determining the scope for expansion of parking at rail stations.
¬ Agreed.
¬ Agreed.
¬ Agreed.
communal parking provided by a well-designed highway network.
The new standards rely on strong planning guidance to encourage development in accessible locations, if this is achieved along with good design practice, evidence within the Borough suggests that the proposed standards should not result in detriment to areas within and surrounding proposed development.
_______________________________
¬ Agreed.
· East Hampshire DC
Resolutions of Environment Services Committee, 21 March 2001
a). Notes the specification of maximum levels of parking provision rather than a minimum standard but believes that the standards specified will be impossible to apply in a rural area eg.. in rural areas every dwelling will require at least 2 parking spaces;
b). Welcomes the proposals to introduce an accessibility model but not on the basis of the model presented, as it is not sensitive to the needs of rural communities. Public transport is minimal in rural areas and the new standards will cause undue inconvenience to those needing to travel and increased on-road parking near shopping and employment centres;
c). Considers that the proposals in respect of car parking at schools are inadequate, especially in rural areas;
d). Considers that the consultation document fails to describe adequately how the accessibility model will operate and requires considerable review and amendment;
e). Considers that if appropriate amendments are not made to the parking standards, then the District Council may adopt their own parking standards;
f). Considers that if an accessibility model is adopted, then free access to the model is essential for all those needing to use it. The training of District Council members and officers is essential in order for them to familiarise themselves with how the new standards are to operate;
¬ The document now proposes that developments of less than 25 houses may be considered for maximum parking levels that are, in some cases, more generous than the PPG 3 levels, but local accessibility remains a factor.
¬ The more simplified approach will accommodate this view, whilst retaining a differential approach for areas of greater or lesser accessibility.
¬ Individual schools are able to submit a Transport Appraisal and School Travel Plan to justify their local requirements.
¬ A more simplified approach is now proposed.
¬ It is hoped that the revised approach will enable all District Councils to accept the Hampshire standards.
¬ Access and training for the model under the revised approach will be discussed at the joint officer working group.
g). Considers that in the absence of commuted payments in lieu of parking, greater guidance should be provided by the County Surveyor on the scale of financial contributions required from developers to secure adequate access to development sites by all modes for particular types and scales of development. This should be clarified before any new parking standards are introduced;
h). Considers that it should be recognised that various agencies have a role and that careful co-ordination of effort is required; and;
i). Considers that fundamental improvements to public transport are
required to be put in place before any new standards come into operation.
_______________________________
¬ This falls outside the scope of the Parking Strategy Review. Advice and guidance are, however, readily available from the County Surveyor.
¬ Agreed.
¬ Agreed.
· Fareham BC
Resolution of the Planning and Transportation Committee, 5 June 2001
That the committee:
a). Thank HCC for consulting on the draft "Parking Strategy and Standards 2001" document
b). Endorse the officer's comments outlined in paragraph 15i to vi of the report
c). That the County Council be further advised that this authority:
- has concerns regarding the practicality of implementing the new car parking standards; and
- supports the inclusion of cycle parking standards in the strategy document
P15 (i): PPG 3 is based on the concept of maximum standards (which the proposed standards aim to follow) - to provide more parking than potential occupiers might want. There is little local evidence to support this - past experience suggests that reduced off -street parking may result in increased competition for the limited supply of on-street parking spaces.
P15 (ii): Abuse of Green Travel Plans by private companies in the longer term is a concern which requires robust enforcement.
P15 (iii): PPG 13 suggests that parking requirements need to be assessed with a degree of flexibility based on guidelines that recognise local circumstances. However the proposed standards are more complex
¬ Noted.
¬ See below.
¬ The agreed targets for road traffic reduction require the local authorities to tackle car parking levels if they are to be achieved.
¬ Noted.
¬ This will need to be tackled through a combination of effective enforcement and good design.
¬ Agreed.
¬ This revised approach allows for this flexibility recognising local circumstances, whilst reducing the complexity of the original proposals.
to allow for this local flexibility - concern of a local resource issue.
P15 (iv): The accessibility model does not show the local variations - a "health warning" should be attached to ensure that the map is not seen as definitive. Use of the model will require a substantially increased input of officers time to analyse each individual proposal.
P15 (v): The document appears to assume that districts will support central control of parking charges and standards. Districts may not entirely agree with this, as it is not currently a district function. The introduction of parking zones would require police enforcement - they are not likely to have the resources necessary.
P15 (vi): The design of the development will need to take account of the intention to enforce maximum standards, in order to prevent the creation of additional parking space. It may be necessary to use conditions to withdraw permitted development rights.
In the light of the issues raised it is proposed that the draft revised standards are not adopted by the Council, until the County Council has finalised the standards.
¬ The more simplified approach now proposed will assist considerably this concern.
¬ A number of district councils now see the enforcement of parking regulations as a way of regaining local control and relieving the pressure on the police.
¬ Agreed.
¬ It is hoped that the revised proposals meet the concerns of the District Council.
· Gosport BC
Officer comments submitted by Head of Engineering on 10 April 2001:
Parking restraint should be balanced by provision of alternative and accessible modes of transport. Facilities need to be provided at a new development before a car habit is established . Destinations and qualitative measures should ideally be reflected in the accessibility model.
Comment on the present scattered nature of trip destinations beyond the Gosport peninsula, and lack of accessible public transport outside town centres. Gosport Members would like to see effective quality alternatives in place before traffic restraint measures are applied.
Concerned that the service level derived from the accessibility model is matched with an apparently arbitrary application of parking reductions - For example what evidence is there to demonstrate that category E public transport will support a 50% reduction in residential parking?
Validity of the accessibility model needs to be demonstrated, lest it will be open to question by Members and developers.
¬ Agreed.
¬ It is important to start to introduce demand management measures through the area transport strategies in combination with improvements to public transport.
¬ The simplified approach removes this concern.
¬ The simplified approach provides for local planning authorities to negotiate directly with developers, outside the somewhat prescriptive parameters of the model.
Members are keen not to impose too tight a range of parking standards for
fear of increasing off-road parking in non-designated locations re. roadside verge. To prevent inappropriate
parking new ideas in estate design are required. A reduction in residential parking is not likely to achieve significant reductions in the number and length of car-borne trips.
Gosport argues for its disadvantaged economic/geographical location which is further constrained by the decline of Naval interests in the area. Commercial parking restrictions should reflect "Gosport's special circumstances".
The application of parking charges needs to ensure that town centres remain competitive - difficult to achieve for no authority has overall control.
Application of parking standards:
Parking standards need to be flexibly applied to the early phases of development and the degree of certainty attached to the provision of public transport services.
The total range of secondary factors attributable to parking provision needs to be recognised - and not limited by movement of only one determining factor of local economic or environmental interest.
¬ Noted it is important to recognise the link between car availability at the home and car use. Innovative design of housing estates is to encouraged.
¬ Local requirements recognised in the proposals, but a more relaxed approach to car parking is unlikely to be sustainable.
¬ Agreed. Co-ordination with all providers of car parking is vital.
¬ This is recognised within the revised proposals.
· Hart DC
Planning and Infrastructure Committee on 13/03/01 resolved:
That Hampshire County Council (HCC) be thanked for the opportunity to comment on this document.
That the draft Strategies and Proposals be noted:
That HCC reviews the Public Transport accessibility ratings in the context of a wider time band and destination availability, to take account of reasonable standards likely to be required.
That HCC accept the reality of car ownership in the calculation of residential car parking standards to avoid in future developments of pavement parking, verge parking, double parking and combinations thereof. These parking problems are a reality in existing development due to the unavailability of alternative modes of transport to destinations required by Hart residents within population centres
That greater funding is provided to ensure that improved bus services and other integrated transport strategies throughout Hart and that policies are developed to obtain contributions from new development towards such strategies.
That dialogue with HCC be continued, to explore the specific needs of Hart to create imaginative solutions on certain sites.
¬ Noted.
¬ Measures of accessibility are able to reflect all time bands and destinations available by public transport and other modes.
¬ The proposal seeks to create a linkage between parking standards and accessibility by alternative modes of transport for the first time.
¬ Funding for improved bus services needs to be sought from a number of different sources, if service levels are to be sustained.
¬ Agreed.
· Havant BC
The Planning & Development Committee on 5 April 2001 resolved:
The County Surveyor be thanked for allowing the Committee to comment on the draft consultation document,
The Committee; welcome the proposed requirement for cycle parking standards for all land-use development,
- is concerned that the standards proposed will be seen as "anti-car" and result in on-street parking to the detriment of the environment and road safety of existing and new developments,
- is concerned by the complexity, resource implications and consequential cost-effectiveness of the
proposed accessibility model bearing in mind its usage for significant developments only,
- consider a more simplistic and easily understood model should be prepared, and,
- consider that motorcycle and scooter usage should be encouraged by increased provision of dedicated motorcycle parking spaces.
_______________________________
¬ Noted.
¬ Noted.
¬ The strategy needs to be supported by a combination of effective enforcement and good design.
¬ The more simplified approach should meet this concern.
¬ Ditto.
¬ Motor cycle parking is recognised in the standards.
· New Forest District Council
Resolution by Policy and Resources Committee, 18/04/01
HCC's initiative in promoting a countywide approach to parking policy and standards is noted.
The short timescale for consultation and the special dispensation granted to district councils for late responses is noted.
a. In the opinion of this Council the definition of zones which determine the accessibility index of locations where development is proposed should be undertaken by the DC as LPA through the medium of the local plan or supplementary guidance; and
b. HCC be requested to make available appropriate advice and information to enable the accessibility indices to be determined on this basis.
The County Council is advised of:
The DC's considerable concerns about the environmental implications of not providing adequate and suitable space for parking of private cars;
and other detailed concerns identified by officers
The DC looks forward to having the opportunity in due course to consider the final version of the strategy and standards for adoption and incorporation within the LP or supplementary guidance as appropriate.
¬ It should be noted that levels of accessibility may differ for land uses that require parking at different times of the day/day of the week (eg. places of worship, or cinema), so a zonal approach would be inappropriate.
¬ Advice on the accessibility of sites will be available from the County Surveyor.
¬ These concerns will need to be addressed in considering planning applications within the context of the parking strategy and the area transport strategy.
¬ Noted.
¬ Noted.
The concerns referred to above and set out in the officers' report are the following:
- The proposed standards for residential development are accompanied by a general statement that "average residential parking provision should not exceed 1.5 spaces per unit". This adds nothing of practical value to the advice in PPG 3 and should be removed.
- The document also says that on-street parking should be generally discouraged in housing layouts. This broad statement should be qualified so as to continue to allow the use of carefully-designed lay-bys for visitor parking, as provided for in the HCC design guidance "Movement and Access in Residential Areas".
- It is generally accepted as common practice that many domestic garages are frequently unavailable for cars because that are used to accommodate other household items. It seems unreasonable therefore to count every garage as equivalent to a parking space, and consideration should be given to, for example, counting each as one space or some other appropriate fraction.
_______________________________
· Portsmouth CC
Car Parking Standards are being considered as part of the review of the City of Portsmouth Local Plan.
_______________________________
¬ The revised strategy clarifies this point by providing a threshold of 25 houses, above which PPG 3 applies as a maximum limit.
¬ Agreed.
¬ It is not considered appropriate for local authorities to disregard garage spaces on the basis that residents choose to use them for non-car parking purposes.
· Rushmoor BC
Cabinet Meeting of 03/07/01
Report of the Environment Group on the proposed HCC Parking Strategy and Standards 2001:
1. The age of the residential housing stock within the Borough affects the provision of off-street parking. PPG 13 recognises the principle of reducing journey destination parking, and at the journey origin. The proposed standards have been prepared without reference to the implications of revised PPG 13. The revised guidance should be incorporated within the proposed standards.
2. The proposed accessibility model seeks reductions in residential parking. The broad accessibility categories in the model for public transport, do not reflect local variances. Rushmoor BC believe that locally-applied standards would be more appropriate to the local environment.
3. PPG 3 recognises that parking policies should be formed with a number of influences including good design and location. This reinforces a case for more locally-determined site specific standards, which are not constrained by a strategic accessibility model. Restrictive standards can only be applied as part of an overall public transportation strategy, that provides improvements to public transport and other alternatives throughout the region.
¬ The revised strategy now reflects PPG 13 more closely.
¬ The revised approach now meets this concern.
¬ Agreed. The revised approach should assist with this concern.
4. The County is recommended to re-evaluate the standards in Table 7 covering leisure facilities, as they appear to over provide for tennis courts, golf courses and driving ranges. A standard of one space per two player is suggested.
5. It is noted that the proposed standards do not apply for servicing commercial premises. These need to be included.
6. Parking associated with schools currently creates both long and shot-stay parking. Limited school service areas result in obstruction when deliveries are in progress.
7. There is no provision for parking at nursery schools. It is recommended that this be included.
8. No standards have been proposed for student accommodation. It is known that this type of development creates significant parking demand - at least one space per unit (plus visitors) is recommended.
9. Green Travel Plans for public facilities such as doctors and dentist surgeries have large catchment areas which generate many car journeys. Due to this demand the proposed standards require a travel plan for where an extension of more than 500 sq. metres is proposed. It is suggested that this threshold be reduced to extensions of more than 250 sq. metres.
10. Proposals 3e and 3f need clarification to cover speculative property development, where parking provision can only be estimated. At the time of the planning application, the
¬ These are maximum limits that may be reduced through negotiation.
¬ Agreed. It is not proposed to stipulate separate levels of parking for operational, and servicing purposes
¬ Agreed.
¬ This is included under "Education Establishments".
¬ There is no distinction between student accommodation and general residential use.
¬ Doctors and dentists surgeries provide for journeys that are irregular and unpredictable. It would be inappropriate to lower the threshold for Green Travel Plans for these sites, but there is noting to stop the local planning authority from requesting a statement of intent from the applicant.
¬ Such cases will need to be discussed with the local planning authority.
future user or degree of multiple occupation may not be known.
11. Lighting should be provided for new cycle parking facilities.
12. Any revised parking strategy and standards should be applied to alterations to existing residential and commercial premises, in order to maintain a consistent approach.
¬ Agreed. This is included in Proposal 7b.
¬ The support of the local planning authority is welcomed in this respect, but this is not stipulated in the strategy.
· Southampton CC
The draft Parking Standards, with some amendments have been included in the Review of the City of Southampton Local Plan. The City Council is keen to continue working with Portsmouth and the Hampshire authorities to deliver joint parking standards. We will need to bring together the comments received through the local plan consultation, and the parking consultation is considering whether and how to amend the standards.
_______________________________
· Test Valley BC
The Executive resolved on the, 02/05/01, to thank the strategic planning authorities for the opportunity to comment on the draft "Parking Strategy and Standards 2001" and be informed that the Borough Council endorses the general approach.
TVBC will develop the approach in the deposit version of the local plan review, but will, in the meantime, maintain the existing Local Plan standards, unless they are contrary to those within the revised PPG 13, to which they will be amended and that the residential parking standards will be amended to those proposed within the draft consultation document. They will be reviewed within the Local Plan Review.
The potential graded reductions will not be pursued at this stage; however where there are particularly high levels of accessibility to transport nodes and district level facilities then a reduction in the requirement may be acceptable.
¬ Noted
¬ This simplified approach accords with this comment.
Considers that in any event whilst there are permitted development rights to convert garages into living accommodation, these cannot be counted towards residential parking provision.
That the draft maximum standards (subject to amendment above) be adopted as interim standards for development control.
Recommendation 1 was agreed.
_______________________________
Non Hampshire local authorities:
Bracknell Forest Borough Council
Officer comments:
Support intent of document to bring the approach to parking standards in line with current government advice.
Proposed standards may be difficult to implement. The standards seem too complex for public understanding).
The general note on the residential standards seeks to achieve an average of 1.5 spaces per dwelling in line with advice in PPG 3. It is difficult to see how this could be achieved in the revised parking standards. Otherwise further information is required to explain how the standards would have to depart from the national guidance, in order to provide parking provision.
Has consideration been given to a reduction in spaces for affordable housing provision, where research has indicated lower levels of car ownership?
¬ Noted.
¬ Noted.
¬ Noted.
¬ The more simplified approach should meet this concern.
¬ The revised strategy provides a threshold of 25 houses, above which PPG3 will apply as a maximum limit.
¬ No distinction is proposed in the strategy, but higher levels of accessibility may well promote reduced parking provision.