Archived decisions
Summary of consultee responses to HCC Review of Parking Strategy and Standards 2001
Regional government:
· Government for South East (GOSE)
A broad comprehensive strategy which is broadly supported.
Over-technical emphasis on public transport accessibility model. Suggestion put forward that at the County level consideration is made to reduce the number of zonal categories to three or four (city centres, other urban areas and rest of county). A reduction would make the strategy easier to read.
"We note that the proposed standards for retail are the least changed across categories due to the risk of encouraging development at out of town locations (paragraph 5.5). You will be aware that Government policy set out in PPG 6 is quite clear that a sequential approach be applied to all retail proposals, with the preference for town centre locations. An assessment of need and if, necessary , appropriate locations for retail development should be set out in development plans. The parking strategy should complement this policy approach, and should set a consistent standard for all uses. Any flexibility that may be required can be applied at the local level"
_______________________________
¬ The simplification proposed in the revised strategy and standards will address this concern, although a zonal approach is not proposed, since it would not adequately reflect differing levels of accessibility.
¬ This has been stated more explicitly in the revised version of the strategy.
· South East England Regional Assembly
Overall support for strategy.
Clarification required of accessibility model. Is it...
- based on current modal accessibility or on the level that one would expect as a result of Local Transport Plan investment?
The role of the regional planning bodies is omitted from the list of key players.
Clarify the terminology used in Section 4 to avoid ambiguity or misinterpretation.
The management of parking at highly accessible locations - such as transport interchanges is recommended.
The reference within para. 5.5 to reducing the risk of encouraging out-of-town locations for new parking, needs to be strengthened by reference to a strong spatial planning framework within the appropriate development.
Local authorities should be encouraged to take account of any spare capacity that may have resulted from previous parking standards in applying parking policy standards to new development proposals.
How will Proposal 3e be enforced through the planning system?
_______________________________
· North Hampshire Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Support principles of review
¬ Accessibility is modelled on the basis of the eventual state upon completion of the development and any allied transport or access improvements as part of the area transport strategy.
¬ Now included in the revised version.
¬ The supporting text provides clarification of the policies and proposals.
¬ Car parking at transport interchanges is being investigated separately, in view of the dilemma and policy difficulty over parking plans for rail stations.
¬ The need for compliance with national and local planning policies is now elaborated in paragraph 5.6.
¬ Agreed, although problems of existing land ownership may make this suggestion difficult to implement.
¬ This will be left to the discretion of local planning authorities.
"It is essential that HCC (and other authorities) recognise the reality that it will only be possible for business users to change their travel habits insufficient numbers if there is a realistic alternative to car travel"
2. Policies 1, 2 & 3: The Chamber opposes any restrictions, or parking inhibitors until such time as realistic, efficient, and reliable alternative transport solutions are in place.
Policy 4 (Cycle parking is welcomed).
Policy 5: The Chamber expresses the greatest concern that Policy 5 as written and put out for consultation combines two important but quite separate spheres. The Chamber wishes to emphasise the point that the impact on the economy warrants consideration on its merits alone.
Policy 5a is welcomed by the Chamber.
7. The Chamber supports priority being given in town centres for short-term public car parking.
_______________________________
Trade and business organisations:
· Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service
Request for HCC strategy to look at residential on street parking, in relation
to emergency vehicle access requirements.
_______________________________
¬ Agreed. Contributions from developers will assist the local authorities in securing realistic alternatives to the car for business journeys
¬ Noted.
¬ Noted.
¬ Noted.
¬ Noted.
¬ Adequate road space needs to be kept available for emerging vehicle access and, where appropriate, buses.
· House Builders Federation
Support principles of review process
Concerned that the accessibility model may produce decisions that are simplistic, with little scope for flexibility.
The model needs to make a realistic assessment of alternative services, to take account of:
- Location
- Frequency and Cost of service
- Ease of accessibility
- Car-parking availability
Developers require information on accessibility zones in order to devise schemes that meet standards expressed
in guidance. It is not acceptable for developers to require access to the County Council Accessibility Model for every site.
Threshold for a Transport Assessment for residential parking is excessive in contrast with draft PPG 13.
Objections to developers making financial contributions to improve accessibility so that parking standards can be reduced.
" Developers should not be required to pay for deficiencies in public transport infrastructure due to shortfalls in central/local government funding"
What is proposed in Policy 3b is an arbitrary development tax. This
conflicts with government advice (Circular 1/97, para. B17). Para. 15 clearly states that local authorities should be certain that there is a specific
¬ Noted.
¬ The more simplified approach will provide for greater local flexibility.
¬ Agreed. It is expected that pre-application discussions with the local planning authority complement the availability of the accessibility map on the web-site.
¬ PPG 13 has now removed this threshold.
¬ New levels of development need new levels of transport infrastructure and it is an established practice that developers provide a financial contribution.
and direct contribution towards sustainable transport provision, before any contributions are sought.
View cycle use and security as not important - developers may be unwilling to encourage investment in cycling provision.
New housing still predominantly situated in car accessible locations. Car parking provision is warranted in such locations, over good access to bus services.
Transport operators:
· First Southampton
Welcomes review and broadly support outcomes.
Welcomes the joined-up working involving all the authorities and supports the desire to prevent short-termism taking precedence over longer-term strategic decision making in transport.
Support the accessibility model in making clearer to developers their likely obligations and creating additional demand for public transport to locations, it is best able to serve. Developers must not perceive an incentive to move to rural areas where public transport is more sparse.
Policy 1, Proposal 1d - support overall reduction in parking provision rather
than decreasing long-stay parking. Short-stay parking tends to lead to increased traffic flow and can disrupt local bus punctuality.
Policy 1, Proposal 1e - welcome emphasis on Park & Ride (P&R). P& R should be incorporated into strategic
¬ If traffic congestion is to be tackled at source, good and secure alternatives need to be put in place, eg. safe cycle parking and reliable bus services.
¬ Noted.
¬ Agreed.
¬ The substitution of short-term parking for long-term parking in towns does produce the dilemma, unless the total parking stock were proposed to be reduced - which it is not.
¬ Agreed.
policy, rather than seen as an overflow car-park.
Policy 5, Proposal 5a - Concerned at the ability to modify parking standards to reflect local economic conditions by districts. This could allow short-term decisions to be taken which might be against interests of long-term policy.
_______________________________
· Railtrack
No reference in document to railway station car parking. Railtrack believe an adequate supply of parking at
stations can make a significant contribution to encouraging rail use and reducing long-distance commuting.
Sufficient parking is especially important for those stations which serve a wide rural hinterland which is not adequately served by bus services.
_______________________________
· South West Trains
The business needs increased provision at station car-parks over the next ten years (demand exceeds supply -affecting off-peak travel). SWT will not support any policy that constrains the development of station car parking.
SWT support measures to encourage more use of existing public transport by restricting parking at places of employment, leisure etc.
_______________________________
(Plus representations from nine consultants and representatives of businesses/developers).
There follows an analysis of questionnaire responses...
¬ The impoverishment of local economies would be in nobody's best interests.
¬ Noted.
¬ Noted. Work is in hand to determine the most appropriate way of addressing the pressure on station car parks within the context of area transport strategies.
¬ Ditto
¬ Noted.