Archived decisions

Contact: Peter Murnaghan, ext 6920

1. Summary

1.1 The Local Transport Plan seeks to deal with the increasing problem of traffic congestion and a number of targets are in place as part of the Road Traffic Reduction Act Report. A key area in which the local authorities can exert influence on the level of car use is through the mechanism of a parking strategy and standards for new developments. Parking standards were last reviewed in 1991 and established minimum levels of provision. In practice, this has tended to provide larger car parks than were necessary and this approach no longer accords with current transport or land use policies. On 22 January 2001 the former Planning and Transportation Committee gave approval to consult on a draft document 'Hampshire Parking Strategy and Standards 2001'. Consultation took place in February and March and a wide range of comments was made by local planning authorities and other consultees on the proposals.

1.2 In addition, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13, Transport (PPG13) and Planning Policy Guidance Note 3, Housing (PPG3) were published after the draft document had been prepared. As a result of these factors, a number of modifications are proposed to the strategy and standards. This report advises Members of the outcome of the consultation, notes the relevant guidance from Central Government and seeks support for the adoption by the County Council of the revised strategy and standards. Since the consultation document was circulated on behalf of Southampton and Portsmouth City Councils, as well as the County Council, it will be necessary for the matter to be considered by the Strategic Planning Joint Advisory Panel (JAP) before being adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance to the County Structure Plan (Review).

2. Background

2.1 The availability of car parking has a major influence on people's choice of travel for their journeys. The new transport agenda aims to tackle increased traffic congestion and promote more sustainable alternatives to the car. The 1998 Transport White Paper, Regional Planning Guidance Note 9 for the South East, and the ten-year plan for transport (Transport 2010) have all recognised the need to constrain the availability of parking in new developments. The Road Traffic Reduction Act (1997) requires local authorities to assess traffic conditions and set targets for future traffic levels. The Hampshire County Structure Plan Policy T2 states that:

(i) within the transport strategies, policies will be promoted with the aim of reducing dependency on car use and encouraging use of alternative transport modes; and

(ii) development proposals will be required to conform to parking policies and standards which will take into account strategic and local objectives.

2.2 The Local Transport Plans for Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth provide a framework for parking policies to be implemented and targets set to tackle the issues of car traffic growth and congestion.

2.3 In March 2001 PPG13 was published which contains guidance on managing travel demand and a number of maximum parking standards. This is reproduced as Appendix 1 to this report, but can be summarised by the following sentence:

"Reducing the amount of parking in new and expanded development is essential as part of a package of planning and transport measures to promote sustainable travel choices" (adapted from paragraph 49, PPG13).

Furthermore, new transport policies should reflect maximum parking standards for broad classes of development. In addition, PPG3 was published in March 2000 and specified (paragraph 6.2):

"Car parking standards that result, on average, in development with more than 1.5 off-street car parking spaces per dwelling are unlikely to reflect the Government's emphasis on securing sustainable residential environments. Policies which would result in higher levels of off-street parking, especially in urban areas, should not be adopted."

2.4 Reflecting the current policy direction, an officer working group representing the County Council, district councils and unitary authorities developed the 'Parking Strategy and Standards 2001' draft document. The approach recognised existing levels of public car parking provision, accessibility by public transport and other sustainable alternatives to car trips. In setting maximum standards for new development, the document proposed the use of an accessibility model to assist in specifying values for the different land uses.

2.5 On 22 January 2001 the former Planning and Transportation Committee gave approval for officers to consult on this draft document, and a detailed presentation was given to a special meeting on 12 March 2001. This report now seeks to inform Members of the results of the consultation. Members will be invited to consider these results and a number of subsequent amendments, with a view to formally adopting the new strategy and standards as Supplementary Planning Guidance (to the County Structure Plan).

3. Consultation Process

3.1 A total of 167 organisations were formally consulted. These comprised developers, district councils in Hampshire, adjoining councils, transport operators, Government agencies and other interested parties. Each was sent a copy of the 'Parking Strategy and Standards 2001' draft document, together with a questionnaire. The draft document was also available on the County Council's web site, together with a questionnaire which could be submitted electronically.

3.2 A leaflet version was produced for the information of the general public. Copies were available from all information centres, public libraries and district council offices in Hampshire.

3.3 Of the 167 organisations consulted, 60 responded by way of a completed questionnaire and/or additional comments. This included 40 questionnaires received electronically from interested members of the public. A review of the consultation results has been prepared and a copy of the written representations from consultees has been placed in the Members' Room.

4. Consultation Progress

4.1 From the questionnaires returned, 65% of consultees supported the general principle that a car parking strategy can contribute towards dealing with traffic congestion as part of a balanced transport system. Furthermore, 41% agreed that parking standards should be specified as maximum levels. However, only 31% supported the proposed car parking standards for new developments, as described in the document (31% disagreed with them, 28% remained neutral). This may suggest a lack of commitment to the restrictive numbers proposed for different land uses, and defined by levels of accessibility by public transport and other modes. On the latter point, 52% agreed with the principle that parking should be reduced according to accessibility. Since this is a function of local planning authorities, it is reasonable to consider this question again from the perspective of informed bodies. If responses from members of the public are removed from the analysis, the level of support rises to 65% agreement amongst local authorities and organisations. This is the only area where there was a significant difference in response from the organisations and members of the general public.

4.2 Nevertheless, the use of the model for calculating accessibility indices for each application was felt by the majority of local planning authorities to be onerous and imply a somewhat prescriptive approach. Concerns were expressed about the lack of certainty provided by commercially provided bus services, the determination of accessibility values and their correlation with parking numbers. Whilst the proposal was designed to provide a robust formula across the county, allowing for local variations, it is possible to meet these objections by removing the obligation to use the accessibility model for every calculation. However, the principle of linking parking approvals with measures to improve, or reflect, good levels of accessibility should remain at the heart of the new approach, but may be achieved by pre-application negotiation.

4.3 Fifty percent of respondents felt that priority should be given in town centres for short-term public car parking spaces for visitors and shoppers. By implication, 25% felt that long-stay parking should be permitted in town centres with 25% remaining neutral. The proposed minimum standards for bicycle parking were strongly supported by 70% of respondents.

4.4 Finally, each of the seven policies was supported, with the exception of Policy 2: "To promote reductions in existing privately owned non-residential car parking spaces and/or the usage of these spaces". Some 47% disagreed with this policy and only 34% supported it. Despite the growing acceptance of company travel plans, it is clear that there is resistance to measures that attempt to deal with existing levels of car parking (mainly all-day commuter parking at the workplace) by means of voluntary agreements.

4.5 Specific comments from the district councils included concerns that the standards proposed for residential development are too stringent, particularly in rural areas where public transport is sparse and the car is the established form of transport. Many districts anticipate problems with overspill parking onto residential streets or inappropriate parking on verges or footways.

4.6 A number of developers and their consultants felt that, whilst the principle of restricting parking is supported, the application of a reducing scale dependent upon accessibility is over-prescriptive. The determination of parking proposals through a Transport Assessment for new development is a suggested way of reaching appropriate levels.

4.7 The thresholds for requiring site travel plans are also considered to be too low by a number of consultants from the development side. Conversely, some district councils are pressing for even lower thresholds in some instances. Since PPG13 now establishes thresholds for the main land uses, it would be realistic to accept the national levels for the time being and review them at a later date. This course of action would also assist a number of comments that were concerned with the requirement to enforce the delivery of travel plan commitments.

4.8 Many of the private sector consultees made the point that travel behaviour will only be influenced by good quality transport being in place before parking restrictions are imposed. In response, it is emphasised that the negotiation of financial contributions from developers will be able to improve accessibility to sites and so reduce the need for parking.

4.9 The public transport operators welcome the emphasis on improving accessibility in place of further parking, although the rail companies continue to seek extra car parking at stations, regardless of the impact on the surrounding highway network.

5. The Way Ahead

5.1 The issue of car parking is a complex and controversial subject. Whilst there were many individual comments, the main areas of concern can be summarised as:

(i) The accessibility model approach to setting reducing levels of parking provision, whilst accepted in principle, is considered to be over-prescriptive, fails adequately to reflect local circumstances and is open to challenge.

(ii) Residential standards do not reflect current lifestyles, especially in rural areas and impose unduly restrictive levels, plus problems of overspill parking in local neighbourhoods.

(iii) Site travel plans are becoming established, although there are likely to be problems with their enforcement and the thresholds for the production of a plan are challenged.

(iv) Government guidance has been published, subsequent to the production of the Hampshire draft strategy. This now provides national limits for parking standards for many land uses, including residential, and thresholds for the production of travel plans.

5.2 Recognising the emergence of planning guidance, it is proposed that the parking standards fall into line with the levels quoted, to avoid local planning authorities and developers challenging the Hampshire standards, where the two are largely supportive. Similarly, the national threshold levels for travel plans will also be adopted where these differ from the limits that were proposed locally.

5.3 The accessibility model will continue to be developed and used to determine parking levels on large sites and major development areas. However, for the smaller sites that are determined by district councils, it is felt appropriate that the level of reduction from the maximum standard be achieved through negotiation by the local planning authority. The accessibility map for Hampshire will be made available on the web site for reference and will be reviewed from time to time. The model will be available to check local decisions if required.

5.4 A revised final draft strategy and standards document has been prepared and is attached as Appendix 2 to this report. This takes into account the 'softening' of the link with the accessibility model and, where appropriate, quotes maximum parking standards that reflect the new guidance, where this is broadly in line with the original draft, so as to reduce conflicting advice wherever possible.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The consultation provided a useful opportunity to test the concept of developing a car parking strategy and new maximum standards to reflect current transport policies. Additionally, the new concept of varying these standards to reflect different levels of accessibility has been published and tested with interested organisations and authorities. The strategy and its policies have been largely supported and will remain unchanged. The standards are broadly in line with the subsequent publication of national guidance and will be adjusted in a small number of cases to avoid unnecessary conflict. The application of the accessibility test will be left to negotiation by local planning authorities to take account of local circumstances, except in the case of major developments and large sites, where the model will be used to determine appropriate levels of accessibility and parking levels.

6.2 The report of this consultation and the revised final draft strategy and standards document will be considered by the Executive Member for Environment and will also need to be considered by JAP prior to its adoption as Supplementary Planning Guidance to the County Structure Plan (Review).

Recommendations

1. That it be a RECOMMENDATION to the Executive Member for Environment to approve the revised 'Hampshire Parking Strategy and Standards 2001' for consideration as Supplementary Planning Guidance.

2. That it be a RECOMMENDATION to the Strategic Planning Joint Advisory Panel to adopt the revised `Hampshire Parking Strategy and Standards 2001' as Supplementary Planning Guidance to the County Structure Plan (Review).

3. That the process and result of the consultation be noted.

6661/PJM

APPENDIX 1

Extract from Planning Policy Note 13 (PPG 13) - Transport, March 2001

Parking

49. The availability of car parking has a major influence on the means of transport people choose for their journeys. Some studies suggest that levels of parking can be more significant than levels of public transport provision in determining means of travel (particularly for the journey to work) even for locations very well served by public transport. Car parking also takes up a large amount of space in development, is costly to business and reduces densities. Reducing the amount of parking in new development (and in the expansion and change of use in existing development) is essential, as part of a package of planning and transport measures, to promote sustainable travel choices. At the same time, the amount of good quality cycle parking in developments should be increased to promote more cycle use.

50. A consistent approach on parking should be set out in the RTS to avoid wasteful competition between different locations based around the supply or cost of parking, to the detriment of sustainable development. Policies on parking should be coordinated with parking controls and charging set out in the local transport plan, and should complement planning policies on the location of development.

51. In developing and implementing policies on parking, local authorities should:

(i) ensure that, as part of a package of planning and transport measures, levels of parking provided in association with development will promote sustainable transport choices;

(ii) not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish, other than in exceptional circumstances which might include for example where there are significant implications for road safety which cannot be resolved through the introduction or enforcement of on-street parking controls;

(iii) encourage the shared use of parking, particularly in town centres and as part of major proposals: for example offices and leisure uses (such as cinemas) might share parking because the peak levels of use do not coincide, provided adequate attention is given at the design stage;

(iv) take care not to create perverse incentives for development to locate away from town centres, or threaten future levels of investment in town centres. While greater opportunities exist to reduce levels of parking for developments in locations with good access by non car modes, local authorities should be cautious in prescribing different levels of parking between town centres and peripheral locations, unless they are confident that the town centre will remain a favoured location for developers. Advice in PPG6 makes clear that good quality secure parking is important to maintain the vitality and viability of town centres, and to enable retail and leisure uses to flourish;

(v) require developers to provide designated parking spaces for disabled people in accordance with current good practice 16 ;

16 See Traffic Advice Leaflet 5/95, Parking for Disabled People.

(vi) where appropriate, introduce on-street parking controls in areas adjacent to major travel generating development to minimise the potential displacement of parking where on-site parking is being limited;

(vii) require convenient safe and secure cycle parking in development at least at levels consistent with the cycle strategy in the local transport plan; and

(viii) consider appropriate provision for motorcycle parking.

Maximum parking standards

52. Policies in development plans should set maximum levels of parking for broad classes of development. Maximum standards should be designed to be used as part of a package of measures to promote sustainable transport choices, reduce the land-take of development, enable schemes to fit into central urban sites, promote linked-trips and access to development for those without use of a car and to tackle congestion. There should be no minimum standards for development, other than parking for disabled people.

53. There is a need for a consistent approach to maximum parking standards for a range of major developments, above the relevant thresholds. The levels set out in Annex D should be applied as a maximum throughout England, but RPBs and local planning authorities may adopt more rigorous standards, where appropriate, subject to the advice in this guidance. The maximum parking standards set out in annex D do not apply to small developments, that is, those below the relevant thresholds. Local authorities should use their discretion in setting the levels of parking appropriate for small developments so as to reflect local circumstances. By virtue of the thresholds, this locally based approach will cover most development in rural areas.

54. For individual developments, the standards in Annex D should apply as a maximum unless the applicant has demonstrated (where appropriate through a Transport Assessment) that a higher level of parking is needed. In such cases the applicant should show the measures they are taking (for instance in the design, location and implementation of the scheme) to minimise the need for parking.

55. It should not be assumed that where a proposal accords with the relevant maximum parking standard it is automatically acceptable in terms of achieving the objectives of this guidance. Applicants for development with significant transport implications should show (where appropriate in the Transport Assessment) the measures they are taking to minimise the need for parking.

56. A balance has to be struck between encouraging new investment in town centres by providing adequate levels of parking, and potentially increasing traffic congestion caused by too many cars. Where retail and leisure developments are located in a town centre, or on an edge of centre site as defined by PPG6, local planning authorities should consider allowing parking additional to the relevant maximum standards provided the local authority is satisfied that the parking facilities will genuinely serve the town centre as a whole and that agreement to this has been secured before planning permission has been granted. Local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of parking is in keeping with the size of the centre and that the parking provision is consistent with the town centre parking strategy.

Parking controls and charges

57. As part of an overall approach on parking, covering both the local transport plan and development plan, local authorities should adopt on-street measures to complement land use policies. Car parking charges should also be used to encourage the use of alternative modes. The RTS should set out the context for parking controls and charges by each local authority. Within this context, local authorities should set out appropriate levels and charges for parking which do not undermine the vitality of other town centres. Controls over public parking (both on-street parking and in car parks) need to be backed up by adequate enforcement measures.

58. Authorities should generally refuse planning permission for car parks which do not accord with this guidance or the policies set out in the development plan or local transport plan and where appropriate should encourage redevelopment or re-use of existing parking.

Park and ride schemes

59. Park and ride schemes, in appropriate circumstances, can help promote more sustainable travel patterns, both at local and strategic levels, and improve the accessibility and attractiveness of town centres. Schemes can vary considerably in size and purpose and may be based around bus, light rail or rail. Well-designed and well-conceived schemes - which accord with the advice in this guidance - should be given favourable treatment through the planning system.

60. Schemes need to be developed as an integral part of the planning and transport strategy for the area, and should be included in the local transport plan and, where possible, in the development plan. Proposals need to be consistent with the strategic context set out in the RTS, and where they would have a strategic role, for instance as a rail-based scheme on a main line, they would need to be considered within the regional transport and planning context.

61. Schemes need to be subject to robust assessment, including consideration of alternative sites, the impact on local amenity, and travel impacts, including traffic reduction and generation. Where their use is appropriate, schemes need to be designed and implemented in association with other measures, such as public transport improvements, traffic management and parking controls. Schemes should not be designed to increase significantly the total public parking stock available in a town and care should be taken (for example through tariff structures) to avoid encouraging additional travel, and especially commuting, by car. Schemes should be designed for use by disabled people, and to promote the potential for walking, cycling and motorcycle journeys to and from the site. They should also be designed and operated in order to maximise safety in the area and for those using the schemes. The English Historic Towns Forum has published a good practice guide on bus-based park and ride 17 .

17 Bus Based Park and Ride: A Good Practice Guide Second Edition (May 2000)

62. In some circumstances, park and ride schemes may be permissible in the Green Belt, where assessment shows such locations to be the most sustainable of the available options, taking account of all relevant factors. The scale and design of such schemes will be crucial factors in determining whether the impacts on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt are acceptable. This advice should be read in conjunction with the guidance in Annex E, which contains amendments to PPG2 (Green Belts).

63. The provision of parking at urban and suburban rail stations can increase the potential catchment population for rail services, but can at the same time exacerbate road congestion in the surrounding area. At main line stations it may also discourage travellers from using local bus or train services to connect to longer distance services. Parking may also result in lower density development in the immediate vicinity of the station. Local authorities need therefore to consider the case for parking facilities at urban and suburban rail stations, and the treatment of on-street parking near to stations within the context of their local transport plan objectives and advice in this guidance, including paragraph 21 on making the most of highly accessible sites. In doing so, they should take account of the views of train operators and the SRA, and the potential for railway stations to act as park and ride sites for destinations outside the immediate locality.

PPG13 ANNEX D: MAXIMUM PARKING STANDARDS

This table should be read in conjunction with the text on parking in paragraphs 49 to 56.

NOTES:

1. The standard for students relates to the total number of students attending an educational establishment, rather than full-time equivalent figures.

2. For stadia, sufficient coach parking should be provided to the satisfaction of the local authority and treated separately from car parking. Coach parking should be designed and managed so that it will not be used for car parking.

3. Parking for disabled people should be additional to the maximum parking standards. Development proposals should provide adequate parking for disabled motorists, in terms of numbers and design (see Traffic Advice Leaflet 5/95, Parking for Disabled People).

4. For mixed use development, the gross floorspace given over to each use should be used to calculate the overall total maximum parking figure. For land uses not covered in these standards, the most stringent regional or local standards should apply.