Agenda item

The Chairman raised concerns about this lengthy document being published at the last moment when much the content is the same as the report that had been presented approximately a year ago. Members were very concerned with this matter and should have had more time to consider the report.  The Chairman also thanked Members who had already sent comments before this meeting and said that he will forward them to the Portfolio Holder.

J Doe advised that the report has come back to Committee following additional work and A Robinson and S Mendham would go through the changes and would be happy to take any comments.

The Chairman mentioned he was not happy because the introduction to this item states that if the SPD is not approved, the current standards will continue to apply. But what if we approve it in a modified form? In addition, point 1.5 implies that it would not become immediate policy.  J Doe confirmed that if the Council did not approve this policy the fall-back position will be to continue to use the current standards. If they approve it, the policy will become valid.  In terms of point 1.5, any policy has to be embedded within statutory basis of the Local Plan 2004 which would mean the current one, where national standards were about maximum standards.  We are now looking at minimum standards, so this means that we can adopt this as an interim form of guidance, which doesn’t fully comply with the policies of the 2004 Local Plan but will be an effective way to require local developers to do so on a non-statutory basis.  We are preparing our new Local Plan with the intention of that being adopted by the end of 2022 and this policy could be adopted in the new Local Plan.  We have bought this forward now at the request of Members because an urgent review of parking was needed.

The Chairman accepted those points and agreed that Members were dissatisfied with the maximum standard and wanted a more sensible policy that could be applied in planning, but he was concerned that this standard won’t be implemented immediately as a policy.  J Doe confirmed it would be enacted as a policy, but Officers were trying to be clear with Members that supplementary planning policy has to have its basis in adopted Plan policy. If Council does approve this policy we will be taking it forward to Developers as a requirement. When the new Local Plan comes out it will have a full statutory basis.

A Robinson summarised the report.

Cllr Silwal asked about point 4.2 car ownership levels.  A Robinson confirmed that point 4.2 was seeking to illustrate that there hasn’t been much of an increase in ownership levels between those two periods and the evidence base is largely derived from the Census between 2001 and 2011.  We do rely on evidence that is collected at a national level and that’s what has informed in part the report before Members tonight.

The Chairman was concerned that the information used to make decisions was from some time ago in a period of recession that would obviously affect ownership.

Cllr Timmis wanted to reinforce the concerns that the 2011 Census is an out of date evidence base. Also, it was unrealistic to ask people to use alternatives to car use when we don’t have any viable forms of public transport.  A Robinson highlighted that the Car Parking SPD is one of a number of tools that we would use, alongside the Local Plan and a big part of that toolkit is the Sustainable Transport Plan, which will include a number of interventions like passenger transport initiatives, cycling and pedestrian improvements.  The Parking Standards are part of the wider toolkit that we hope will help provide more options for people when trying to move around our towns.

Cllr Ransley queried the town centre and high street parking provision and mentioned that people go there to shop, they can’t carry their shopping on a bus or a bike: they need to go in their cars.  A Robinson highlighted that the SPD focusses on new development proposals, it does not comment on existing facilities.

Cllr McDowell asked why there was no mention of loss of on street parking where there is a development which is detrimental in this respect.  A Robinson said that the loss of on street parking can be an unfortunate consequence of some development proposals.  The Car Parking SPD is seeking to make sure that where developments come forward they are meeting their own parking requirements.  He confirmed that we do want to avoid on street parking being lost and the SPD doesn’t stop us using other appropriate action to limit that.

The Chairman confirmed he was pleased to hear that each development would meet its parking needs on site.

Cllr McDowell advised that he felt strongly that where on street parking is lost we should be able to do something to push developers to replace what’s been lost within the development site. 

Cllr McDowell queried the parking stress test where we can apply for higher standards and asked when this can be used on smaller developments.  A Robinson said we can look into the provisions in the SPD regarding on site parking.  On the second question we are applying a 10 unit threshold for where the parking stress test would apply, with regards to the areas, we have kept it open so that we can take into account the relevant circumstances and it’s probably best not to put anything in black and white as it’s open to loopholes.  We also use the controlled parking zones to give an indication of where parking stress exists.

Cllr McDowell asked how many parking zones are there in a town like Tring.  A Robinson confirmed he would need to get back to him on that. Action: A. Robinson

Clllr McDowell advised there were very few and if that’s how parking stress is monitored then in somewhere like Tring it doesn’t exist.  A Robinson said it was a useful proxy but it’s not the only criterion. 

Cllr Beauchamp raised concerns about the rationale behind the more stringent parking measures being applied to town centres, as people will still need to commute to work etc, and there will be an increase in on street parking. Could there be an increase in parking for residential use only?  A Robinson confirmed that accessibility zones are based on the existing transport services provided and generally speaking this is better in town centres. That’s the rationale for the lower parking standards in those areas.  Increased on street parking was considered in the SPD and the aim was to try and avoid that, ensuring that developments are providing adequate parking within the red line, also this could prove difficult in town centres and may add to parking issues.

Cllr Beauchamp said it was still based on the premise that we do have good transport links but that’s not always the case.  A Robinson agreed that not every town centre will have good public transport, but the parking stress test is used where we feel that a particular area has a degree of parking stress and we can seek to apply the higher parking standards in the SPD, although developers will ask for that to be evidenced.

The Chairman highlighted there are changes in the town centre that we have no planning control over, for example where offices or shops are turned into residential accommodation - all of which will increase the stress.  A Robinson mentioned there are other tools available particularly Article 4 where we can control the amount of units that are converted. The onus is on us to have policies that seek to improve access to public transport.

Cllr Riddick mentioned that he supported and endorsed the opening comments relating to the delay in bringing this report before Committee.  He was also concerned about the report being based on a Census from 2011 since which there have been many changes; increased buildings and traffic that should be taken into consideration. Developers should be providing adequate parking, which should be a minimum of one space per bedroom.  Cllr Riddick confirmed he was not happy with the report as it stands.

Cllr Barrett raised concerns about Bovingdon being in Zone 3 which reduces the parking provision by 25-30%. Given that all the other places in Zone 3 have better transport links, he asked for the justification for Bovingdon being in Zone 3.  A Robinson said that we have grouped the villages together as Zone 3 . That reflects that Bovingdon and the villages are not the most sustainable locations, but we don’t think it is in Zone 4, which covers all the rural areas. It is a relative assessment based on the whole Borough. 

Cllr Barrett asked for clarification on the reduction proposed on Bovingdon.  A Robinson confirmed that this is an actual increase, because the current standards are a maximum, so the developer could provide less than we are currently asking. But the new standard is a minimum, so they have to provide this or have justifiable evidence why they can’t provide the minimum standard.  The developer can currently ask for a reduction but with the new standard they can’t.

The Chairman agreed that we need a new standard, what’s not clear, especially as the data underpinning this report isn’t up to date, is the rationale for deciding on these fixed figures.  A Robinson recognises the data deficiencies, but we are relying on the best information we have and to look at anything else would be very costly and time consuming. He appreciates that it’s not a great answer but it’s the best data we have available. 

Cllr McDowell agreed that the census data is out of date and questioned if it should be reviewed on the basis that this SPD should only last until we can re-evaluate the data.  Cllr McDowell also asked for clarification on the EV charging points, on Page 40 chart 1, which in point 8.27 refers to table 1 which requires 20% active charging points and 20% passive where the chart above it is 50% for each.  A Robinson confirmed the table is incorrect and we will pick up the error. Also, the report does build in a 5 year review.

Cllr Timmis said that parking is very controversial and she would add that she is not happy to support the report especially where there is a reduction of parking at the station, where parking has increased.  A Robinson replied that the standards for new developments that take place near the station have reduced standards because they are in close proximity to public transport, so shouldn’t need so much parking. Also, parking for commuters is a separate point.

Cllr Rogers asked if retailers and shoppers will be amenable to the proposals with the current issues we have with everyone shopping online at the moment, this will prove detrimental to traditional retailers. Also, with increasing new properties, this obviously means more cars and with the data evidence used being from 10 years ago, the standards are not sufficient for today and this puts up barriers for people who want to come and live in Dacorum.  A Robinson said that with regards to retailing, the parking requirements for shopping in Zone 1 is done on a case by case basis, so the business can make a case for what it needs for parking. If in the planning balance that’s acceptable, we can allow it.  With regards to the realistic parking standards and if it reflects today’s life, the standards are lower, but we have an incredible challenge with the huse building targets 0f over 1000 properties p.a. that Government has stipulated, while minimising use of the green belt.  We will be challenged by developers looking at our assumptions for development, stating that our parking standards won’t allow achievement of the target, so we are trying to encourage more development in our town centres and minimise development on green belt.  A Robinson added that he realised this wasn’t a particularly helpful answer but hopefully shows why we’ve taken this approach to reduce parking in our towns.

Cllr Hobson asked if everyone working on the many different projects, for example Climate Change, Local Plan, etc, are all working together and said that there is the challenge of free parking elsewhere including free park and ride, so this is a challenge for town centres.  The Chairman pointed out that this was a report to discuss car parking and not car parking charges but the query about everyone working together is a good one and this is probably the case.

Cllr Barrett mentioned that the current standards are a maximum which the developer can argue down to a lower figure but the new minimum standards mean that the developer can only go down to that figure, so is this a better position to be in.  A Robinson replied that the current standard is a maximum, so under the existing approach the developer can argue that down by saying that 0% or 25%, in the town centre would mean they don’t have to provide any parking. But in the new standard, this is fixed at 0.5 as a minimum, and that’s why the Government has introduced this approach.

The Chairman advised this isn’t true, because in a couple of sections in the report there is provision for the developer to buy himself out of his obligations under s106.

Cllr McDowell wanted to commend the Officers and the Group on the changes bought forward tonight because they are actually a significant improvement and if Council can take into account the comments mentioned, it will be really beneficial.

J Doe mentioned the point made by Cllr Hobson with working together on a range of issues was absolutely right and we are all working together. Also he made it clear to Members that this report is just about parking in new developments, not existing town centre parking.  J Doe added for any planning policy to have credibility, it’s got to be based on evidence. Yes the Census is out of date and we are a year away from a new one, but the data won’t be available until at least 2022, so 2011 is the best we have and we can’t rely on anecdotal evidence.  With Climate Change and car use, we are heavily dependent on our cars, but this will be a key point in the Local Plan and if we continue to accommodate increased use of the car we have no prospect of persuading people to use other sustainable methods of transport. J Doe also mentioned the haste with which the report was bought before Members and advised that Members had asked for it as they were concerned with the current maximum standards and environment impact.  J Doe confirmed that the new Local Plan will be published in about two years and this will provide another opportunity to review the parking standards. But we will take any comments on amendments to Cabinet.

The Chairman stated that he didn’t accept the validity of the evidence from the 2011 Census.  Also, insufficient evidence has been attention had been paid to residential amenitiy. County Council Officers at Highways may have their views on modal shift in transport, but they do not have to face an electorate and if this means more cars and vans lining the streets, that will be anathema to our electorate, severely damaging residential amenity within the Borough.  The Chairman put forward a previously circulated proposal as recommendations to Cabinet, which is as follows:

1.    All large developments should provide adequate on site parking.

2.    Arbitrary residential parking provision figures in the Appendices should be replaced for all Accessibility Zones except Zone 1 with one space per bedroom.

3.    For business developments adjacent to or within residential areas, provision of parking should include not only commercial vehicles, but also cars belonging to employees.

4.    The proposed standard should be firmly applied and such “wriggle room” offered by Page 19 para 6.11 and Page 38 para 12.1 should be deleted from the policy. Allowing developers to pay money in this way to dodge their obligations to residents is completely unacceptable.

The committee agreed with these recommendations, except for Cllr Taylor, who wanted more opportunity to consider the implications of the proposals.

The Chairman asked for those who want to add to these recommendations to Cabinet to email their proposals and he will add them to the papers that Members have already sent in and provide them all to the Portfolio Holder.