Agenda item

J Doe introduced the item and his colleagues Rebecca Williams (Assistant Team Leader, Strategic Planning and Regeneration), Trevor Saunders (Interim Team Leader – Strategic Planning) and Jenny Baker (Markides Associates) to the committee. J Doe explained that the technical report being discussed is an important part of the evidential base to set a revised policy in future for car parking standards. He referred to paragraph 32-40 of the report which highlighted the next steps and the proposal to develop a new supplementary planning document in respect of car parking, taking account of the conclusions of the Markides technical evidence and members comments.

J Baker from Markides Associates gave a presentation and confirmed that the technical report should be viewed as a starting point to develop a policy. Key points to note included:

• Average car ownership per ward is based on the 2011 Census
• Recommendations for potential car parking standards set out in the technical report suggested that any standards should be a broad requirement rather than a maximum standard.
• The report recommended two ‘accessibility’ zones in future where parking requirement could be lowered. These were based on walking distances from central Hemel (800m and 1600m) and central Berkhamsted (800m) 
• Outside of the ‘accessibility zones’ a degree of flexibility could be warranted but the applicant must prove the case that they cannot provide those spaces or there is no parking stress in surrounding roads through a Parking Stress Survey.
• Garages should not count as a car parking space unless they are big enough to park a car in and open the doors to get in and out.
• Evidence suggests that lower standards could be applied to affordable and sheltered housing developments where car ownership is evidenced to be less.

Councillor Ransley referred to the idea of Parking Stress surveys. She asked if there was a set standard for these surveys that developers must follow. She noted that many roads have parking both sides which would not fit an emergency vehicle down.
J Baker said there is a standard method for surveying parking stress. Parking Stress is generally measured 200m walking distance from the development proposed and at times of the day which are relevant. For example, if it is a residential development then a survey should be carried out between 12 midnight – 5am and then again at 10am.

Councillor Timmis said she was concerned about restricting parking in central Berkhamsted and the potential for reduced car parking to serve any new development in the central area adding to existing pressures in trying to find a parking space to visit local shops and businesses. Also, Councillor Timmis also queried whether applying lower car parking standards for affordable housing was appropriate if those homes were not well served by a bus route and further queried whether allowance standard of 1.5 spaces for a two-bed house was appropriate, given the possibility of some of those household owning two cars.
J Doe clarified that any car parking standards applied to new developments only and could not rectify any existing parking in central Berkhamsted, but pointed out that new public car parking provision might also be considered to help this situation. J Doe also pointed out that affordable housing developments have not had different standards in the past but the technical evidence is pointing towards a lower figure. The 1.5 spaces are a fraction because it is an average. Obviously, you cannot provide a fraction of a space but this is rounded up or down. It is more of a problem in the smaller developments.
J Baker added to these comments. Affordable housing is generally less, but that it is an important issue for any new standards to consider. J Baker also confirmed that the average car parking is a starting point for some but factors in the need for flexibility.

Councillor Anderson said the committee should not lose sight that what is being recommended is a massive improvement on existing policy. The Sappi development in Nash Mills is a prime example of a large development with little parking provision. He asked what grounds the council would have for refusing a development when there were two conflicting parking stress surveys from the developer and objectors.
J Baker said applications could be refused if the council were confident the objectors survey had been done fairly. The surveys are generally easy to verify.
J Doe said objectors could find the same methodology, which would be set out in the policy and apply this.

Councillor Anderson asked if the council could use the policy to promote undercroft parking as a solution in some schemes.
J Baker said it was difficult to guide developers in how they provide parking. The level of car parking required should be set by the council and then it should be left to developers to plan how they design a scheme to meet the requirement. J Doe said this relates to the site layout, design and density policy. Solutions could also include providing parking in a podium development like the Kodak tower. With regards to providing new car parking in separate locations, it could be something that is worked into the site allocations policy.

Councillor Anderson said his personal view was that there should be a hierarchy with the first factor being accessibility to public transport. If you reduce commercial parking, it seems unfair to punish those that work at these sites if they do not have access to public transport at home.

Councillor Birnie that the 2011 Census data is now out of date. Since then he suggested, the country has faced a period of austerity with a housing shortage meaning many people are forced into rented accommodation or are forced to live at home longer which means even more cars. He said that a street survey may be a safer criteria for understanding actual ownership in that locality. Also, he questioned the level of flexibility which might be applied with age restricted housing. There might be fewer drivers living there but there could be more visitors and carers. He said he had grave doubts about the accuracy of parking surveys provided by developers.
J Baker acknowledged that the Census data was now seven years old however it is the only detailed data available that gives car ownerships on house type. A street survey would give you how many cars were parked but you would not be able to establish who they belonged too. It would just give an average figure which would be difficult to break down any further. She noted Councillor Birnie’s point about visitor parking in age restricted homes and said she has worked with a company that provides homes for over 70s and they are still requiring broadly look to provide one space per unit.

Councillor Hicks wanted to clarify that Markides had used the 2011 Census data plus twenty percent to represent the rise in car ownership.
J Baker confirmed they had added twenty percent as the figures from the Census were an average. Another twenty percent had also been  added to reflect visitor parking.

Councillor Hicks referred to shopping centre car parking. He suggested that people’s shopping habits are changing and have moved to the discount retailers Aldi and Lidl car parks are always full with queues to get in. If requirements are relaxed, it may make things worse.
J Baker said the business models of Aldi and Lidl are different to other supermarkets. They do not build new shops but acquire existing buildings with an A1 use so they rarely have the same level of parking.

Councillor Hicks said he was pleased to see a move towards a minimum requirement especially for rural areas were car ownership is much higher. J Baker said there was huge variants within wards.

Councillor Bateman said he was also a member of the Development Management Committee. He thought that it was better to not have so many variants in parking provision. but a minimum requirement was a much better idea.
J Doe said that the draft parking standards policy will come back to this committee for consideration and once adopted, briefing sessions will be held to inform members of the new standards to be applied.

Councillor Marshall asked about controlled parking zones (CPZ). She said it did not make much sense to reduce the parking standards in these areas and seems counterproductive.
J Baker said that new developments with no parking would not be able to apply for parking permits if there are existing  CPZ in place. This is a standard approach in the London boroughs.

Councillor Fisher asked what was taken into consideration when deciding if there was a  good public transport provision.
J Baker said that the requirement is the development being within 400m of a bus stop with a high frequency of service with no longer than a twelve minute wait for a bus is considered good access. A lot of Dacorum does not have a good bus service.

Councillor G Sutton said that parking was a highly emotive subject and one size does not fit all. The council can use this review as a basis for future policies to look at problem areas such as the parking of commercial vehicles in residential areas. The problem is forcing developers to provide more spaces. For every space provided adds another £20k on the cost. A balance must be struck – increasing parking provision too much may endanger the green belt.

Councillor Anderson said that he remembered well when John Prescott on behalf of the then Government had turned parking minimums into maximums and banned minimums.  Red Lion Lane, adjacent to the Sappi redevelopment, is a prime example of the damage that the policy did to our Borough.  He said parking minimums were very badly needed as soon as possible.

Outcome

That the Strategic Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee approve the report