Parking guidance for new developments

A range of sources were considered when developing cycle parking standards. Initially TRICS (TRICS 2013) data was used to calculate demand for cycle parking in a similar way to that described for car parking in sub-section 1.5.4.3. However, as TRICS uses data from historic sites, with cycle parking levels based on older standards this tended to suggest very low levels of provision that would not reflect BC’s and the governments aspirations for increased cycling. Instead, a variety of examples of current practice were analysed and compared to current cycling levels in Buckinghamshire, to identify the most appropriate standards.

The current standards by Wycombe District Council (2011) and Aylesbury District Council (2002) were considered, as these are expected to be representative of the cycle parking needs of Buckinghamshire. However, in both cases it is not clear how exactly these standards were derived, and therefore how representative they are of the actual demand for cycle parking.

Standards by Transport for London (TfL, 2006) were also considered, as these aim to encourage cycling, and are based on a wide range of information including cycle trends, policies, demand for cycle parking, and surveying and questionnaires. Therefore, it is expected that these are robust and represent the actual need for cycle parking to a certain degree. However, there are major differences between London and Buckinghamshire in terms of cycling, and therefore these standards are only useful to a certain extent.

Cycle parking standards by both Somerset County Council (2013) and East Sussex County Council (no date) were also considered. The former are recent standards with the aim of encouraging cycling. However, the cycle to work rate in Somerset is over double that in Buckinghamshire, and therefore these standards are likely to be higher than those required in Buckinghamshire. The latter were considered as, in terms of cycling, East Sussex is the most representative county (for which appropriate standards were identified) of Buckinghamshire, with a very similar 10 percentage and number of people cycling to work. Therefore, it is expected that similar levels of cycle parking may be required.

Finally, the Cambridge City Council (2010) standards were considered. These are aimed at encouraging cycling, and are referred to in numerous cases as being an example of best practice, particularly by Sustrans, a charity dedicated to sustainable transport. However, these standards are based on a city with a very high cycle to work rate compared to Buckinghamshire, and therefore the standards are likely to be much higher than those required in Buckinghamshire.

The above documents were used together, taking into account the advantages and disadvantage of each, to inform the cycle standards. The resulting cycle standards were then applied to case studies to ensure they are appropriate and realistic.

As there is no national guidance available in relation to motorcycle parking for either residential or non-residential developments, and the TRICS data used to calculate car parking standards (explained below) is not available for motorcycles, an alternative approach was identified. The Department for Transport provides vehicle licensing statistics for motorcycles based on postcode (DfT 2013), and this guidance has used this data to calculate the recommended standards. The motorcycle licensing statistics indicate that Buckinghamshire has approximately a ratio of 30:1 car ownership to motorcycle ownership. Therefore, this ratio was used to determine the number of spaces required in non-residential developments.

When planning for residential motorcycle parking, we also used the same ratio. However, unlike residential car parking all motorcycles spaces must be unallocated. Further information and guidance on providing for motorcycles and scooters can be found from motorcycle industry groups.

The residential parking standards are based on actual car ownership levels, dwelling numbers and bedroom numbers across the county. This information was used to calculate the number of spaces required for the different dwelling types in each of the three zones.

Current car ownership levels in existing developments across the three zones was calculated to ensure that the new standards provide the appropriate level of parking for different development types across the county. The most comprehensive data source to provide this information is the 2001 Census from the Office of National Statistics (ONS), as the most recent Census Data (2011) does not yet provide a cross tabulation of the relevant data. As the increase in average car ownership per household across the county has been relatively small between 2001 and 2011, this was not considered to compromise the quality of the data.

The Census data is based on habitable rooms (the Census definition includes kitchens, living rooms, bedrooms, utility rooms and studies. It does not include bathrooms, toilets, halls, landings or rooms for storage), and therefore, number of habitable rooms has been used for all calculations. However, as people are more familiar with number of bedrooms, table 2 provides an approximate conversion between bedrooms and habitable rooms for the information of users of this guidance.

Bedsits or studios are included in the 1-4 rooms category.

The ONS data showed us the number of cars owned per household in each ward. There are lots of different ways that this could be represented: minimum, maximum, average and so on. We tried these out and selected one (95th percentile) which catered for the needs of most, whilst excluding dwellings with unusually high or low numbers of cars. Additional unallocated parking spaces provided within a new development, provide additional flexible capacity for those with unusually high numbers of cars.

The Census data demonstrates that car ownership levels vary across the zones, with Zone A generally having lower levels of car ownership per household compared to Zone C, where there are a greater number of households owning two or more cars. Standards have been rounded to the nearest half space. Where results were close to the point of being rounded up or down, and doing so would create a more even distribution between zones, they were rounded up or down accordingly.

The car ownership data provided by the ONS is split into dwelling types: houses and flats. However, after reviewing the data we concluded that car ownership has minimal variation according to the type of property. Therefore, the standards are derived from the house data only. This should ensure that flats are provided with an appropriate number of parking spaces without complicating the standards unnecessarily. This decision is supported by ‘Car parking: What works where’ (English Partnerships, 2006), which suggests that car ownership in flats is only slightly less than for houses of equivalent size, and reflects stakeholder concerns about the historic under-provision of car parking space in the development of some flats.

Where most of the parking provided is allocated to specific dwellings there is often little room for visitors to park. This can lead to inappropriate and dangerous parking. Therefore, it is important to provide a certain level of unallocated or visitor parking.

• allocated - within curtilage, garage or driveway, reserved in communal areas
• unallocated – available for anyone to use

The guidance ‘Design for Homes: Car Parking what works where’ (English Partnerships, 2006) states that ‘generally parking standards project a level of provision for visitors of about 20% over the overall parking allocation per household within a new development build.’ Our standards support this, and 20% extra unallocated or visitor parking is required per development to provide for visitors. However, if at least half of the parking in a new residential development is unallocated, then an additional 20% provision might not be required. It will be the developer’s responsibility to ensure that adequate parking is provided, and parking will not have a detrimental impact on traffic safety or the character of an area. This should be explained as part of the planning application or included in a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment where one is required.

This guidance does acknowledge that the provision of additional visitor parking may not be possible in smaller developments, particularly where the developer is not responsible for street design and no off-street provision is possible. In such circumstances it may well be appropriate to employ the flexibility provided within the guidance, where there is evidence that this would be appropriate and/or other approaches to mitigating the development’s impact can be secured.

For both residential and non-residential developments, a parking calculator has been produced to support users of the guidance to calculate exactly the number of spaces required for a new development. For residential developments, the calculator also states the number of unallocated parking to be provided based on the level of the allocated parking.

The main principle for unallocated parking is to maximise the flexibility and economy of land use. In some circumstances parking can be accommodated entirely without allocated spaces. Unallocated spaces can be provided on the public highway. On-street parking (whether adopted or private) can be controlled by traffic regulation orders to restrict vehicle type and or length of time of use although this is not a preferred solution on new developments. If the surrounding area suffers parking problems, then other means of controlling parking should be considered. Developers are encouraged to design the road and housing layout to create an effective self-controlling arrangement to reduce the need for traffic regulation orders. However the unallocated on-street parking will need to be tied down by planning permission.

The quality of the street is a key factor in parking design, so where developers put the parking is more significant than how much. ‘A combination of on plot, off plot and on street is the solution’ (English Partnerships, 2006), which is why for larger developments, the use of unallocated parking is encouraged within guidance. The design of unallocated parking and the distribution of spaces throughout the development should be safe, attractive, discrete, and located where there are points of demand.

Some of the standards provided in table 5 include half spaces, to reflect the average requirement of some areas or dwelling sizes accurately (Table 5 below explains more about the role of half spaces). Where possible spaces arising from half spaces in the standards should be unallocated.

The aim of our non-residential standards is to ensure we provide sufficient parking for the trips people make by car, to ensure both residents and visitors can reach their destination. This should reduce anti-social parking, often caused by insufficient parking. Bearing this in mind, we have chosen to base the standards on the demand for parking found at each development class, using information provided by TRICS.

TRICS is a database of a large number of surveys of real developments across a wide range of land use categories. The TRICS data showed us how many parking spaces non-residential developments need. There are lots of different ways that this could be represented: minimum, maximum, average and so on. We tried these out and selected the best ones for the 2 zones introduced above. These were selected to exclude developments with unusually high or low numbers of cars. For Zone 1 we used a level known as the median, and for Zone 2 we used a level known as the 85th percentile.

We also undertook a review of other local authorities’ existing standards which have recently been updated since the development of the NPPF to double check our TRICS calculations and ensure they are realistic.

The guidance recognises non-residential car parking as an important resource, particularly at off peak times when parking spaces may not be being utilised. Therefore developers and the local planning authority must take account of car parks as a shared resource within town and local centre locations, by encouraging shared use parking between neighbouring developments. The guidance encourages developers make use of shared car parks rather than requiring small new uses in town or local centres to provide separate spaces.

This initiative is supported by DCLG’s Planning Update (DCLG, March 2015), whereby local authorities are being encouraged to clarify that non-residential car parking spaces can be rented out, which will in turn support the shared

When considering blue badge parking, the current district council standards were considered alongside national policies and guidance; guidance from nongovernmental organisations; and best practice examples from other authorities as identified in the national policies and guidance.