Parking guidance for new developments

Our standards for parking guidance for new developments.

Safe and secure cycle parking is an important component in encouraging cycling. For new developments, BC aims to ensure that developers make efficient use of land and promote sustainable travel choices. Therefore, cycle parking must be considered early on in the planning process.

Table 3 sets out the minimum number of cycle parking spaces required at different development types.

• a minimum of 2 cycle spaces (i.e. 1 Sheffield stand) must be provided at all non-residential developments
• at residential developments, space for cycles could be in the form suitable garage space, shed space or separate cycle space. Cycle parking which is provided in back gardens must be easily accessible
• all values for cycle spaces required should be rounded up to the nearest whole figure
• in many cases it will be suitable to have cycle parking distributed around a development than in one location, particularly if there are a number of entrances to the site. The distribution of cycle parking should reflect the proportion of people using each entrance

The use of this guidance is additional to the evidence which is expected to be provided within the developer’s Transport Assessment. By providing Travel plans, developers should further be able to demonstrate that they have applied the appropriate levels of monitoring in the area, especially if they are permitted to provide lower levels of parking spaces below the optimum recommendations.

• cycle parking should be sited in a manner that encourages the use of cycling as a first choice for short trips. It should be placed as close as possible to the main entrance and exit points on ground level. It should not be sited where it will be obstructed by pedestrians or vehicles
• cycle parking should be easily accessible, visible and in locations where it will be well used. They should be covered, and where possible and appropriate, in specially constructed cycle sheds (particularly for workplaces and educational institutes where bikes are likely to be left for long periods of time)
• the recommended choice of rack is the ‘Sheffield’ stand (inverted U-shaped metal tube). Sheffield stands are recommended as they are popular with users; 2 cycles can be locked to 1 stand; they are non-damaging to cycles; and they are easy to maintain. Where other racks or support systems are used, they should provide good support and allow the cycle frame and both wheels to be secured
• where additional space can be provided at the end of a row of Sheffield stands, the end spaces can be used by handcycles or other modified bikes that require extra space (including those used by people with mobility 17 impairments). Where sufficient demand is expected these spaces could be reserved for this type of bike
• the minimum spacing between Sheffield stands should be 1000mm. If stands are arranged in more than 1 row, these rows should be a minimum of 2000mm apart. This should be extended to 3100mm where an aisle is required to access the stands (where there are more than 2 rows, for example). It is also necessary to make sure there is adequate turning space to allow cyclists to access all stands provided (see figure 1, as produced by Cambridge City Council (2010))
• the design of cycle parking should be in keeping with the surroundings and be attractive to the user

• cycle parking for residents should always be covered, and where possible, this should also be the case for visitor cycle parking
• cycle parking must be secure and in a well-lit area creating a sense of personal safety. It should be included in premises’ CCTV surveillance systems (if provided), and where possible in lockable cycle sheds. If cycle parking cannot be housed inside, it should be overlooked by dwellings
• cycle parking should be sited within 20m of the relevant entrance of the building. If multiple entrances are used, cycle parking should be distributed throughout the site at each entrance

• the guidance aims to encourage cycling by providing the space needed to store bicycles; therefore developers must bear this in mind within their planning applications. This doesn’t have to be in a special or separate area. For example it could be included within garages (by increasing the stated garage dimensions) or in a suitable shed. The key thing is that an appropriately safe, 18 secure and easy to use space is provided. Cycle parking in back gardens needs to be easily accessible.

Provisions for cycle parking at schools and colleges should reflect proposals for safer routes to school and travel plans, and may need to be increased to reflect the aspirations of these plans.

The analysis of motorcycle ownership described in sub-section 1.5.4.2 above shows that in Buckinghamshire, the ratio of cars to motorcycles is 30:1. Table 4 sets out the requirements for motorcycle parking in both residential and non-residential developments.

This guidance does acknowledge that the provision of unallocated motorcycle parking may not be possible in smaller developments, particularly where the developer is not responsible for street design. In such circumstances a different approach to motorcycle parking may be appropriate.

When providing motorcycle or scooter spaces, it is recommended that 2.0m by 1.0m is allowed per space. Spaces should be secure, well lit, and situated in prominent, accessible locations, ideally in a site that benefits from surveillance of some sort. For security, the use of anchor points (such as steel rails or hoops) is a minimum.

As explained in section 1, residential car parking standards were developed from data showing car ownership across different zones and dwelling sizes.

There is less opportunity for half spaces (as calculated by formula) and unallocated parking in a small development. Therefore, parking needs to be calculated differently for smaller sites, to make sure they still have the right amount of parking. Table 5 provides guidance for new residential developments with over 10 dwellings, and table 6 provides guidance for new residential developments of 10 dwellings and under. See Appendix 1 for residential zone maps.

The car parking standards set out here are optimum standards; the level of parking they specify should be provided unless specific local circumstances can justify deviating from them. Proposals for provision above or below this standard must be supported by evidence detailing the local circumstances that justify the deviation. This evidence must be included in (and consistent with) the developer’s travel plan and transport assessment.

The standard should be rounded up to the nearest whole number across the development.

Half spaces aim to reflect the average requirement of some areas or dwelling sizes accurately. Therefore dwellings should be allocated the lower whole number, for example 2.5 = 2 spaces, and the half spaces are to be added together and distributed within the development as unallocated parking. For example:

• 3 bedroom dwellings (x50) with an average of 2.5 spaces each
• each individual dwelling will be allocated 2 spaces each, and the half spaces equal 25
• the 25 spaces are to be provided as unallocated parking.
• Where more than half of parking allocated, an additional 20% of the total number of spaces are required for unallocated or visitor parking.

To calculate the additional spaces required if a residential development has more than half of its parking allocated:

• determine the correct zone
• calculate the number of spaces required according to the optimum standards
• add the 20% additional unallocated parking (on top of the initial calculation)

When there are significant differences between parking provision based on bedrooms and habitable rooms, the most appropriate amount of parking should be provided. For example, where a dwelling is open plan, parking should be based on the number of bedrooms.

The car parking standards set out here are optimum standards; the level of parking they specify should be provided unless specific local circumstances can justify deviating from them. Proposals for provision above or below this standard must be supported by evidence detailing the local circumstances that justify the deviation. This evidence must be included in (and consistent with) the developer’s travel plan and transport assessment.

When there are significant differences between parking provision based on bedrooms and habitable rooms, the most appropriate amount of parking should be provided. For example, where a dwelling is open plan, parking should be based on the number of bedrooms.

Where there are changes to existing properties such as extensions and garage conversions, developers will be required to provide sufficient parking for property redevelopments based on the standards specified. It will be the developer’s responsibility to make sure that the changes made to an existing property will not prejudice the retention of adequate parking within the curtilage of the property

Below are the minimum design requirements criteria for residential parking standards and must be considered within all planning applications:

• size of allocated parking spaces size to follow in accordance with Section 2.5 (length 5.0m x width 2.8m)
• parallel parking dimensions – 6.0m x 3.0m is recommended
• parking spaces in front of a garage or vertical feature would require a 5.5m space for access to the car boot
• street width design to be considered and amended to accommodate on-street parking. Where unallocated parking spaces are distributed throughout a development, an increased carriageway width should be used to allow cars to park on either side of the street, leaving at least an appropriate width carriageway
• the design of unallocated parking should make it clear where it is appropriate to park and prevent inappropriate parking (particularly on footways)
• to add appropriate planting to soften the visual impact of cars - wherever parking is provided, it needs to be more attractive than inappropriate parking opportunities. It should be accessible, well lit, overlooked and attractive. Where a parking court is considered it must be part of a coherent overall layout, be small and over looked by dwellings
• parking design should consider its impact on the carriageway, particularly on the turning movements of larger vehicles, such as refuse vehicles

As described previously, non-residential car parking standards have been derived using TRICS. Table 6 sets out the resulting standards. Each use class parking standard is based on Gross Floor Area (GFA), or by staff or consultation room where indicated. Due to the limitations of the data available to us, there are a number of exceptions to these standards, which are outlined below Table 7.

The car parking standards set out here are optimum standards; the level of parking they specify should be provided unless specific local circumstances can justify deviating from them. Proposals for provision above or below this standard must be supported by evidence detailing the local circumstances that justify the deviation. This evidence must be included in (and consistent with) the developer’s travel plan and transport assessment.

In all cases, adequate provision should be made for the parking and turning of service vehicles serving the site, off the highway.

These optimum standards are designed to provide an appropriate level of parking across the county. However recent developments suggest higher levels may be required in certain areas. This may be due to specific to local 24 circumstances and/or the geography of the district. Where this is the case, the flexibility allowed by the standards should be applied.

See guidance in Table 8, ‘Dealing with exceptions’.

When a use forms part of a shared use facility, parking standards must be looked at for all uses and the appropriate amounts supplied. For example when conference facilities are included in a hotel facility, appropriate parking standards must be applied for each use. However, where visitors will use more than 1 of these facilities the impact of this on the parking spaces required must also be taken into account.

All school and colleges should provide appropriate drop off areas as well as car parking. Drop offs can reduce the need for parking, improve circulation and ultimately reduce congestions problems on local roads around the school.

Where there is a 6th form, student parking should be assessed individually.

This is to be assessed individually.

Consideration should be given to the requirement for overnight parking and facilities. Also due to variability of the sites, the standard will need to be considered carefully and greater flexibility may be needed here.

The provision of spaces for goods vehicles to load and unload will be assessed for each development proposal on its merits. It is essential to make adequate provision to ensure that servicing can be accommodated without detriment to the safety of other road users, or the free flow of all-modes of transport on the highway. Car sales or showrooms will be expected to ensure that deliveries by car transporters can be appropriately accommodated.

For some land uses, the approach used to calculate parking requirements does not provide appropriate results, either due to the data available or the nature of their parking requirements. Table 3 explains how we dealt with these exceptional land uses to develop the standards listed. This information is provided for the sake of transparency and to help those interested in the details of our calculations. All other standards were derived in the way described above.