The HBF does not believe that it is appropriate for the Council to produce Guidance to supplement a Plan that itself has not yet been formally adopted.
Mr C J Conway
Chief Planning Officer
Welwyn Hatfield Council
Council Offices
The Campus
Welwyn Garden City
Hertfordshire AL8 6AE
22nd May 2003
Dear Mr Conway
Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on Parking Standards
Thank you for giving the HBF an opportunity to comment on the above mentioned document relating to draft parking standards.
I list immediately below the House Builders Federation’s approach in relation to the production of new car parking standards generally.
General Points:
Requirements for parking provisions, especially off-street have a significant effect on the unit density of a site. Therefore when Council’s decide upon the provisions for car parking they require for the development the resulting effect should be noted. Thus figures should be rigorously tested as to identify if any overlaps in the designation of land for residential units, provisions of parking and most importantly the repercussions of the residual value of the site.
Requirements for parking provisions have become increasingly demanding and have been applied too rigidly, often as minimum standards. Developers should not be required to provide more parking provisions than they or prospective occupants may require, especially in urban areas, where public transport is likely to be at an optimum.
Local Authorities should revise car-parking standards, specifically for developments:
· In locations, such as town centres, where alternative methods of travel are available,
· Which provide housing for elderly people, students and single people where the demand for car parking is likely to be less than for family housing,
· Involving the conversion of housing, where off-street parking is less likely to be successfully designed into a scheme.
Resulting car parking standards, which encourage provisions of more than 1.5 spaces per dwelling, are unlikely to reflect the Government’s emphasis on securing sustainable residential environments.
If however parking requirements are not to be sought from the development, and instead contributions to parking are required as an alternative these should only be sought in the context of Circular 1/97, Conversely if parking provision is required from a site, it is clear that the demand for public transport will be substantially reduced and as such so should contributions for public transport.
If contributions are required instead of provisions the level of contribution towards sustainable transport must be determined on the basis of the specific circumstances of the proposed development and the needs for alternative transport provision in the locale.
Amongst other factors, the Secretary of State requires planning obligations to be sought only where they meet the following tests, they must be:
(i) necessary;
(ii) relevant to planning;
(iii) directly related to the proposed development;
(iv) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development;
(v) reasonable in all other aspects.
Specific Points:
In paragraph 1.3 the Borough Council attempts to relate the Draft SPG to policy M19 – ‘Parking Standards for New Development’ in its Draft Review Local Plan. This Plan has yet to be fully considered by the Inquiry Inspector. It will then need to be formally adopted by the Authority in place of the current car parking policies in the Adopted Plan. Until that time any SPG should relate to the content of the current Adopted Plan. If it does not it will carry little weight.
I would draw your attention to two letters relating to the use of SPG from the Government Offices for the East of England and for the South East dated 10 April 2001 and 13 January 2003
The Government Office for the South East stated in its letter that ‘SPG should be used to supplement adopted local plan policies and be clearly cross-referenced to a plan policy…(my emphasis)’.
Whereas the Government Office for the East of England stated a number of important points in its letter:
‘Care must therefore be taken to ensure that SPG only elaborates or clarifies proposals which are in the development plan, and does not introduce new policy…’
The Secretary of State will give substantial weight in making decisions on matters that come before him to SPG on affordable housing which derives out of and is consistent with the development plan, and has been prepared in the proper manner. In contrast, he will give little weight to SPG which contains material that ought instead to be included in the development plan…’ (my emphasis).
In paragraph 10.2 it is stated that ‘Section 106 contributions will be required for…’. This wording should be amended to ‘Section 106 contributions will be sought for…’. so that it complies with Circular 1/97 which clearly states that payments cannot be demanded by local authorities.
Paragraphs 10.4 - 10.7 refer to financial contributions for transport and highway improvements that will be sought. It must be clearly understood that any such contributions must be fairly related to the scale and nature of any development and take account of other requirements being sought as part of individual development schemes (e.g. affordable housing, public open space, educational provision e.t.c.). Again, any requirements being sought must be in conformity with the provisions of Circular 1/97.
Paragraphs 10.8 – 10.10 mention further guidance under preparation by the County Council on accessibility contributions. No doubt the HBF will wish to comment on any such guidance once it is published. It will expect it to fully comply with PPG 13, Circular 1/97 and policies in the Adopted Structure Plan. As mentioned immediately above, it will also need to be considered in light of other non-transport related contributions being sought.
Paragraph 12.4 states that standards outlined in the draft SPG will provide a starting point for discussions with developers on the appropriate level of car parking at developments in both town centres. The commitment to flexibility is both welcomed and considered necessary if development schemes are to go ahead and be implemented in an appropriate manner.
I look forward to the acknowledgment of these comments.
Yours sincerely
Paul Cronk
Regional Planner
For further information please contact HBF Eastern Regional Planner: Paul Cronk on 0207 608 5114 or at paul.cronk@hbf.co.uk