Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)

Each residential property even “in town centre” needs a minimum of one parking space per bedroom.

Cycle parking needs to have cover even when “short term”

For future parking facilities would you consider the following, That the elderly need to open car doors fully to exit the vehicle. My wife and I are almost 90 years old and do not have a disability parking.
Use the angle parking paces,they use less space.
Avoid 90 degree turns with high curbs. Instead use bell shaped blocks.
Best regards

Regarding the parking provisions currently being applied it is obvious that they are grossly inadequate. A family property housing at least four people needs parking spaces for 4 cars, not the two that are currently being specified for each property. Also, don’t count the garage as one or two spaces because most people don’t park their cars in the garage because it’s too full up storing the things that there’s no room for in the house. Developers do not provide sufficient storage space indoors either.

Few residents will leave their cars at home & take the bus. Likewise they won’t cycle either. How does one carry a flat screen TV home from the shop on a bike? Or a weeks worth of grocery shopping for a family of four? It’s different if one is popping down to the Co Op for a newspaper or a magazine. Families will have pedal bikes so there should be sufficient secure space in a domestic garage to store them. Also, it’s reasonable to assume that someone buying a new home will possibly have at least one motorcycle to store which requires provision of a secure space for that to be essential.

If you want residents to cycle to the shops then provide somewhere secure for them to leave their bikes when they get there.

With the take up of electric cars continuing to gather pace it is essential that sufficient provision of electric charging points are available so that is at least two charging points per household with the provision to add more if required easily available.

Hello
In regards to the standards request for consulting public, I am responding with my personal view.
Our school users will travel by car, despite many efforts and much marketing to support otherwise. This is partly because many families work and juggle the school run with the next swift move to the workplace.
Therefore, there needs to be drop off zones, sufficient parking, wide pathways to protect children and families, and cycle paths to protect scooter use and cycling of young children and families.
There also needs to be adequate reinforcement of restrictions that are already in place.

With regards,

I broadly support the plan but I’ve seen some local developments where the garage(s) does not have a garage door. In Meppershall for instance the garages have oak wood frames and look very attractive. This makes it less likely the garage will be converted into another room or filled with junk It also makes driving the car straight in easier. Some houses have installed garage doors but could such an alteration be made subject to a full planning application within the deeds? This would potentially put people off doing it.

5 bed house - 5 spaces
4 bed house - 4 spaces
3 bed house - 3 spaces
2 bed house - 2 spaces
1 bed house - 2 spaces

A minimum of 2 car parking spaces should be provided per property and at least one space per bedroom. Often families will move in with young children and as the children get old enough to drive, more and more cars need to be parked. They end up abandoned on roadsides, blocking footpaths or obstructing fire engines and rubbish collection lorries.

I believe parking should be allocated to new builds as 1 space per bedroom with a minimum of 2. With children staying at home longer with parents, the number of cars per household is going to be higher than it used to be.

Insufficient allocation of parking spaces considering the medium to long term needs of the population.
If the CBC looks at current housing trends, it is clear that current parking space allocations are insufficient based on a number of factors.
1. Most homes will have an average of 1 car per adult, this means that even 1 bedroom homes will need 2. Families with young adults 17 or older will likely also need additional space for vehicles.

2. In homes with multi generational families the requirements will naturally increase. Halifax research conducted in Jan 2022 showed that in every area of the UK, average age of home ownership is over 30.

3. There are not enough affordable houses being built, and not enough schemes available to support home buyers so again people will stay at home longer.

4. Insufficient parking leads to on street parking which creates issues for traffic, for emergency services, for disabled access, for public transport etc creating a host of longer term issues for local councils and CBC.

5. It just makes more sense to plan based on the reality of car ownership in the 21st century. Current CBC parking allocation modelling appears based on more people walking (which means local infrastructure not currently in place) and the concept that only one person in a two adult household travels (multiply for larger households). As most people work, at least part time, and with a cost of living crisis and recession that is likely to mean more people will increase their working to increase their income (as the Uk Government is planning for them to do), travel needs for families are not likely to reverse to meet the allocation modelling currently used by CBC.

Planning ahead (and arguably this isn’t really planning ahead, it’s planning for the reality of Central Beds in 2022) now will save time, money, and energy later.

1 bedroom houses need min 2 spaces
2 bedroom houses need min 3 spaces
3 bedroom houses need min 4 spaces
4 bedroom houses need min 4 spaces (it needs to be capped somewhere).
5 bedroom houses need min 4 spaces etc

This seems a well researched and thought out document. The only disappointment is that it assumes there will be continuing new housebuilding and development in what you accept is a predominantly rural area. Maybe you'll be surprised to learn that that is why a lot of chose to live here. Moreover, this government-led commitment to building over the remaining countryside appears to be blindly followed by the council, presumably because we have had continuous Conservative leadership since I have lived in the area.
I notice yet another agricultural field being prepared to be lost for development on the outskirts of Flitwick just this week. This is at odds with your stated commitment to achieve carbon neutrality. We have to offer solutions for this locally and globally. We can't destroy Central Bedfordshire and expect somebody else to compenstae for it.

Section 3: There is no provision for scooter or e-scooter parking in the standards for residential development; in many other countries e-scooting is becoming a very popular form of sustainable transport, especially for younger people. Whilst e-scooters are not yet legal to use on public roads outside of the designated trial areas in this country, the future direction is very clear: the UK Department For Transport has unveiled plans to create a new category for electric scooters, which will enable them to become legal and help the government meet its effort to become a more environmentally friendly country. Provision should therefore be included in this document for scooters (and once they are legal for use of the road, for e-scooters).

Section 4.8: The term 'older people' does not appear to be defined, this requirement appears very low and with no, or a very loose, definition, this could easilty be abused and used to circumvent the standards for residential development.

Section 4.9: In respect of an accessible location for car-free developments - this needs to include additional provision that route(s) must be safe and practical to use, e.g. segregated cycleways; unlit roads with no pavement, or soil based footpaths should not be considered 'safe and practical' to use.

Section 4.9: In respect of existing public transport for car-free developments - this needs to include that suitable provision must exist, or be made for, shift workers such as emergency services staff and healthcare workers who will need to travel very early or very late in the day.

Section 6.0: There is no provision for scooter or e-scooter parking in the standards for non-residential development; in many other countries e-scooting is becoming a very popular form of sustainable transport, especially for younger people. Whilst e-scooters are not yet legal to use on public roads outside of the designated trial areas in this country, the future direction is very clear: the UK Department For Transport has unveiled plans to create a new category for electric scooters, which will enable them to become legal and help the government meet its effort to become a more environmentally friendly country. Provision should therefore be included in this document for scooters (and once they are legal for use of the road, for e-scooters).

Section 6.5: Is the "5% of cycle parking at schools should be provided for non-standard cycles." an absolute fixed amount, a minimum or a maximum figure - I suspect this should say 'At least...'.

Section 6.5.2: Whilst the statement "Secondary school aged pupils are more likely to cycle to school than scoot, although there still may be some pupils that prefer to scoot. Pupils who are aged 16+ are more likely to cycle than scoot." is generally true outside of areas which are currently subject to the e-scooter trials, it is likely to change very rapidly once the regulatory framework for such e-scooters changes. Provision should be made for scooters and (once they are legal to use on the public highway) e-scooters within the parking provision for secondary schools, sixth forms, colleges, higher and further education.

The provision for not including single garages in the count of parking spaces is very welcome.

Parking is inadequate in new developments. which leads to congestion and dangerous parking and arguments too.

I suggest the following:

4/5 bed house - 4 spaces
3 bed house - 3 spaces
1/2 bed house - 2 spaces

With additional visitor spaces too. Plus parking spaces need to be large enough for drivers to park next to other vehicles and still be able to leave their vehicle. This sounds obvious but doesn't always happen!

Please also make these consultations less time consuming and more straightforward.

I totally object to the parking allocation on all new developments.
All properties in development should all have an increase of one parking space per dwelling.
The reference of .25 visitor parking spaces is also totally unacceptable and should be increased to enable visitors and trades people to park.
This is because the builders are permitted to build such narrow estate roads and any parking on them leads to problems, so either more parking spaces or the width of the roads shoul be increased.

For all new builds there should be a minimum of 2 parking spaces for one-bedroom properties and a minimum of 3 parking spaces for two and three- bedroomed properties. With a one-bedroom property, there is a very high chance that 2 people will be living there with 2 cars. It is not reasonable to say ask these 2 people to buy a property of at least 2 bedrooms just so that they have adequate parking. What happens is that the couples that have 2 cars will end up buying a one bedroom property as that is all they can afford. They know full well that there is not enough parking for them but feel they have no other choice and end up with parking problems. This also happens with other sized properties such as 2 and 3 bedroom properties. For example, a 3 bedroom property may have a family of 2 adults and 2 children living there. At some point the children are going to be of driving age and still living with the parents (due to not being able to afford to move out). The family will go from having 2 cars to 3 cars or maybe even 4 cars. They also will have no other choice but to end up with parking problems.
The above issues not only causes dangerous or obstructive parking but also lead to neighbor disputes.

Hi Central Beds Strategic Policy team
Anglian Water has no detailed comments to make on the SPD.
The general principles are ones which Anglian Water supports, particularly in taking action on sustainable travel as
part of our pledge to be net zero by 2030.
As a broader point I note that Central Beds is in the top half of unitary councils assessed in the Council Climate
Scorecard.
Can you let me know whether Central Beds has a quantitative baseline for carbon emissions associated with parking
and whether as part of the SPD this will be monitored through the implementation of the SPD in planning
applications?
Would this then be reported in the Council’s planning service Annual Monitoring Report and/ or the Councils
annual Sustainability Plan Progress Report.

More parking is required in Biggleswade due to the huge amount of housing development going on within town.
More and more of the side streets are dangerous with cars parked both sides and on pavements. Emergency
services don't stand a chance at getting through, elderly, disabled and parents with young children have to walk out
into the road due to vehicles on pavements. The car parks in town don't have long enough times for people to shop
in town or go for a meal. It's about time the council thought things through regarding amenities in town before
agreeing to more housing. For every one bedroom house you need at least two parking spaces most couples now a
days have a car each so with only one allocated space the other has to park on road. Also no thought given for
visitors parking

Was expecting a list to comment on, not having to write lots of feedback

With Parking we need to ensure developers protect verges and footpaths and ensure signs are in place that commits to enforcement.

4.4.5 Allocate at least 1 spaces per property 1 bed, 2 spaces 2 bed, 3 spaces 3-4 bed.

4.5 Make visitor spaces at least 0.75 per property.

4.7 Visitor allocation of 0.25 per occupant

6.0 Cycle storage and parking must provide provision to secure cycles. Schools in particular have an issue with theft of cycles due to lack of sufficient provision.

Please do not repeat the mistakes made at Sandhills. Leighton Buzzard.
Too little parking resulting in on the road parking. This is dangerous for access by emergency services.
The rear car parking areas are out of sight and are prone to criminal behaviour , which means that residents choose to park on the road. Exacerbating the situation.
Sandhills has a lot of buy to lets resulting in multiple occupancies , leading to more parking.requirements.

there is no point in making new standards without a proper enforcement resourced strategy. Without enforcement, it is a complete waste although well intentioned - enforcement is essnetial

There needs to be sufficient off road parking for at least 2 cars per household. With additional on road parking for 2 cars per household. With the amount of work vans for contractors and deliveries and being made due to online shopping. There should also be 2 delivery / unloading bays per 10 houses.

Failure to plan for these on all housing developments will be the sole cause for public disorder, criminal damage and discontent amongst the residents who have to live there. Furthermore pedestrians will not be able to use the pavements safely due to parking on pavements. This is a planning department problem that needs to be addressed, as public transport is not fit for purpose as we can all see with the failure to build the Wixhams rail station and irregular bus services.

Regards

For all residential properties new or old, if the garage has been built smaller than recommended sizes, it should not be allowed to be advertised as a garage. If a house advertised a garage, you would expect to fit a standard size car in it, if not, you should be made aware so that you consider buying the property or not, to avoid congesting street parking.
A standard size carparking space in non-residential areas is not wide enough at 2.5m to be able to access out of the car in many instances, due to many cars being wider nowadays or the poor parking or width of the car next to you.

See paras 4.5 and 4.4.5
1parking space per bedroom for a residential property is not enough. Invariably a couple will both have a car. Should be 2 spaces or increase visitor slots to .5 or .75.
One parking space per flatted property is just wrong. This panders to the developers and leads to estates that are not navigable in the evening due to cars all over the pavements!

To whom it concerns
First thank you for the opportunity that allows me to express my views.
It is good that you and I sincerely hope all councils will look at this problem.
In my opinion our planning department have caused a decline to our living standards caused by lack of consideration to parking spaces.
I believe in the following
1 parking space for each bedroom (garages should not be considered as they are rarely used for cars) On developments, street parking should not be allowed on main routes, creating secondary roads for housing (this of course would not be welcomed by developers but believe the long term impact on the environment would be considerable) Visitor spaces should be considered on secondary housing roads.
Hoping you will consider my views and once again thank you for allowing me to do so.
Best regards

All new houses should assume one car per adult.
One/two bedrooms = 2 cars
Three+ bedrooms = 4 cars (if say 2 children average who will both drive a car from 17 to when they leave home)
Planning should be based on reality and not some eco wishful thinking.
All cars may well become electric in the future, but the parking spaces will still be needed.

Hello

I’ve read your excellent paper and am really pleased to see some of your findings. My two comments relate to Car Parking in Residential areas.
In fairness many house owners with garages (including myself) are unable to use them as car parking spaces as they are too small. Surely, when developers submit plans, there should be a review of the dimensions of any garages to see if it could feasibly accommodate a family car. By simply dismissing garages as non-parking spaces unless they are double sized is, in my view, incorrect. Developers should build garages which are fit for the purpose of storing a car and your regulations should ensure this is defined.
Secondly defining the number of parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms could be open to interpretation by developers. A small third bedroom could easily be defined as an office - though of course “suitable to be used as a bedroom”. Such a definition would require only one parking space instead of two. Could this definition not be tightened up?

Kind regards

Dear sir,

I received this today and wish to highlight a number of aspects.


1. Cars and SUV's are much wider than MfS2 (we await MfS3).
I have undertaken research over a number of years based on published information. What Car and Autocar.
The data is attached.

2. An appeal I dealt with. Garage Conversion.
3. I have a parking web site that covers most of the English LPA's. It also has highway and transportation appeals.
https://parkingstandards.co.uk/]


It may assist in the research for your standards.

Regards

Dear CBC

I believe there should be a minimum of one parking space for every bedroom in every house to avoid on road/on pavement parking.

Most households these days have at least 2 cars and if they live in an area where public transport is not frequent and if the residents are doing shift work during unsocial hours cars are an essential commodity.


Many young adults live at home as unable to get a mortgage due to high property prices so they also need to get to work.


This is especially important in more rural areas.


I hope you will take my thoughts into consideration when making conditions for parking at currently unbuilt developments.


Yours faithfully