Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16015
Received: 23/11/2022
Respondent: Mr Damian Ratcliffe
We live on Marston Park and all the houses have allocated parking spaces but hardly anyone uses them because they just simply aren't wide enough for cars or vans. People park near junctions restricting the view when you need to pull out. They park opposite peoples driveways making getting in and out of them harder than it needs to be. I'm surprised there hasn't been an accident caused by the parking.
We live on Marston Park and all the houses have allocated parking spaces but hardly anyone uses them because they just simply aren't wide enough for cars or vans. People park near junctions restricting the view when you need to pull out. They park opposite peoples driveways making getting in and out of them harder than it needs to be. I'm surprised there hasn't been an accident caused by the parking.
Object
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16016
Received: 23/11/2022
Respondent: Mr Simon Royal
The standard fails to provide sufficient parking spaces for new developments, fails to address parking problems leading to lack of accessibility for emergency services vehicles and fails to provide a method (i.e. allocated parking spaces backed by mandatory parking permits) to make parking less of a lottery for homeowners.
The section on standards for residential developments makes some good points about personal preferences for parking and how garages attached to houses are often never used. The report does however fail to address the issue of on-street parking in new developments where it is frequently very difficult to navigate the roads due to parked cars and the frequent lack of accessibility for Emergency Services vehicles is not addressed in any meaningful way.
The number of parking spaces based on bedroom is also not a viable approach to a standard as the standard also fails to address the issue that offspring are more likely than ever to remain at home with their parents for much longer than before. The standard should therefore be 2 beds/3 people = 3 spaces; 3 beds/4 people = 4 spaces, etc.
The allocation of .25 spaces irrespective of the size / occupancy of a property is also nonsensical.
The answer is surely to (a) provide enough spaces to support the driving population and (b) to allocate those spaces definitively by the issuing of parking permits for numbered allocated spaces.
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16017
Received: 23/11/2022
Respondent: Mr Martin Walker
Specify that parking spaces must not be end to end
Fully agree with the amount of parking per size of household. Hoever, I would suggest that the standard also specifies that parking must be provided for multiple cars so that it does not require the movement of a vehicle to drive away,
By example, some of the parking spaces on Roman Gate require cars parked nose to tail, with the second vehicle parked against a solid boundary. This means if the second car needs to be used, the first car must be moved out of its way. With multiple residents ina property, this arrangement would be even worse for 3 cars.
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16018
Received: 24/11/2022
Respondent: Natural England
Dear Sir or Madam
Draft Parking Standards for New Developments Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 7 November 2022, which was received by Natural England on 7 November 2022.
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Our remit includes protected sites and landscapes, biodiversity, geodiversity, soils, protected species, landscape character, green infrastructure and access to and enjoyment of nature.
Whilst we welcome this opportunity to give our views, the topic of the Supplementary Planning Document does not appear to relate to our interests to any significant extent. We therefore do not wish to comment.
Should the plan be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment, then, please consult Natural England again.
Strategic Environmental Assessment/Habitats Regulations Assessment
A SPD requires a Strategic Environmental Assessment only in exceptional circumstances as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance here. While SPDs are unlikely to give rise to likely significant effects on European Sites, they should be considered as a plan under the Habitats Regulations in the same way as any other plan or project. If your SPD requires a Strategic Environmental Assessment or Habitats Regulation Assessment, you are required to consult us at certain stages as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance.
Dear Sir or Madam
Draft Parking Standards for New Developments Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 7 November 2022, which was received by Natural England on 7 November 2022.
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Our remit includes protected sites and landscapes, biodiversity, geodiversity, soils, protected species, landscape character, green infrastructure and access to and enjoyment of nature.
Whilst we welcome this opportunity to give our views, the topic of the Supplementary Planning Document does not appear to relate to our interests to any significant extent. We therefore do not wish to comment.
Should the plan be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment, then, please consult Natural England again.
Strategic Environmental Assessment/Habitats Regulations Assessment
A SPD requires a Strategic Environmental Assessment only in exceptional circumstances as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance here. While SPDs are unlikely to give rise to likely significant effects on European Sites, they should be considered as a plan under the Habitats Regulations in the same way as any other plan or project. If your SPD requires a Strategic Environmental Assessment or Habitats Regulation Assessment, you are required to consult us at certain stages as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance.
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16019
Received: 08/11/2022
Respondent: Peter Holden
Good evening
For some reason - perhaps the age of my phone - I could not open your consultation document. However I have only
one comment and it is regarding planning layout of new houses and developments.
In our village (-------) we have cars parking on the road outside a very new million pound house entirely due to
poor planning controls. Original plans had double garage and parking for 4 cars. However reserved matters
increased the size of the garden and reduced the size of drive. The only parking for two cars is now directly in front
of garage doors so any more than two vehicles are parked on the grass verge of the public highway - which is
managed by the council.
Despite parish council correspondence about this, CBC planning could see no problems. This is not an isolated
incident although these circumstances are unique.
More common is parking designed to be in front of garages doors. Which discourages people from using garages
and forces them into the road.
I raise this point purely to illustrate that some parking issues could be resolved within your own planning
department
Regards
Good evening
For some reason - perhaps the age of my phone - I could not open your consultation document. However I have only
one comment and it is regarding planning layout of new houses and developments.
In our village (-------) we have cars parking on the road outside a very new million pound house entirely due to
poor planning controls. Original plans had double garage and parking for 4 cars. However reserved matters
increased the size of the garden and reduced the size of drive. The only parking for two cars is now directly in front
of garage doors so any more than two vehicles are parked on the grass verge of the public highway - which is
managed by the council.
Despite parish council correspondence about this, CBC planning could see no problems. This is not an isolated
incident although these circumstances are unique.
More common is parking designed to be in front of garages doors. Which discourages people from using garages
and forces them into the road.
I raise this point purely to illustrate that some parking issues could be resolved within your own planning
department
Regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16020
Received: 23/11/2022
Respondent: Mrs Jean Peall
Hello,
I would like to add some comments to this consultation -
1. People want to park as close to their front door as possible in order to unload children and shopping safely, for
example.
Rear or courtyard parking may be provided, but people don't use it because it is inconvenient so they park on-street
and mount curbs.
2. New housing estates are often built with curved roads which add to the complications of parking.
Also, people park on grass verges, which ruins them. Create sufficient hard standing close to residences.
Make higher curbs to prevent people mounting the pavements and verges. Need better bylaws to restrict pavement
and verge parking, which is often inconsiderate.
3. Widening the street to allow adequate passing for through traffic.
Cars parked at random cause awkward chicanes. Bin lorries struggle to get through.
There is often insufficient visitor parking, which also results in awkward street parking.
4. Occupants may have more vehicles than spaces allocated. For example, a One-bed property may house a couple
who both own vehicles. If only one space is provided, the other has to occupy a visitor space.
5. At medical facilities, where there is likely to be a higher proportion of Blue Badge users, more spaces need to be
provided.
6. Restrict parking at entrances and junctions in residential areas where it is likely to cause a bottleneck.
with regards,
Hello,
I would like to add some comments to this consultation -
1. People want to park as close to their front door as possible in order to unload children and shopping safely, for
example.
Rear or courtyard parking may be provided, but people don't use it because it is inconvenient so they park on-street
and mount curbs.
2. New housing estates are often built with curved roads which add to the complications of parking.
Also, people park on grass verges, which ruins them. Create sufficient hard standing close to residences.
Make higher curbs to prevent people mounting the pavements and verges. Need better bylaws to restrict pavement
and verge parking, which is often inconsiderate.
3. Widening the street to allow adequate passing for through traffic.
Cars parked at random cause awkward chicanes. Bin lorries struggle to get through.
There is often insufficient visitor parking, which also results in awkward street parking.
4. Occupants may have more vehicles than spaces allocated. For example, a One-bed property may house a couple
who both own vehicles. If only one space is provided, the other has to occupy a visitor space.
5. At medical facilities, where there is likely to be a higher proportion of Blue Badge users, more spaces need to be
provided.
6. Restrict parking at entrances and junctions in residential areas where it is likely to cause a bottleneck.
with regards,
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16021
Received: 24/11/2022
Respondent: Sandy Town Council
Dear Sirs
Please see below the comments from Sandy Town Council regarding the Parking Standards for New Development.
Introduction
This consultation was discussed by Council Members on 21st November 2022 at their Community Services and Environment Committee. The response below is our official position on these issues.
We broadly welcome this document as it goes someway to recognise the existing problems and new measures that can be undertaken to reduce further impacts. The draft policy also seeks to avoid the issues that can face residents in some current developments.
We have restricted our comments to residential properties as we believe this is the more critical issue for our community.
Comments relating to specific sections of the draft strategy
Section 3: we welcome the new and improved provisions for storing and securing cycles.
Section 4.3.1: We welcome the recognition of issues faced by motorists in this section. We are particularly keen to see the removal of so called “shared spaces” as this is confusing for pedestrians and motorists alike. The move back to clearly marked areas for pedestrians and parking bays is welcomed.
Section 4.4: parking layouts. We agree that careful consideration needs to be given here. Small areas at the front of properties will only encourage more on-street parking.
Section 4.4.1: We are pleased to note that single garages will no longer be considered parking spaces. Current planning allows for garages to be converted under building regs into residential and other uses and therefore their long term availability for parking is not guaranteed.
Section 4.4.2: we agree that the use of rear courts should be avoided.
Sections 4.43 and 4.4.4: access for bins and cycles. We feel that it is important that these considerations are included. Not only its affect on parking but the street environment is not enhanced with bins permanently at the front of properties.
Section 4.4.6: EV Charging points. We welcome this proposal. This Council has limited options to provide sites for residential uses to charge vehicles and therefore it is important for new developments to include these.
Section 4.4.7: We welcome these new dimensions for parking areas.
Section 4.5.2: We welcome the provision of one space per bedroom for 1 and 3 bed houses. However, we do not agree with the policy regarding 3rd, 4th and 5th bedroom properties. To leave it to the developer to provide green/garden space for a future resident to change to parking is not the way forward for several reasons. The resident may not wish to pay for the areas to be paved and instead use the road. We would not wish to see valuable green/garden areas removed in favour of more hard standing. This is not the environmentally friendly approach we wish to have in our community. The policy states that this can only be used on private dwellings, however, housing associations do buy residential houses and unless there is a covenant covering this type of purchase then this policy is unenforceable.
Section 4.9: We are concerned regarding the 1 mile radius of schools, shops etc that would permit non-car developments to be permitted in town centres, especially in areas where parking cannot be met. This is unrealistic and will cause issues in already compact town areas with parking for residents. Whilst walking to shops and schools may be possible, this does not apply to employment opportunities which it is acknowledged that most residents travel around and out of the Central Bedfordshire area. We can not rely on public transport ie buses as the recent changes and cancellations of services by Stagecoach have demonstrated. Residents who need to travel to Biggleswade to take advantage of the employment opportunities there with the new distribution and retail sites now have no option but to use cars as the bus service to leave Biggleswade does not operate past 16.37 – far too early for workers to get home. There is also no service on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Section 4.6 and Appendix 15: relaxed parking standards. We do not support this proposal for Sandy. We are particularly concerned about this proposal to measure 500-meter radius from a railway station and allow vastly reduced parking provision, this measurement is far too big and would have an impact on residents who live close to stations which already face parking issues with commuters and holiday travellers using streets rather than pay for parking at the station. This situation would only be exacerbated by this policy. We also believe that this radius measurement should not exist in any form. The assumption that residents and visitors alike will use the train service and therefore negate the need for personal vehicles is flawed. We do not have a railway system that goes East/West only North/South and therefore severely restricts travel to most destinations in the UK, including local areas of employment of Bedford and Cambridge. Whilst there are plans for an East/West rail link the route for this has not been determined and its junction with the current railway is likely to be in another county.
22nd November 2022
Kind Regards
Dear Sirs
Please see below the comments from Sandy Town Council regarding the Parking Standards for New Development.
Introduction
This consultation was discussed by Council Members on 21st November 2022 at their Community Services and Environment Committee. The response below is our official position on these issues.
We broadly welcome this document as it goes someway to recognise the existing problems and new measures that can be undertaken to reduce further impacts. The draft policy also seeks to avoid the issues that can face residents in some current developments.
We have restricted our comments to residential properties as we believe this is the more critical issue for our community.
Comments relating to specific sections of the draft strategy
Section 3: we welcome the new and improved provisions for storing and securing cycles.
Section 4.3.1: We welcome the recognition of issues faced by motorists in this section. We are particularly keen to see the removal of so called “shared spaces” as this is confusing for pedestrians and motorists alike. The move back to clearly marked areas for pedestrians and parking bays is welcomed.
Section 4.4: parking layouts. We agree that careful consideration needs to be given here. Small areas at the front of properties will only encourage more on-street parking.
Section 4.4.1: We are pleased to note that single garages will no longer be considered parking spaces. Current planning allows for garages to be converted under building regs into residential and other uses and therefore their long term availability for parking is not guaranteed.
Section 4.4.2: we agree that the use of rear courts should be avoided.
Sections 4.43 and 4.4.4: access for bins and cycles. We feel that it is important that these considerations are included. Not only its affect on parking but the street environment is not enhanced with bins permanently at the front of properties.
Section 4.4.6: EV Charging points. We welcome this proposal. This Council has limited options to provide sites for residential uses to charge vehicles and therefore it is important for new developments to include these.
Section 4.4.7: We welcome these new dimensions for parking areas.
Section 4.5.2: We welcome the provision of one space per bedroom for 1 and 3 bed houses. However, we do not agree with the policy regarding 3rd, 4th and 5th bedroom properties. To leave it to the developer to provide green/garden space for a future resident to change to parking is not the way forward for several reasons. The resident may not wish to pay for the areas to be paved and instead use the road. We would not wish to see valuable green/garden areas removed in favour of more hard standing. This is not the environmentally friendly approach we wish to have in our community. The policy states that this can only be used on private dwellings, however, housing associations do buy residential houses and unless there is a covenant covering this type of purchase then this policy is unenforceable.
Section 4.9: We are concerned regarding the 1 mile radius of schools, shops etc that would permit non-car developments to be permitted in town centres, especially in areas where parking cannot be met. This is unrealistic and will cause issues in already compact town areas with parking for residents. Whilst walking to shops and schools may be possible, this does not apply to employment opportunities which it is acknowledged that most residents travel around and out of the Central Bedfordshire area. We can not rely on public transport ie buses as the recent changes and cancellations of services by Stagecoach have demonstrated. Residents who need to travel to Biggleswade to take advantage of the employment opportunities there with the new distribution and retail sites now have no option but to use cars as the bus service to leave Biggleswade does not operate past 16.37 – far too early for workers to get home. There is also no service on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Section 4.6 and Appendix 15: relaxed parking standards. We do not support this proposal for Sandy. We are particularly concerned about this proposal to measure 500-meter radius from a railway station and allow vastly reduced parking provision, this measurement is far too big and would have an impact on residents who live close to stations which already face parking issues with commuters and holiday travellers using streets rather than pay for parking at the station. This situation would only be exacerbated by this policy. We also believe that this radius measurement should not exist in any form. The assumption that residents and visitors alike will use the train service and therefore negate the need for personal vehicles is flawed. We do not have a railway system that goes East/West only North/South and therefore severely restricts travel to most destinations in the UK, including local areas of employment of Bedford and Cambridge. Whilst there are plans for an East/West rail link the route for this has not been determined and its junction with the current railway is likely to be in another county.
22nd November 2022
Kind Regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16022
Received: 30/11/2022
Respondent: David Edwards
The residents of Beaudesert and Van Dyke Road in Leighton Buzzard continue to suffer frustration at
not being able to find somewhere to park their cars.
The properties were all built in an age when cars were awaiting invention.
We were told that a consultant was employed to look at parking and to decide if intervention by
CBC was needed.
As a consequence addition yellow lines were painted around corners ( usually eliminating at least
one if not two parking spots)
On Beaudrsert a long area, previously used by residents was painted with yellow lines knocking out
half a dozen spaces.
Llamas walk had been made ‘residents only parking’ despite most residents having at least two
spaces on their fronts. That drove people into the surrounding streets where there was already a
problem. Surely this could have been better managed by limited waiting given that the original
complaint from the residents there was from workers in town leaving cars there.
Given that a consultant made the survey one wonders what the reason was that stopped him/them
looking at nearby Clarance Road where once again people have to leave their cars with wheels on
the pavement?
Come in an evening or indeed come on a Sunday when the church on Beaudesert has several
services and the problem is magnified.
It’s interesting to note that everyone managed by themselves with no accidents but within a week
of the “improvements” we had a garden wall demolished by a speeding taxi.
CBC has done a disservice to the locality and we ask that the problem be looked at again please.
The residents of Beaudesert and Van Dyke Road in Leighton Buzzard continue to suffer frustration at
not being able to find somewhere to park their cars.
The properties were all built in an age when cars were awaiting invention.
We were told that a consultant was employed to look at parking and to decide if intervention by
CBC was needed.
As a consequence addition yellow lines were painted around corners ( usually eliminating at least
one if not two parking spots)
On Beaudrsert a long area, previously used by residents was painted with yellow lines knocking out
half a dozen spaces.
Llamas walk had been made ‘residents only parking’ despite most residents having at least two
spaces on their fronts. That drove people into the surrounding streets where there was already a
problem. Surely this could have been better managed by limited waiting given that the original
complaint from the residents there was from workers in town leaving cars there.
Given that a consultant made the survey one wonders what the reason was that stopped him/them
looking at nearby Clarance Road where once again people have to leave their cars with wheels on
the pavement?
Come in an evening or indeed come on a Sunday when the church on Beaudesert has several
services and the problem is magnified.
It’s interesting to note that everyone managed by themselves with no accidents but within a week
of the “improvements” we had a garden wall demolished by a speeding taxi.
CBC has done a disservice to the locality and we ask that the problem be looked at again please.
Object
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16023
Received: 03/12/2022
Respondent: Mrs Joanna Newbury
Please provide more parking for new housing - at least two per dwelling and an additional "visitor" parking space! In this day and age, most people work away from their local area and have more than one vehicle per family. without additional parking, travel on newer estates becomes difficult because of the cars parked on the streets.
Please provide more parking for new housing - at least two per dwelling and an additional "visitor" parking space! In this day and age, most people work away from their local area and have more than one vehicle per family. without additional parking, travel on newer estates becomes difficult because of the cars parked on the streets.
Object
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16024
Received: 03/12/2022
Respondent: Ms Pat Miles
4 bedroom house should have 4 parking spaces,
3 bedroom house should have 3 parking spaces
1 bedroom house should have 2 parking spaces.
4 bedroom house should have 4 parking spaces,
3 bedroom house should have 3 parking spaces
1 bedroom house should have 2 parking spaces.
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16025
Received: 05/12/2022
Respondent: Mr Graham Thorsby
Councilors and officers must remember their responsibility to ensure that development plans are realistic and future proofed to not only meet immediate housing needs but also met the needs of residents in the provision of suitable and adequate parking. Where shortfalls are identified or perceived despite central government pressure action is taken to ensure measures are taken to prevent developments not meeting above basic minimum requirements being started on proviso they will be adapted
I have noted the number of new developments that have been built in recent times and I would question if existing regulations have been followed or were fit for purpose and if suitable and adequate checking has been in place to ensure developers are not taking short cuts.
The council are responsible for allowing development of new housing projects and although under pressure to meet housing needs careful consideration needs to be taken that although in the initial stages the applications may appear appropriate, consideration must have be given to ensure that perceived requirement using a chart and actual parking provision are suitable and adequate with scope to provide additional space if it is found that miscalculations have been made and insufficient parking has been put in place for the size of the development. The proposed plans should be a minimum standard expected for parking provision and planning applications should look for more than the bear minimum. Where garages are being taken into consideration as parking provision they questions should be asked are actually big enough to get a car in and be able to get out of the car once in the garage. If driveway/frontages are being proposed consideration to ability to get on or off said frontage if someone parks opposite
If mixed space roads are being proposed how parking make these less safe as no defined pavement and width of road is then reduced by parked cars
Support
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16026
Received: 06/12/2022
Respondent: Mr Brian Hunt
This document is excellent in that for the first time, it accepts reality as a fact. I have one issue in that I note reference at one point in it where it appears to indicate that developers of leasehold properties do not have to abide with the rules in this document. That MUST not be allowed to happen because the most recent developments are being sold on leasehold terms. Leasehold sales must not allow a loophole to exist. I would also like a more extensive comparison between existing and new standards to be provided for clarity.
This document is excellent in that for the first time, it accepts reality as a fact. I have one issue in that I note reference at one point in it where it appears to indicate that developers of leasehold properties do not have to abide with the rules in this document. That MUST not be allowed to happen because the most recent developments are being sold on leasehold terms. Leasehold sales must not allow a loophole to exist. I would also like a more extensive comparison between existing and new standards to be provided for clarity.
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16027
Received: 13/12/2022
Respondent: Mrs Jo Graves
Blunham Parish Council feedback is that most new housing developments have a lower amount parking spaces for residents and visitors than is required. Councillors felt that there should still be one allocated parking space per bedroom and that tandem parking should be avoided as it rarely happens once the development is occupied.
They also commented that the requirement for bicycle parking spaces is not as essential in rural villages as it is in more urban areas. Therefore some allowances should be made regarding where the development is situated.
Blunham Parish Council feedback is that most new housing developments have a lower amount parking spaces for residents and visitors than is required. Councillors felt that there should still be one allocated parking space per bedroom and that tandem parking should be avoided as it rarely happens once the development is occupied.
They also commented that the requirement for bicycle parking spaces is not as essential in rural villages as it is in more urban areas. Therefore some allowances should be made regarding where the development is situated.
Support
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16028
Received: 13/12/2022
Respondent: Mr Mark Hazleton
I agree that people need to use cars and therefore there has to be good parking provision for cars at home, work and leisure. making car parking difficult does not stop people using their vehicles it just makes people frustrated
I agree that people need to use cars and therefore there has to be good parking provision for cars at home, work and leisure. making car parking difficult does not stop people using their vehicles it just makes people frustrated
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16029
Received: 01/12/2022
Respondent: Bob Harrington Design Ltd
Please find attached our comments having read the recently released Draft Parking Standards. We trust these will be documented and considered.
Kind regards
Please find attached our comments having read the recently released Draft Parking Standards. We trust these will be documented and considered.
Kind regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16030
Received: 06/12/2022
Respondent: Mrs Christine Hogg
Dear Sir or Madam
Parking Stardards
When building new developments you should ensure that there are at least two parking spaces per property to avoid the occupiers parking in the road.
Quite simple really.
Yours faithfully
Dear Sir or Madam
Parking Stardards
When building new developments you should ensure that there are at least two parking spaces per property to avoid the occupiers parking in the road.
Quite simple really.
Yours faithfully
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16031
Received: 07/12/2022
Respondent: Toni Marie
Before worrying about the parking for newly constructed buildings PLEASE ADDRESS THE DANGER OUR CHILDREN ARE IN WALKING TO SCHOOL DUE TO LACK OF SCHOOL PARKING, LACK OF TRAFFIC WARDENS AND LACK OF BOLLARDS BEING USED TO BLOCK PARKING ON PAVEMENTS AT KITELANDS ROAD RESULTING IN DANGER FOR OUR KIDS
Get Outlook for Android
Before worrying about the parking for newly constructed buildings PLEASE ADDRESS THE DANGER OUR CHILDREN ARE IN WALKING TO SCHOOL DUE TO LACK OF SCHOOL PARKING, LACK OF TRAFFIC WARDENS AND LACK OF BOLLARDS BEING USED TO BLOCK PARKING ON PAVEMENTS AT KITELANDS ROAD RESULTING IN DANGER FOR OUR KIDS
Get Outlook for Android
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16032
Received: 07/12/2022
Respondent: Malcolm Manser
Dear Sirs.
I understand you are looking for thoughts and ideas for newbuild project parking.
From my side street parking in Leighton Buzzard is a disaster with most areas of the town a slave to the motorcar.
With current planning approvals the new estates in the area are going the same way for the very reason the many new houses have off road parking for 2 or 3 cars but one behind the other not side by side. Who is going move one or two if your car is closest to the garage. Answer nobody. Instead cars will be parked in the road causing further congestion and holdups.
While on the subject it is unbelievable how cars are allowed to park on main routes throughout the town reducing traffic flow to a single alternate lane.
The answer is to restrict parking where road width is limited and provide off road residents only parking areas.
Furthermore where road width allows for a single line of parked cars introduce a system used by the French for many years whereby cars park on one side of the road on even days of the month and the other side of the road on odd days of the month to stop vehicles parking on both sides of the road causing an obstruction to smooth traffic flow.
I hope these ideas are useful and helpful.
Best regards
Dear Sirs.
I understand you are looking for thoughts and ideas for newbuild project parking.
From my side street parking in Leighton Buzzard is a disaster with most areas of the town a slave to the motorcar.
With current planning approvals the new estates in the area are going the same way for the very reason the many new houses have off road parking for 2 or 3 cars but one behind the other not side by side. Who is going move one or two if your car is closest to the garage. Answer nobody. Instead cars will be parked in the road causing further congestion and holdups.
While on the subject it is unbelievable how cars are allowed to park on main routes throughout the town reducing traffic flow to a single alternate lane.
The answer is to restrict parking where road width is limited and provide off road residents only parking areas.
Furthermore where road width allows for a single line of parked cars introduce a system used by the French for many years whereby cars park on one side of the road on even days of the month and the other side of the road on odd days of the month to stop vehicles parking on both sides of the road causing an obstruction to smooth traffic flow.
I hope these ideas are useful and helpful.
Best regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16033
Received: 09/12/2022
Respondent: Aiden Dear
I have perused the various documents provided and in particular;
4.5 Table 3 which gives the number of parking spaces related to the number of bedrooms per property.
I have seen this and similar documents many times before and consider the parking spaces allocated to be wholly inadequate, which is why new developments (of which there are many examples in Stotfold) quickly end up looking like car parks, and driving through them is hazardous.
Let us consider a fairly typical 3 Bedroom house, which might well house a married couple with 2 adult children, all working independently, and all of which may well have their own car to travel to work. Yet the allocated parking space is for 2 vehicles and just 0.25 of a visitor car, so with one visitor there would then be 3 cars on the road!
Add to this the poor housing site planning, often with no front drive (parking alongside the house only) and no front garden to convert to parking, and narrow roads, it is clear why developments look the mess they are. This is not a manner of opinion; take the trouble to visit developments in Stotfold and Fairfield in recent years and the issues are apparent.
I suggest that Table 3 needs major revision, based upon the number of bedrooms as an indicator of the number of likely adult residents and would suggest 2 for a 1 bed property, and then 3, 4, 5 & 6+ for 2 to 5 beds. And visitor spaces at least 1 (whenever is there likely to be just 1 visitor of every 4 households). This number of parking spaces is easily accomplished with a simple adjustment to site planning, provided amenity rather than simply housing density is properly considered.
I would appreciate a feedback to this.
Regards,
I have perused the various documents provided and in particular;
4.5 Table 3 which gives the number of parking spaces related to the number of bedrooms per property.
I have seen this and similar documents many times before and consider the parking spaces allocated to be wholly inadequate, which is why new developments (of which there are many examples in Stotfold) quickly end up looking like car parks, and driving through them is hazardous.
Let us consider a fairly typical 3 Bedroom house, which might well house a married couple with 2 adult children, all working independently, and all of which may well have their own car to travel to work. Yet the allocated parking space is for 2 vehicles and just 0.25 of a visitor car, so with one visitor there would then be 3 cars on the road!
Add to this the poor housing site planning, often with no front drive (parking alongside the house only) and no front garden to convert to parking, and narrow roads, it is clear why developments look the mess they are. This is not a manner of opinion; take the trouble to visit developments in Stotfold and Fairfield in recent years and the issues are apparent.
I suggest that Table 3 needs major revision, based upon the number of bedrooms as an indicator of the number of likely adult residents and would suggest 2 for a 1 bed property, and then 3, 4, 5 & 6+ for 2 to 5 beds. And visitor spaces at least 1 (whenever is there likely to be just 1 visitor of every 4 households). This number of parking spaces is easily accomplished with a simple adjustment to site planning, provided amenity rather than simply housing density is properly considered.
I would appreciate a feedback to this.
Regards,
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16034
Received: 09/12/2022
Respondent: Jan Spedding
You only have to look at the Fairfield development to see what's wrong here!
Drive around there at night. Its horrible!
You only have to look at the Fairfield development to see what's wrong here!
Drive around there at night. Its horrible!
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16035
Received: 12/12/2022
Respondent: Clive Lester
Dear Sirs
Any new development, especially in the rural areas of Central Beds, increases traffic issues and parking requirements outside local village shops, area service stations, local shopping centres etc.
Most new houses will have two cars and where new properties generally allow for two parking spaces, the issue then is for visitors and delivery vehicles. Cars today seem to be larger than previous models and this can be seen in public parking areas where large 4x4s take up a full space and often prevent parking alongside, exacerbating the parking space issues.
In addition where payment is only be phone, this assumes that everyone has a mobile phone – older people are certainly affected by this and often struggle to use the App or simply do not have, or always carry, a mobile phone.
Whilst on the subject of new housing developments, why cannot Councils now make it mandatory that new houses are fitted with heat pumps or solar panels as part of building regulations? It would add a small percentage to the cost of building and help dramatically with energy usage and emitions.!!
Kind regards
Dear Sirs
Any new development, especially in the rural areas of Central Beds, increases traffic issues and parking requirements outside local village shops, area service stations, local shopping centres etc.
Most new houses will have two cars and where new properties generally allow for two parking spaces, the issue then is for visitors and delivery vehicles. Cars today seem to be larger than previous models and this can be seen in public parking areas where large 4x4s take up a full space and often prevent parking alongside, exacerbating the parking space issues.
In addition where payment is only be phone, this assumes that everyone has a mobile phone – older people are certainly affected by this and often struggle to use the App or simply do not have, or always carry, a mobile phone.
Whilst on the subject of new housing developments, why cannot Councils now make it mandatory that new houses are fitted with heat pumps or solar panels as part of building regulations? It would add a small percentage to the cost of building and help dramatically with energy usage and emitions.!!
Kind regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16036
Received: 13/12/2022
Respondent: Phil Button
Hi
I have reviewed the document that has been mentioned in a number of emails.
My review comments are in the attached document.
Regards
Hi
I have reviewed the document that has been mentioned in a number of emails.
My review comments are in the attached document.
Regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16037
Received: 13/12/2022
Respondent: Leigh Charlson
I think all new properties should include space off road to park the number of cars to match the number of bedrooms.
Regards
I think all new properties should include space off road to park the number of cars to match the number of bedrooms.
Regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16038
Received: 07/12/2022
Respondent: Mr wilson sharp
Please find attached comments on the draft parking standards
Car use has risen within the area since the 2011 census, and therefore we have to accept car use is an essential part of life, with little alternative.
It’s not possible to consider ‘greener’ option for a lot of journeys… such as longer commutes to work, the need to take items to from work, timings for work/appointments.
I’m pleased to see that the provision of a single garage doesn’t always ‘count’ as parking provision, a a high percentage are used for storage or other uses etc… but astounded to read a garage needn’t be of a size to accommodate a car! (If I had a garage, I would use it for car storage/parking).
I also approve of a comment that if a garage is provided it should allow for the storage of bikes etc without the need to move the car. That kind of defeats the idea of providing a garage that sins of a suitable size to accommodate a car?
It is not uncommon for buyers of smaller properties with even just one bedroom, to be a couple, who may well require 2 cars to get to work etc, to enable them to actually afford a house…so the idea of a one bedroom (and 2 bedroom) property only requiring one parking space is somewhat unsustainable and unreasonable.
We have all seen the impact of insufficient parking requirements on new (and old for that matter) developments…meaning excessive on street parking causing road to be narrowed, and a general cluttered/untoidy street scene.
Let’s embrace the car…albeit fossil fuel powered or electric…it IS here to stay for the foreseeable future…. Let’s plan to reflect this.
Regards
Please find attached comments on the draft parking standards
Car use has risen within the area since the 2011 census, and therefore we have to accept car use is an essential part of life, with little alternative.
It’s not possible to consider ‘greener’ option for a lot of journeys… such as longer commutes to work, the need to take items to from work, timings for work/appointments.
I’m pleased to see that the provision of a single garage doesn’t always ‘count’ as parking provision, a a high percentage are used for storage or other uses etc… but astounded to read a garage needn’t be of a size to accommodate a car! (If I had a garage, I would use it for car storage/parking).
I also approve of a comment that if a garage is provided it should allow for the storage of bikes etc without the need to move the car. That kind of defeats the idea of providing a garage that sins of a suitable size to accommodate a car?
It is not uncommon for buyers of smaller properties with even just one bedroom, to be a couple, who may well require 2 cars to get to work etc, to enable them to actually afford a house…so the idea of a one bedroom (and 2 bedroom) property only requiring one parking space is somewhat unsustainable and unreasonable.
We have all seen the impact of insufficient parking requirements on new (and old for that matter) developments…meaning excessive on street parking causing road to be narrowed, and a general cluttered/untoidy street scene.
Let’s embrace the car…albeit fossil fuel powered or electric…it IS here to stay for the foreseeable future…. Let’s plan to reflect this.
Regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16039
Received: 14/12/2022
Respondent: Biggleswade Town Council
Dear CBC Team,
Please find attached a letter on behalf of Mr Karim Hosseini, our Head of Governance and Strategic Partnerships, of our response on this important topic.
Best Regards
Dear CBC Team,
Please find attached a letter on behalf of Mr Karim Hosseini, our Head of Governance and Strategic Partnerships, of our response on this important topic.
Best Regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16040
Received: 15/12/2022
Respondent: The Canal & River Trust
Dear Strategic Transport Team,
Thank you for your consultation on the draft parking standards for new developments SPD. Having reviewed the documents I can confirm that the Trust have no comments to make.
Kind regards
Dear Strategic Transport Team,
Thank you for your consultation on the draft parking standards for new developments SPD. Having reviewed the documents I can confirm that the Trust have no comments to make.
Kind regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16041
Received: 15/12/2022
Respondent: Historic England
Dear Strategic Transport Team
I am writing in relation to the following:
SPDs: Supplementary Planning Documents
Parking Standards for New Developments Supplementary Planning Document, Central Bedfordshire [Case Ref. PL00791631; HE File Ref. ; Your Reference. ]
Please find attached Historic England's response to the Parking Standards SPD.
Please confirm receipt of our response.
Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours Sincerely
Dear Strategic Transport Team
I am writing in relation to the following:
SPDs: Supplementary Planning Documents
Parking Standards for New Developments Supplementary Planning Document, Central Bedfordshire [Case Ref. PL00791631; HE File Ref. ; Your Reference. ]
Please find attached Historic England's response to the Parking Standards SPD.
Please confirm receipt of our response.
Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours Sincerely
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16042
Received: 19/12/2022
Respondent: Ampthill Town Council
Dear CBC Strategic Transport
Please find attached Ampthill Town Council’s response to CBC’s Parking Standards Consultation, as approved at the Town Council’s meeting held on 14th December.
Kind regards
Dear CBC Strategic Transport
Please find attached Ampthill Town Council’s response to CBC’s Parking Standards Consultation, as approved at the Town Council’s meeting held on 14th December.
Kind regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16043
Received: 19/12/2022
Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands
Agent: RPS Planning and Development
Dear Sir/Madam,
On behalf of Persimmon Homes, please attached a response to the above document.
I would be grateful of being kept informed of the documents progress.
Regards
Dear Sir/Madam,
On behalf of Persimmon Homes, please attached a response to the above document.
I would be grateful of being kept informed of the documents progress.
Regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16044
Received: 20/12/2022
Respondent: National Highways
Dear Sir/Madam
Thank you for your consultation on the above planning application, dated 7th November 2022.
National Highways is a strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN).
We have reviewed the details and information provided. Due to this being affected to local roads only, we offer No Comment.
Kind Regards
Dear Sir/Madam
Thank you for your consultation on the above planning application, dated 7th November 2022.
National Highways is a strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN).
We have reviewed the details and information provided. Due to this being affected to local roads only, we offer No Comment.
Kind Regards