Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16045
Received: 29/12/2022
Respondent: Mr James Read
Hello - please can I submit the following comments/feedback on the above.
This morning the online consultation portal was not resetting my password so I couldn't do it online - I hope this email is sufficient.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to input and participate in this consultation.
Kind regards,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
Feedback / comments:
The thoroughness and care that has gone into the policy is greatly appreciated.
Cycling
p10 (3.0) - no reference is made to cycle security and theft prevention in the overall standards and summary listed in the opening paragraph; please can the frequent reference to the 'Sheffield Stand' in later parts of the document re. cycle spaces be summarised in this opening section and ideally stated as a requirement not a preference.
Number of cycle spaces provided: Overall, the policy should reflect a vision for the level of sustainable transport choices that CBC aims to achieve in the coming decade and beyond. Therefore easy, convenient, secure cycle parking should be highly visible in residential and non-residential developments and should be attractive and copiously provisioned. Please can this premise / policy goal be clearly set out at the start of section 3.0. The brief reference to the Sustainability Plan 2020 (Section 1.0, p7) is insufficient - there needs to be a deep description of what that 2020 policy means for cycle space provision (see comments below re. Table 7). In terms of goals, could CBC consider a 10-year goal for the whole CBC area, benchmarking the total number of cycle spaces against the number of car park spaces in the region, at a measurable level that reflects the intended uptake of cycling in the region as part of the Sustainability Plan? The absence of such measures and goals greatly weakens what will truly be achieved by CBC in the coming decade.
Section 3.3 - cycle parking for house residents: this section is very much supported but how can this high quality standard be enforced among developers who are typically suspected of frequently overlooking requirements for the quality and amenity of new build developments?
Section 6.1: the only reference to security (theft prevention) aspects of cycle storage is the 'preference' for a Sheffield stand for bike-locking etc; this should be a requirement, not a preference.
Table 7 - p41 - cycle parking allocations for non-residential: the allocations here seem especially low / inadequate. CBC intends this to be an era of transition to more sustainable modes of transport (cf. Sustainability Plan, 2020). Empty cycle spaces at non-residential locations are a crucial 'advert' to the non-cycling public of the ease and convenience of adopting cycling as a mode of transport (recent evidence: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/143013/1/Bicycle%20parking%20paper%20revision3%20final.pdf). Cycle spaces are relatively cheap to provide and have a disproportionate impact on uptake of cycling - the provision of spaces must reflect the intended future level of cycling, not the current demand. It is disappointing that there is no mention in this section of the ongoing CBC consultation on cycle route provision across the area.
Cars
Section 4.4.7 - p.22: considering the ecology, amenity and enjoyment of areas around new construction, the exclusion of soft landscaping adjacent to parking bays feels disproportionate - we would prefer this sentence to be removed completely, but if it remains it should be a 'preference' and not a requirement/prohibition. Surrounding parking bays only with walls or paving makes developments ugly, less enjoyable and greatly reduces biodiversity.
Section 4.6 - Parking allocations in town centres and near public transport: No evidence is offered regarding the reduced need for cars in such locations - the journeys made by householders are unlikely to be significantly met by local public transport and residents are just as likely to work outside their immediate neighbourhood or even outside the CBC area as evidenced by the typical 'sprawl' of cars on pavements blanketing town centre residential areas. The draft policy itself states that it is a characteristic of the CBC area that it is "difficult to provide public transport to meet residents' needs for commuting trips when there are multiple destinations and origins" (p.18). This appears to be equally true of urban and rural locations in the CBC area. The solution in this regard is that the 'Draft parking standards for new developments' should be explicitly linked to the parallel policy goals and requirements in areas such as sustainable transport (cycling and walking etc) and public transport. Without this joined-up thinking and clear strategic linkage across the various areas of CBC responsibility, urban parking provision will be too low (being based on idealism rather than pragmatic policy action) and in the absence of good alternatives to the car, vehicles will remain strewn around new developments and car usage will remain higher than it might otherwise be.
Section 4.7 - visitor parking for HMOs: no justification is provided for the decision to exclude any visitor parking spaces for HMOs from the policy. On the face of it, HMO residents seem to be as entitled to visitor parking as anyone else and some allowance should be made for this.
Thanks again! Kind regards,
Hello - please can I submit the following comments/feedback on the above.
This morning the online consultation portal was not resetting my password so I couldn't do it online - I hope this email is sufficient.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to input and participate in this consultation.
Kind regards,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
Feedback / comments:
The thoroughness and care that has gone into the policy is greatly appreciated.
Cycling
p10 (3.0) - no reference is made to cycle security and theft prevention in the overall standards and summary listed in the opening paragraph; please can the frequent reference to the 'Sheffield Stand' in later parts of the document re. cycle spaces be summarised in this opening section and ideally stated as a requirement not a preference.
Number of cycle spaces provided: Overall, the policy should reflect a vision for the level of sustainable transport choices that CBC aims to achieve in the coming decade and beyond. Therefore easy, convenient, secure cycle parking should be highly visible in residential and non-residential developments and should be attractive and copiously provisioned. Please can this premise / policy goal be clearly set out at the start of section 3.0. The brief reference to the Sustainability Plan 2020 (Section 1.0, p7) is insufficient - there needs to be a deep description of what that 2020 policy means for cycle space provision (see comments below re. Table 7). In terms of goals, could CBC consider a 10-year goal for the whole CBC area, benchmarking the total number of cycle spaces against the number of car park spaces in the region, at a measurable level that reflects the intended uptake of cycling in the region as part of the Sustainability Plan? The absence of such measures and goals greatly weakens what will truly be achieved by CBC in the coming decade.
Section 3.3 - cycle parking for house residents: this section is very much supported but how can this high quality standard be enforced among developers who are typically suspected of frequently overlooking requirements for the quality and amenity of new build developments?
Section 6.1: the only reference to security (theft prevention) aspects of cycle storage is the 'preference' for a Sheffield stand for bike-locking etc; this should be a requirement, not a preference.
Table 7 - p41 - cycle parking allocations for non-residential: the allocations here seem especially low / inadequate. CBC intends this to be an era of transition to more sustainable modes of transport (cf. Sustainability Plan, 2020). Empty cycle spaces at non-residential locations are a crucial 'advert' to the non-cycling public of the ease and convenience of adopting cycling as a mode of transport (recent evidence: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/143013/1/Bicycle%20parking%20paper%20revision3%20final.pdf). Cycle spaces are relatively cheap to provide and have a disproportionate impact on uptake of cycling - the provision of spaces must reflect the intended future level of cycling, not the current demand. It is disappointing that there is no mention in this section of the ongoing CBC consultation on cycle route provision across the area.
Cars
Section 4.4.7 - p.22: considering the ecology, amenity and enjoyment of areas around new construction, the exclusion of soft landscaping adjacent to parking bays feels disproportionate - we would prefer this sentence to be removed completely, but if it remains it should be a 'preference' and not a requirement/prohibition. Surrounding parking bays only with walls or paving makes developments ugly, less enjoyable and greatly reduces biodiversity.
Section 4.6 - Parking allocations in town centres and near public transport: No evidence is offered regarding the reduced need for cars in such locations - the journeys made by householders are unlikely to be significantly met by local public transport and residents are just as likely to work outside their immediate neighbourhood or even outside the CBC area as evidenced by the typical 'sprawl' of cars on pavements blanketing town centre residential areas. The draft policy itself states that it is a characteristic of the CBC area that it is "difficult to provide public transport to meet residents' needs for commuting trips when there are multiple destinations and origins" (p.18). This appears to be equally true of urban and rural locations in the CBC area. The solution in this regard is that the 'Draft parking standards for new developments' should be explicitly linked to the parallel policy goals and requirements in areas such as sustainable transport (cycling and walking etc) and public transport. Without this joined-up thinking and clear strategic linkage across the various areas of CBC responsibility, urban parking provision will be too low (being based on idealism rather than pragmatic policy action) and in the absence of good alternatives to the car, vehicles will remain strewn around new developments and car usage will remain higher than it might otherwise be.
Section 4.7 - visitor parking for HMOs: no justification is provided for the decision to exclude any visitor parking spaces for HMOs from the policy. On the face of it, HMO residents seem to be as entitled to visitor parking as anyone else and some allowance should be made for this.
Thanks again! Kind regards,
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16046
Received: 30/12/2022
Respondent: Bedfordshire Police
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your below consultation email dated the 7th November 2022 containing the draft Parking Standards for New Developments document, details have been shared with various departments in Bedfordshire police inviting comments or observations. The inappropriate or inconsiderate parking of vehicles frequently creates demands made of our authorities, many of the issues encountered appear to be covered in the draft guidance document.
Our force Design out Crime officer, Leslie Johnson, has compiled the response attached above in which recommendations from her office are offered for your further consideration.
In addition, policing challenges have been experienced in some recently introduced developments where available parking is insufficient / inconvenient and the highway design appears to be in the style of ‘Shared space’, the road being constructed with an absence of kerbing, or with kerbing recessed into the road surface and the footpath of the same material. (Wilson Close, Shillington).
With the move to alternative sustainable transport being slow, private vehicles are likely to remain the preferred mode of transport for many more years consequently there is high demand for street parking. In the absence of footways being segregated, a single level highway is often viewed as a free for all, with parking dominating available space and on occasions pedestrians having to resort to the carriageway. The inability to confidently identify pedestrian footway or differentiate between parking facility can create difficulties for police officers when dealing with alleged incidents of obstruction or should matters proceed to prosecution cases may be costly when challenged in court.
Offered for your information and further consideration,
Best regards,
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your below consultation email dated the 7th November 2022 containing the draft Parking Standards for New Developments document, details have been shared with various departments in Bedfordshire police inviting comments or observations. The inappropriate or inconsiderate parking of vehicles frequently creates demands made of our authorities, many of the issues encountered appear to be covered in the draft guidance document.
Our force Design out Crime officer, Leslie Johnson, has compiled the response attached above in which recommendations from her office are offered for your further consideration.
In addition, policing challenges have been experienced in some recently introduced developments where available parking is insufficient / inconvenient and the highway design appears to be in the style of ‘Shared space’, the road being constructed with an absence of kerbing, or with kerbing recessed into the road surface and the footpath of the same material. (Wilson Close, Shillington).
With the move to alternative sustainable transport being slow, private vehicles are likely to remain the preferred mode of transport for many more years consequently there is high demand for street parking. In the absence of footways being segregated, a single level highway is often viewed as a free for all, with parking dominating available space and on occasions pedestrians having to resort to the carriageway. The inability to confidently identify pedestrian footway or differentiate between parking facility can create difficulties for police officers when dealing with alleged incidents of obstruction or should matters proceed to prosecution cases may be costly when challenged in court.
Offered for your information and further consideration,
Best regards,
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16047
Received: 04/01/2023
Respondent: ERTA
Dear XXXXX XXXXX,
I am now responding to your draft parking standards for Central Bedfordshire Council in regard to the New Developments Draft (Nov 2022).
The ERTA's main interest is regarding protection of lands in order to foster a new railway station (alias Ampthill Parkway station)between Flitwick and Bedford(and also south of the proposed Wixams) on the Thameslink route. This would help mop up traffic and parking issues emanating from developments across a wider geographic area upwards of 70, 000 population plus the feed off the M1 via A507 to Flitwick. The configuration of roads at Flitwick with a triple stack car park does not lend to easy road spill proliferation whilst congestion, hazards and delays are likely amidst the chaos of turning out and commuting growth. Wixams will deal with populations imminent and north of including parts of North Bedfordshire via bypasses, so all at and south of Wixams including the extensive Marston Vale, in bids to get rail to London will commute south - landing at Flitwick. Ampthill could share the load and more evenly distribute the growth in the Central Beds area as well as regenerate and inform sustainable footfall, spend and cycling/walking options in and around Ampthill as a place in its own right.
Not all have or want to be tied to cars and parking with no spare land is an acute issue only to be exacerbated in coming years.
Elsewhere, reviewing parking at local stations on Marston Vale line should be avoided. Developing is sprawling fast and so we need a commitment to protect lands and work with us to nurture the ground-level conditions for an Ampthill Parkway Station. In leisure terms, the scope is Wrest Park to the east and Woburn to the west and all in between.
Better cycle provision for central Flitwick to/from central Ampthill should also be looked at.
Please see our website for details of the Ampthill-Flitwick Forum next February. https://ertarail.co.uk/events/ .
Yours faithfully,
Dear XXXXX XXXXX,
I am now responding to your draft parking standards for Central Bedfordshire Council in regard to the New Developments Draft (Nov 2022).
The ERTA's main interest is regarding protection of lands in order to foster a new railway station (alias Ampthill Parkway station)between Flitwick and Bedford(and also south of the proposed Wixams) on the Thameslink route. This would help mop up traffic and parking issues emanating from developments across a wider geographic area upwards of 70, 000 population plus the feed off the M1 via A507 to Flitwick. The configuration of roads at Flitwick with a triple stack car park does not lend to easy road spill proliferation whilst congestion, hazards and delays are likely amidst the chaos of turning out and commuting growth. Wixams will deal with populations imminent and north of including parts of North Bedfordshire via bypasses, so all at and south of Wixams including the extensive Marston Vale, in bids to get rail to London will commute south - landing at Flitwick. Ampthill could share the load and more evenly distribute the growth in the Central Beds area as well as regenerate and inform sustainable footfall, spend and cycling/walking options in and around Ampthill as a place in its own right.
Not all have or want to be tied to cars and parking with no spare land is an acute issue only to be exacerbated in coming years.
Elsewhere, reviewing parking at local stations on Marston Vale line should be avoided. Developing is sprawling fast and so we need a commitment to protect lands and work with us to nurture the ground-level conditions for an Ampthill Parkway Station. In leisure terms, the scope is Wrest Park to the east and Woburn to the west and all in between.
Better cycle provision for central Flitwick to/from central Ampthill should also be looked at.
Please see our website for details of the Ampthill-Flitwick Forum next February. https://ertarail.co.uk/events/ .
Yours faithfully,
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16048
Received: 03/01/2023
Respondent: Redrow Homes (South Midlands)
Dear Sir/Madam
Please find attached our response to the current Parking Standards SPD consultation.
I would be grateful if you could confirm safe receipt.
Kind regards
Dear Sir/Madam
Please find attached our response to the current Parking Standards SPD consultation.
I would be grateful if you could confirm safe receipt.
Kind regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16049
Received: 03/01/2023
Respondent: Kevin Sherwood
Hi
Parking standards for new developments, each new development must have enough off road parking for residents, as Kings Reach has nowhere near enough parking. Cars are normally parked on the pavement which forces people to walk on the road, that’s dangerous when you have a pushchair or young children.
Hi
Parking standards for new developments, each new development must have enough off road parking for residents, as Kings Reach has nowhere near enough parking. Cars are normally parked on the pavement which forces people to walk on the road, that’s dangerous when you have a pushchair or young children.
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16050
Received: 04/01/2023
Respondent: Mr Steve Hunt
My comment concerns the application of standards rather than the standards themselves. I live in a close of 11 houses some of which have had extensions built, and presumably approved. However, I fail to see how the on-plot parking requirement has been met. The result is that residents permanently use the 2 visitors spaces. This leaves visitors with nowhere to park. If you are going to the trouble of having standards then surely there is an obligation to ensure they are met.
My comment concerns the application of standards rather than the standards themselves. I live in a close of 11 houses some of which have had extensions built, and presumably approved. However, I fail to see how the on-plot parking requirement has been met. The result is that residents permanently use the 2 visitors spaces. This leaves visitors with nowhere to park. If you are going to the trouble of having standards then surely there is an obligation to ensure they are met.
Object
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16051
Received: 04/01/2023
Respondent: Mr Philip Anthony Rose
In summary just look at the new developments of Wixams and Silso with all the parking on pavements because of the lack of suitable parking. Roads in Wixams are now having double yellow lines placed outside houses because the roads are too narrow for the number of school busses. Where do you expect people there to park. Garages are too small and your report misses some vital data. Whilst I support the provision of cycle parking this at this stage should not be at the expense of improving the situation for those of us who HAVE to use a car.
In para 4.1.2 there is no mention for the reason why people have cars in rural villages with no or very limited public transport. No mention either of the elderly who have to have a car for mobility reasons. In para 4.3.1 you say that many people use their garages for storage. They have to because the garages are too small to get modern cars into. In addition when giving planning permission to builders no account is made for storage within the property forcing people to use the only space available, the garage. This is reinforced in para 4.4.1in which you say only 14% use their garage for parking. In 4.10 you mention that no provision will be made in new development for disabled parking because you do not know how many will be needed. There must be statistics that could determine this.
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16052
Received: 04/01/2023
Respondent: Mr Bernard Coen
This is all meaningless and a waste of time and money.
Your current and future parking standards are completely meaningless because developers and their end users (home owners) appear to be in agreement that they can be ignored. There is never sufficient car parking delivered for the people who end up living in new developments - everyone can see that - and as a result cars are parked wherever the drivers wish (inconsiderate or illegal - it does not seem to matter).
Save my council tax and do not waste your time pretending there is any point in this kind of activity. Unless there is some kid of enforcement you are wasting your time.
Sorry to be so blunt but just look around you.
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16053
Received: 04/01/2023
Respondent: P F Booton
Draft Parking Standards for New Developments
Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to make the following comments on the above document, but I would also like to thank the Central Beds for preparing this document. I feel that it should be seen in the context to trying to maintain green open space in developments and not allowing every inch of green space to be converted parking space. Though I disagree with much that Letchworth Garden City do with their restrictions on developments, their rules on no more than fifty percent any green space at a house hold being covered to parking areas I do support.
1. Page 7 I are concerned that the statement,
"It is accepted that there always be exceptions or developments that have specific circumstanc that may warrant relaxation to the standards"
would allow developers to use it as an opportunity to ignore the parking standards. I understand the need for flexibility for developers to find creative ways in which to solve parking issues, but feel the statement provides too great an opportunity for developers to opt out. Perhaps a more appropriate statement might be to change the word "always" to" maybe"?
2. Garage width
I am pleased to note the enlarged space for a single car garage which allows enough room to open the car doors so that people with disabilities can disembark a car more easily.
3 Green space set aside as car parking space
I have two concerns related to the green space located for parking. Firstly they oppose the concept that land that has been identified as garden space can be converted into parking space. Secondly, we have concerns that, "green space" which has been allocated for parking, if it is required, may be used to extend a dwelling, so possibly meaning cars may result in being parked on the road so defeating the object of the document i.e keeping cars off the roads.
4. Double Garages
The idea that a double garage counts as single parking space seems to be a little muddled, for it accepts that part of the garage will be used for storage rather than parking. Why not get developers to create a storage area in the first place?
Secondly the proposed size of a double garage will provide opportunity for residents to convert it into a games room, another bedroom, a granny flat (as may single garages have been) all of whic may be reasonable but is counter the idea of reducing parking on the roads.
5. Increased use of land
I am also very concerned that by increasing the parking requirements and counting double garages as one space for parking purposes that this may lead to developers to ask for more land as they will be able to build less houses on a site.
For example, a development set aside for 65 homes with a large proportion of four bedroom houses would only be able to build approximately 52 dwellings. Would a developer therefore come back and ask/demand more land so that they could build the 65 properties so increasing the footprint of the site?
Yours sincerely,
Draft Parking Standards for New Developments
Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to make the following comments on the above document, but I would also like to thank the Central Beds for preparing this document. I feel that it should be seen in the context to trying to maintain green open space in developments and not allowing every inch of green space to be converted parking space. Though I disagree with much that Letchworth Garden City do with their restrictions on developments, their rules on no more than fifty percent any green space at a house hold being covered to parking areas I do support.
1. Page 7 I are concerned that the statement,
"It is accepted that there always be exceptions or developments that have specific circumstanc that may warrant relaxation to the standards"
would allow developers to use it as an opportunity to ignore the parking standards. I understand the need for flexibility for developers to find creative ways in which to solve parking issues, but feel the statement provides too great an opportunity for developers to opt out. Perhaps a more appropriate statement might be to change the word "always" to" maybe"?
2. Garage width
I am pleased to note the enlarged space for a single car garage which allows enough room to open the car doors so that people with disabilities can disembark a car more easily.
3 Green space set aside as car parking space
I have two concerns related to the green space located for parking. Firstly they oppose the concept that land that has been identified as garden space can be converted into parking space. Secondly, we have concerns that, "green space" which has been allocated for parking, if it is required, may be used to extend a dwelling, so possibly meaning cars may result in being parked on the road so defeating the object of the document i.e keeping cars off the roads.
4. Double Garages
The idea that a double garage counts as single parking space seems to be a little muddled, for it accepts that part of the garage will be used for storage rather than parking. Why not get developers to create a storage area in the first place?
Secondly the proposed size of a double garage will provide opportunity for residents to convert it into a games room, another bedroom, a granny flat (as may single garages have been) all of whic may be reasonable but is counter the idea of reducing parking on the roads.
5. Increased use of land
I am also very concerned that by increasing the parking requirements and counting double garages as one space for parking purposes that this may lead to developers to ask for more land as they will be able to build less houses on a site.
For example, a development set aside for 65 homes with a large proportion of four bedroom houses would only be able to build approximately 52 dwellings. Would a developer therefore come back and ask/demand more land so that they could build the 65 properties so increasing the footprint of the site?
Yours sincerely,
Support
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16054
Received: 04/01/2023
Respondent: Mr Andrew Turner
Overall sensible programme. Won't support anything that demonises car ownership though as Central Beds has virtually non-existent public transport or certainly not easily utilised (timings, destinations etc))
Overall sensible programme. Won't support anything that demonises car ownership though as Central Beds has virtually non-existent public transport or certainly not easily utilised (timings, destinations etc))
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16055
Received: 04/01/2023
Respondent: Mr Colin Stone
Table 3. Parking space provision should remain as current; even a 1 bedroom dwelling is likely to occupied by two adults, each requiring a vehicle.
Appendices 20 - 25. Tandem parking layouts should be deprecated. Owners quickly tire of shuffling cars and one (or more) will be left on the street, blocking the shared visitor parking.
Appendices 18- 25. Single charge point shown for multiple vehicles. Standard should require provision of one charge point (3-phase rapid) for each vehicle. Net-zero plans envisage use of BEV batteries for load levelling, this needs an always-on connection.
Table 3. Parking space provision should remain as current; even a 1 bedroom dwelling is likely to occupied by two adults, each requiring a vehicle.
Appendices 20 - 25. Tandem parking layouts should be deprecated. Owners quickly tire of shuffling cars and one (or more) will be left on the street, blocking the shared visitor parking.
Appendices 18- 25. Single charge point shown for multiple vehicles. Standard should require provision of one charge point (3-phase rapid) for each vehicle. Net-zero plans envisage use of BEV batteries for load levelling, this needs an always-on connection.
Support
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16056
Received: 04/01/2023
Respondent: Miss Carole Birtwhistle
1. The cycle storage provision is great, but I found that the local council does not grit our cycle ways so alternatives to active transport are needed if it is icy.
2. We have a resident on our estate who has 8 vehicles but only 1 parking space. They keep parking vehicles on the pavements and landscaped areas causing damage that delays the adoption of our estate.
3. Speeding delivery vans and inconsiderate parking of delivery vans are becoming major problems both on estates and within the town centres. More enforcement would help.
1. The cycle storage provision is great, but I found that the local council does not grit our cycle ways so alternatives to active transport are needed if it is icy.
2. We have a resident on our estate who has 8 vehicles but only 1 parking space. They keep parking vehicles on the pavements and landscaped areas causing damage that delays the adoption of our estate.
3. Speeding delivery vans and inconsiderate parking of delivery vans are becoming major problems both on estates and within the town centres. More enforcement would help.
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16057
Received: 05/01/2023
Respondent: Mrs Jane Atkinson
Garages/car ports are not used in many houses because they are too small for cars, and because houses are too small to be fit for purpose. This should be rectified.
One parking space is not enough for a one bedroomed home with 2 people living in it.
Some visitors stay overnight or even longer and so need overnight visitor parking and long stay secure cycle parking.
All long stay parking spaces and a good proportion of short stay spaces will need charging points going forward as all cars will be electric.
The main reason a lot of people do not use their garages or car ports to store cars is that the garages and car ports attached to new houses are narrower than the majority of cars. I have seen one garage on a new development in Central Bedfordshire in recent years that was about two thirds of the width of my Skoda Fabia and I cannot believe that it even met the minimum requirements for the development, yet it had presumably been signed off by the building inspector. Size of garages matters, just as it does for outdoor parking spaces. With the width of modern cars, spaces need to be wider than most garages are built at the moment. A lot of modern houses are also too small to be fit for purpose. Therefore, people are forced to use garages for storage, and for washing machines, freezers, etc. If storage, and spaces for white goods were incorporated into the design of buildings, and garages were bigger, fewer outside parking spaces would be needed. Secondly, one parking space is not enough for a small house with one bedroom if that bedroom is used by 2 people, who both have to drive to work in different directions or on different shift patterns. This means effectively, all visitor spaces and all available space in the surrounding streets have to be clogged up with cars. Another thing to bear in mind is that some visitors to residential properties stay overnight or even for a week or two, and need overnight parking and long stay secure cycle parking. If all cars are going to be electric in future, all long stay parking spaces, and a good proportion of short stay parking will need charging points.
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16058
Received: 05/01/2023
Respondent: Mr Dan Steeples
Items in this local plan have been in place for a while, however it's useless having a local plan if developers are allowed to ignore these recommendations and still develop sites with unsuitable parking provisions for both bikes and cars, even when it has been highlighted during the planning process that the provisions are not suitable. More needs to be done to enforce the requirements of using the plan as it is the residents and neighbours on the site who have to live with the conditions.
Items in this local plan have been in place for a while, however it's useless having a local plan if developers are allowed to ignore these recommendations and still develop sites with unsuitable parking provisions for both bikes and cars, even when it has been highlighted during the planning process that the provisions are not suitable. More needs to be done to enforce the requirements of using the plan as it is the residents and neighbours on the site who have to live with the conditions.
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16059
Received: 04/01/2023
Respondent: Campton & Chicksands Parish Council
Good morning
I attach a representation on behalf of Campton and Chicksands Parish Council in respect of the Parking standards for new developments consultation.
Kind Regards
Good morning
I attach a representation on behalf of Campton and Chicksands Parish Council in respect of the Parking standards for new developments consultation.
Kind Regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16060
Received: 04/01/2023
Respondent: Marston Moreteyne Parish Council
Please see attached response to the subject consultation.
Kind regards
Please see attached response to the subject consultation.
Kind regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16061
Received: 04/01/2023
Respondent: David Jackson
Dear sir or madam,
I think that the car parks could do with more Disability Parking 🅿️ spaces, most areas only have 3 or 4 which is not adequate!
Kind regards
Dear sir or madam,
I think that the car parks could do with more Disability Parking 🅿️ spaces, most areas only have 3 or 4 which is not adequate!
Kind regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16062
Received: 04/01/2023
Respondent: Mr Michael Haslam
Dear Sirs,
With regards to having my say on your document.
Apart from your system telling me to reset my pass word and giving me a link that does not work I have a few comments.
The parking standards for new builds is not adequate.
A one bedroom property should have a minimum of 2 parking spaces. I appreciate that a high percentage of people do not use their garages to house cars. A 3 bedroom property should have a minimum of 3 parking spaces.
I think you can get my drift regarding houses with more bedrooms.
regards
Dear Sirs,
With regards to having my say on your document.
Apart from your system telling me to reset my pass word and giving me a link that does not work I have a few comments.
The parking standards for new builds is not adequate.
A one bedroom property should have a minimum of 2 parking spaces. I appreciate that a high percentage of people do not use their garages to house cars. A 3 bedroom property should have a minimum of 3 parking spaces.
I think you can get my drift regarding houses with more bedrooms.
regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16063
Received: 05/01/2023
Respondent: Public Health – A shared service for Milton Keynes City, Central Bedfordshire and Bedford Borough
Good Evening
Please find attached CBC Public Health’s response to the consultation on the Draft Parking Standards SPD.
I’d be grateful if you can please acknowledge receipt.
With thanks,
Good Evening
Please find attached CBC Public Health’s response to the consultation on the Draft Parking Standards SPD.
I’d be grateful if you can please acknowledge receipt.
With thanks,
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16064
Received: 05/01/2023
Respondent: L&Q
Dear Sirs,
Please see attached our response to the draft Parking Standards SPD consultation, which we trust are helpful.
Please could you ensure that I am added to your mailing list for future consultations.
Kind regards,
Dear Sirs,
Please see attached our response to the draft Parking Standards SPD consultation, which we trust are helpful.
Please could you ensure that I am added to your mailing list for future consultations.
Kind regards,
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16065
Received: 05/01/2023
Respondent: David Lock Associates
Dear Sir/Madam
RE: Draft parking standards for new developments SPD Consultation
On behalf of O&H Strategic Land, please find attached response to the draft parking standards for new developments SPD Consultation.
I would be very grateful if you could confirm receipt.
Kind regards
Dear Sir/Madam
RE: Draft parking standards for new developments SPD Consultation
On behalf of O&H Strategic Land, please find attached response to the draft parking standards for new developments SPD Consultation.
I would be very grateful if you could confirm receipt.
Kind regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16066
Received: 05/01/2023
Respondent: Arnold White Group Limited
Agent: Mr Tom Ryan
Dear Sir/Madam,
On behalf of Arnold White Estate Ltd (AWEL), please find attached a representation to the Parking Standards for New Development SPD consultation.
We trust that the submitted representation is helpful in informing the consultation. However, please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any queries or require further information.
We would be grateful if you can confirm safe receipt of the attached document.
Kind regards,
Dear Sir/Madam,
On behalf of Arnold White Estate Ltd (AWEL), please find attached a representation to the Parking Standards for New Development SPD consultation.
We trust that the submitted representation is helpful in informing the consultation. However, please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any queries or require further information.
We would be grateful if you can confirm safe receipt of the attached document.
Kind regards,
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16067
Received: 05/01/2023
Respondent: Houghton Regis Management Company
Agent: Barton Willmore
Good Morning,
Please see attached our consultation response, in regard to CBC Parking Standards for New Developments SPD on behalf of our client Houghton Regis Management Company (HRMC).
Kind Regards
Good Morning,
Please see attached our consultation response, in regard to CBC Parking Standards for New Developments SPD on behalf of our client Houghton Regis Management Company (HRMC).
Kind Regards
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16068
Received: 05/01/2023
Respondent: Flitwick Town Council
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and make representations on, the Draft Parking Standards for New Developments Supplementary Planning Document. The Planning Improvement Working Group at Flitwick Town Council has reviewed this document, and has the following comments to make.
Overall, while the Planning Improvement Working Group understands the rationale behind the specified standards (attempting to balance encouraging sustainable travel while recognising that Central Bedfordshire is a high car ownership area), the group is concerned that there appears to be a lack of a joined up strategy in relation to transport improvements to encourage sustainable travel in Flitwick.
The current Local Area Transport Plan was reviewed in March 2022 (which appears to have not been referenced in the SPD), but the Local Transport Plan itself has not been reviewed since 2011. Without a clear link with an updated strategy, what the SPD seeks to achieve can only be partial. For example, while delivering additional cycle parking is broadly welcomed, without safe, attractive cycle routes encouraging people to cycle for everyday trips, this will not achieve much.
Ultimately, Central Bedfordshire Council, working closely with local communities, needs to decide what the local transport vision for areas is, and provide for it through sustained transport improvements that deliver the change necessary. In the context of this document, the logic underpinning the proposed standards, and how it relates to wider improvements being delivered, needs to be made crystal clear. As this document currently reads, this is an SPD that has been written because CBC requires it to be written, as opposed to there being a clear strategy for transport improvements.
A good example of how planning is being linked to transport improvements is that of Oxfordshire, which is requiring developments, through non-statutory guidance, and against which new developments are assessed.
Overall, on the standards themselves the group has no strong opinion, save for two related matters. The first relates to allowing less parking in the vicinity of Flitwick railway station. The group has several concerns relating to adopting such an approach in Flitwick. These are, in no particular order:
• There is a significant likelihood that, with car ownership levels being high in Flitwick, that this will lead to a worsening of the current on-street parking situation around the town centre. It is notable that no evidence is presented in the SPD on the number of parking fines and level of enforcement within Flitwick and other similar areas, which is likely to have an impact on any person’s willingness to park in the area;
• Whilst the centre of Flitwick is the most accessible area in terms of public transport provision, any parking standards need to reflect the quality of the available public transport links in the area. Whilst the rail service is generally good, local buses are in need of significant improvement. So while the service offering in the area may be good in comparison to other areas of Central Bedfordshire, this does not mean that it is of a quality that encourages low car ownership;
• The area covered by the 500m radius around Flitwick railway station should more accurately reflect the experience of potential users. Evidence shows that people will, on average, walk up to 400 metres to the nearest bus stop, and up to 800 metres to railway stations, so 500 metres is a reasonable compromise. We would recommend, however, that the boundaries of the zone be determined by walking distance mapped to local roads and walking routes, which can be done by any GIS system.
The Group is of the view that should lower standards be sought in areas of higher accessibility by non-car modes of transport, then the following must be secured by way of planning condition for any residential development within the area:
• A financial contribution to the establishment of, extension of existing, and enhanced enforcement of local parking restrictions for a minimum period of 5 years, as a result of likely increases in demand for car trips to and from these developments;
• A Travel Plan with targets for increasing the number of people using public transport and cycling, enforceable by condition, with enhanced contributions to public transport and cycling provision should the targets not be met;
• A corresponding ban on residents of the development from being part of any on-street residential parking zones, with the bans associated with the addresses on the development to ensure that they are consistently applied.
Without such measures, we recommend that the proposed standards currently identified as being outside such zones are applied.
Secondly, the Group is of the view that for residential developments, there should be a minimum of one space provided for each residential unit regardless of location, and that there be a minimum of one space per bedroom up to two bedroom dwellings. Wherever feasible, such parking should be provided off-street.
The Group has no comments to make regarding car parking standards for non-residential uses.
The Group generally supports the approach to designing parking locations in a manner that discourage on-street, pavement, and inconsiderate parking. It is the Group’s view that each development will need to be considered on its merits on this matter, but the general approach set out in the SPD is sound. The approach to cycle parking in the SPD is also considered to be reasonable.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and make representations on, the Draft Parking Standards for New Developments Supplementary Planning Document. The Planning Improvement Working Group at Flitwick Town Council has reviewed this document, and has the following comments to make.
Overall, while the Planning Improvement Working Group understands the rationale behind the specified standards (attempting to balance encouraging sustainable travel while recognising that Central Bedfordshire is a high car ownership area), the group is concerned that there appears to be a lack of a joined up strategy in relation to transport improvements to encourage sustainable travel in Flitwick.
The current Local Area Transport Plan was reviewed in March 2022 (which appears to have not been referenced in the SPD), but the Local Transport Plan itself has not been reviewed since 2011. Without a clear link with an updated strategy, what the SPD seeks to achieve can only be partial. For example, while delivering additional cycle parking is broadly welcomed, without safe, attractive cycle routes encouraging people to cycle for everyday trips, this will not achieve much.
Ultimately, Central Bedfordshire Council, working closely with local communities, needs to decide what the local transport vision for areas is, and provide for it through sustained transport improvements that deliver the change necessary. In the context of this document, the logic underpinning the proposed standards, and how it relates to wider improvements being delivered, needs to be made crystal clear. As this document currently reads, this is an SPD that has been written because CBC requires it to be written, as opposed to there being a clear strategy for transport improvements.
A good example of how planning is being linked to transport improvements is that of Oxfordshire, which is requiring developments, through non-statutory guidance, and against which new developments are assessed.
Overall, on the standards themselves the group has no strong opinion, save for two related matters. The first relates to allowing less parking in the vicinity of Flitwick railway station. The group has several concerns relating to adopting such an approach in Flitwick. These are, in no particular order:
• There is a significant likelihood that, with car ownership levels being high in Flitwick, that this will lead to a worsening of the current on-street parking situation around the town centre. It is notable that no evidence is presented in the SPD on the number of parking fines and level of enforcement within Flitwick and other similar areas, which is likely to have an impact on any person’s willingness to park in the area;
• Whilst the centre of Flitwick is the most accessible area in terms of public transport provision, any parking standards need to reflect the quality of the available public transport links in the area. Whilst the rail service is generally good, local buses are in need of significant improvement. So while the service offering in the area may be good in comparison to other areas of Central Bedfordshire, this does not mean that it is of a quality that encourages low car ownership;
• The area covered by the 500m radius around Flitwick railway station should more accurately reflect the experience of potential users. Evidence shows that people will, on average, walk up to 400 metres to the nearest bus stop, and up to 800 metres to railway stations, so 500 metres is a reasonable compromise. We would recommend, however, that the boundaries of the zone be determined by walking distance mapped to local roads and walking routes, which can be done by any GIS system.
The Group is of the view that should lower standards be sought in areas of higher accessibility by non-car modes of transport, then the following must be secured by way of planning condition for any residential development within the area:
• A financial contribution to the establishment of, extension of existing, and enhanced enforcement of local parking restrictions for a minimum period of 5 years, as a result of likely increases in demand for car trips to and from these developments;
• A Travel Plan with targets for increasing the number of people using public transport and cycling, enforceable by condition, with enhanced contributions to public transport and cycling provision should the targets not be met;
• A corresponding ban on residents of the development from being part of any on-street residential parking zones, with the bans associated with the addresses on the development to ensure that they are consistently applied.
Without such measures, we recommend that the proposed standards currently identified as being outside such zones are applied.
Secondly, the Group is of the view that for residential developments, there should be a minimum of one space provided for each residential unit regardless of location, and that there be a minimum of one space per bedroom up to two bedroom dwellings. Wherever feasible, such parking should be provided off-street.
The Group has no comments to make regarding car parking standards for non-residential uses.
The Group generally supports the approach to designing parking locations in a manner that discourage on-street, pavement, and inconsiderate parking. It is the Group’s view that each development will need to be considered on its merits on this matter, but the general approach set out in the SPD is sound. The approach to cycle parking in the SPD is also considered to be reasonable.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
Comment
Parking Standards for New Developments Draft (Nov 2022)
Representation ID: 16069
Received: 06/01/2023
Respondent: DLA Town Planning Ltd
Happy New Year I trust you had a lovely Christmas
Please find our response to the Parking standards as requested.
Kind regards
Happy New Year I trust you had a lovely Christmas
Please find our response to the Parking standards as requested.
Kind regards