DM25 Parking Standards - Preferred Option

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Object

Development Management Policies DPD

Representation ID: 19993

Received: 30/04/2010

Respondent: Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd

Agent: JB Planning Associates Ltd

Representation Summary:

Amend policy to refer to other appropriate circumstances when variation of minimum parking standards may be appropriate.

Full text:

We support the provision of appropriate car parking in new development. There may however be other instances where flexibility on the minimum standard is appropriate (for example as part of a major development scheme where there is a comprehensive package of non-car travel proposals alongside complimentary parking restraint measures). This would ensure consistency with DM26 which includes demand management measures as part of traffic management in new development.

We suggest that the wording in brackets be amended as follows:

"... although this may be relaxed in residential areas near town centres and train stations, or as part of a package of travel plan measures on major development sites ..."

Object

Development Management Policies DPD

Representation ID: 20000

Received: 30/04/2010

Respondent: Inner London Group

Agent: Christopher Wickham Associates

Representation Summary:

The application of minimum parking standards is expressely contrary to national planning policy, as set out in PPG13. Excessive parking provision will encourage car ownership and usage, and is therefore unsustainable. Large areas of parking will also blight the setting of new development. Minimum standards should only be applied in exceptional cases where a lower level of parking can be shown to cause clear-cut highway safety or access problems.

Full text:

The application of minimum parking standards is expressely contrary to national planning policy, as set out in PPG13. Excessive parking provision will encourage car ownership and usage, and is therefore unsustainable. Large areas of parking will also blight the setting of new development. Minimum standards should only be applied in exceptional cases where a lower level of parking can be shown to cause clear-cut highway safety or access problems.

Object

Development Management Policies DPD

Representation ID: 21560

Received: 28/04/2010

Respondent: Aber Ltd

Agent: Colliers International

Representation Summary:

It is accepted that developments which are located in sustainable locations, will be well related to public transport, and ensure that it is accessible by means other than private car. However, the provision of too many parking spaces will be counter productive as it encourages people to use private cars ahead of other means of transport.

The use of minimum parking standards for residential developments is contrary to the advice contained within PPG13, which states that maximum parking standards should be used, and also contradicts the aim to reduce reliance on private vehicle, by encouraging residents to have more cars.

It is not considered to be sufficient to just limit parking at destinations, as residents will drive from their homes to the town centre, work place etc, which have maximum parking standards. This will put undue stress on these spaces and result in people parking elsewhere, including on-street and illegally, which could adversely affect traffic flows and road safety.

Therefore, maximum parking standards should be applied to all forms of development, however, within accessible locations (e.g. town centres or areas that have high levels of public transport accessibility), a relaxation of these standards may be appropriate.

Full text:

It is accepted that developments which are located in sustainable locations, will be well related to public transport, and ensure that it is accessible by means other than private car. However, the provision of too many parking spaces will be counter productive as it encourages people to use private cars ahead of other means of transport.

The use of minimum parking standards for residential developments is contrary to the advice contained within PPG13, which states that maximum parking standards should be used, and also contradicts the aim to reduce reliance on private vehicle, by encouraging residents to have more cars.

It is not considered to be sufficient to just limit parking at destinations, as residents will drive from their homes to the town centre, work place etc, which have maximum parking standards. This will put undue stress on these spaces and result in people parking elsewhere, including on-street and illegally, which could adversely affect traffic flows and road safety.

Therefore, maximum parking standards should be applied to all forms of development, however, within accessible locations (e.g. town centres or areas that have high levels of public transport accessibility), a relaxation of these standards may be appropriate.

Comment

Development Management Policies DPD

Representation ID: 25352

Received: 30/04/2010

Respondent: The National Trust Rayleigh Mount Local Committee

Representation Summary:

The parking standard for flatted development of one space per flat is unadequate.

As an example, there is a block of flats at the end of the road where I live where one car, or a van is regularly parked right across the pavement, impeding pedestrians, especially anyone with a pushchair, and one or two other cars are frequently parked over the grass verge, cuasing ruts in the grass.

The planning authority should lobby the County Council and the governement to produce a more generous parking standard for flats (at least one and a half spaces per flat)

Full text:

The parking standard for flatted development of one space per flat is unadequate.

As an example, there is a block of flats at the end of the road where I live where one car, or a van is regularly parked right across the pavement, impeding pedestrians, especially anyone with a pushchair, and one or two other cars are frequently parked over the grass verge, cuasing ruts in the grass.

The planning authority should lobby the County Council and the governement to produce a more generous parking standard for flats (at least one and a half spaces per flat)

Comment

Development Management Policies DPD

Representation ID: 26035

Received: 06/05/2010

Respondent: Rochford Chamber of Trade

Representation Summary:

DM25 Parking Standards
In order to attract and keep business in the district, we should relax the maximum car parking standards for key trip destinations. By enforcing this restriction we are directing shoppers out of the district. Example: Fossetts Way, TESCOS, Rayleigh Weir and Lakeside. The public will go where there is car parking. This policy is driving out business development to neighborouring districts, increases car use and congestion.

Full text:

The Green Belt and Countryside

DM10 Existing Businesses in the Green Belt
We support the preferred option

DM11 Rural Diversification
We support the preferred option

DM12 Conversion of Existing Agricultural Buildings in the Green Belt
Whilst you refer to PPS4 and PPG2, current policy seems to ignore PPG7. Policy PPG7 does not rule out the conversion of agricultural premises for business or residential use. Therefore, to encourage skills and growth in the rural economy, we support a less restrictive approach as above. We see this as being potentially good for the local economy both in terms of new business and providing local work for construction and building supplies.

With regard to listed buildings, each case should be judged on its merits.

Tourism Opportunities in the Green Belt

DM13 Green Tourism

Your paragraph which states "appropriate locations should not result in agglomeration of similar facilities" could result in uneconomically viable and restricted businesses. If the authority is serious about encouraging Green Tourism, it must let the market decide. As an example, Southend Sea Front is known for Hotels and B&B accommodation. This grouping ensures its economic viability. Restrictive policy constrains it.

This policy should be less restrictive

Transport

DM25 Parking Standards
In order to attract and keep business in the district, we should relax the maximum car parking standards for key trip destinations. By enforcing this restriction we are directing shoppers out of the district. Example: Fossetts Way, TESCOS, Rayleigh Weir and Lakeside. The public will go where there is car parking. This policy is driving out business development to neighborouring districts, increases car use and congestion.

On page 57 there is mention of the RDC Transport Strategy Supplementary Planning Document. This document has not been issued as a consultation or in draft form. What is the timetable for this?

Economic Development

DM26 Traffic Management
There is no policy to support the increase in traffic generated by the proposed, planned developments. Example: Coombes Farm, Airport Expansion, West Rochford, Ashingdon Road, Christmas Tree Farm and Stambridge Mills. We should at least have a contingency plan in the event of gridlock.

DM27 Employment Land
This appears to be yet another restriction, driving people out of the area for retail activity. (See DM25 above.)

Cases should be judged according to their merits.

Retail & Town Centres

DM29 Town Centre Shopping Frontages
The 75% rule (Guidance) for retail outlets in town centres should be enforced.

The authority should not be in the business of micro managing the market. Shoppers like choice, any vibrant, retail centre will provide choice which is often clustered.

DM30 Upper Floor Locations in Town Centres
Agree preferred option

DM31 Village & Neighbourhood Shops
We agree that "retail use is important to ensure the vitality and vibrancy of any shopping frontage and to meet the needs of local communities".

DM32 Advertisements and
DM33 Advertisements affecting Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings
The authority need to have effective guidelines rather than the subjective judgements which are not user friendly and singularly unhelpful.