Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Harrison Webb
1 Hillside Cottages, Blackheath Lane
Blackheath, Guildford
Surrey, GU4 8QU
August 2002
1
2
Contents
Page No.
1: Introduction
Conduct of the study 5
Contents of this report 7
3
Appendix A:
Consultation findings 51
Appendix B:
Developer contributions 59
4
1: Introduction
This study was undertaken to inform the Mayor’s London Plan (Spatial
Development Strategy (SDS)) about an appropriate approach for applying parking
standards to new retail and leisure developments and mixed use development in
London.
The London Plan will guide the development of London for the next 15-20 years. It
seeks to integrate economic and social development and to improve the
environment of Greater London. The aim of the Plan is to accommodate the
projected growth of population and prosperity in a way that addresses London’s
current problems. London’s population has already increased by almost 600,000
since 1989 and it is projected that London will grow by a further 700,000 by 2016.
This rapid rise in London’s population is expected to be matched by a
corresponding growth in employment provided infrastructure shortages are
successfully dealt with. The guiding policies for the London Plan seek to
accommodate this growth sustainably and to ensure the availability of the facilities
and services needed to support growth.
Key transport policies focus on using the public transport system as the framework
for new development. Development, especially that with high trip generating
characteristics, should be located where public transport accessibility is high and
where there is adequate system capacity. Parking provision for such development
should be limited appropriately, to maximise the use of alternatives to the car,
minimise car use and reduce congestion. Development should be designed to
ensure easy and safe access for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.
The study sets out an approach to parking standards for retail, leisure and mixed
use development that can be used by the London Plan to provide guidance for the
Boroughs. Boroughs will then need to interpret this guidance locally in setting
parking standards in their Unitary Development Plans (UDPs).
This introductory section of the report describes the conduct of the study and the
layout of the report.
5
1.2 The work required was described in the GLA Brief issued on 31 August with
the letter of invitation to tender. We submitted our proposal on 12
September. Clarification of some aspects of the proposal were agreed by
the GLA and ourselves and included as Annex 1 to the Brief on 21
September.
1.3 The GLA selected a Steering Group to manage the study. The inaugural
meeting took place on 27 September 2001. Meetings subsequently took
place on:
19 October
21 November
14 December
15 February 2002
14 March 2002.
1.4 The Issues Paper was submitted on 31 October. It set out a proposed
basis for:
The Issues Paper was formally accepted on 01 November and forms the
basis for this report.
1.5 It was confirmed on 06 November that the SDS Editorial Team was also
content with the proposed approach. We noted that they were keen to
ensure that the policy stance represented by the proposals conformed with
the Mayor’s evolving position on planning decisions in London.
6
a schedule of currently adopted parking standards for each London
Borough prepared by Transport for London (TfL).
1.7 Reference has also been made to trip rate databases (eg TRICS and
TRAVL) and to the Transport Appeals Journal published quarterly by
Harrison Webb. The Journal contains detailed abstracts of all transport-
related planning appeals decisions in England, Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland.
1.8 The study has been informed by comments from officers of a number of
London Boroughs on the proposals and approach. A brief consultation
exercise took place in January 2002 and is documented in Appendix A.
1.9 Work to develop parking standards for other uses, excluding employment
generating and residential was commissioned by the GLA on 7 March 2002.
The purpose was to provide material and advice that could be used by the
Mayor’s London Plan to provide guidance for the Boroughs on car parking
standards for other uses (excluding employment generating and residential)
not covered by the initial commission. London guidance on parking
standards for employment generating uses was initially set out in RPG 3,
but has since been modified by RPG 9. PPG 3 and RPG 9 set out national
and regional guidance on parking provision for residential uses.
7
8
2: External policy consistency
The Mayor’s first priority is to create a world class transport system for London.
This will involve investment in major increases in the capacity of the capital’s public
transport system that will require funding from the Government. The Government
seeks compliance with its national transport policies when distributing funding.
This section of the report considers how policy on parking standards for London
can conform with the Government’s guidance in PPG 13 (and PPG 6) and Regional
Planning Guidance (RPG) 3 and 9. Note is also taken of possible changes to the
planning system that might result from the Government’s Planning Green Paper.
9
good quality secure parking is essential to the economic welfare of
town centres and to enable retail and leisure uses to flourish
(reference PPG 6 Town Centres and Retail Developments)
2.2 There is an element of policy tension in one aspect of PPG 13. Over-
arching Government policy is to locate new development where non-car
accessibility is good or can be made good. This locational policy
acknowledges that accessibility varies spatially. This means that mode
choice must vary spatially. Yet PPG 13 seeks national consistency in
parking provision and expresses a degree of concern about spatial
variation. However, PPG 13’s maximum parking standards are not relevant
in Central London (eg Westminster) where good quality alternatives to the
car mean that much tougher standards can be adopted. Elsewhere, new
development cannot always be ideally located; if it could there would be no
need for the sequential testing procedures set out in Government guidance.
Variation in accessibility and, hence, mode choice should therefore be
reflected in variation in parking provision at new development. Our
proposed approach embodies this logic.
2.3 Reduced parking provision where there are good quality alternatives to the
private car avoids unnecessary land take and reinforces the mode choice
message. The residual demand for car parking should be accommodated
on-site (ie within the development) to prevent the damage to amenity (and
other adverse impacts) caused by parking overspill in adjacent streets.
Overspill is not automatic but complementary on-street parking controls
may be necessary to reinforce overall parking management. These will not
necessarily be the total responsibility of the developer as they may also
help meet other parking needs and priorities.
10
2.4 This approach is effectively already in place in many places. Private non-
residential parking in town centres and/or conservation areas is deliberately
restricted to limit adverse traffic impacts, improve amenity and possibly to
allow pedestrianisation. The great majority of town centre retail and leisure
premises do not have dedicated car parking. Public or shared private
parking in major multi-storey car parks generally provides for town centre
car parking demand.
2.7 These objectives are not set in the context of economic stagnation or
decline. They are associated with long term ambitions for major growth in
the capital’s population and jobs. Whilst congestion charging and related
policies are the means of restraining traffic associated with existing
development (the source of the bulk of travel demand), it is vital that the
new development that will deliver economic growth does not undermine
these overall objectives. Thus car parking at new development should:
11
2.8 This implies taking account of the spatial variation in non-car accessibility in
a way that reflects the Mayor’s overall ambitions for managing traffic levels
in different parts of the capital. If too much parking provision is made, there
will be little incentive to use other means of transport because the car
remains the preferred means for most people, including the disabled. If too
little parking provision is made relative to access by other means then the
development will not achieve the accessibility necessary for viability and
adverse parking displacement effects will take place.
2.9 In Central London, the planned £5 congestion charge and other measures
seek to tackle congestion and reduce traffic levels. In Outer London, where
car use dominates, the Mayor aims to improve journey time reliability for car
users and minimise traffic growth whilst increasing travel choice. To
complement this, locational policies seek to direct development to
appropriate sites with good public transport access in order to restrain car
use. Thus the whole transport policy edifice for London is predicated on
policies that seek to direct development to locations with good accessibility
by non-car modes, that strategically restrain car use and contribute to
growth targets by ensuring that new development is viable. Car parking
standards for new development must reflect similar priorities and therefore
must retain a spatial dimension.
2.10 Reconciling this stance with PPG 13 involves the following explanations.
Locational policies for new development are paramount (and will not
be influenced by any significant future change in London’s road
network) and should be applied to prevent perverse incentives to
develop in unsuitable locations.
2.11 The retail standards in PPG 13 can be shown by objective data (eg TRICS)
analysis to be compatible with relatively unfettered car use. They would be
the starting point for a process of progressive reduction where justified.
PPG 13 states that “…opportunities exist to reduce levels of parking for
developments in locations with good access by non-car modes…”.
12
2.12 Leisure use standards traditionally vary according to location. Preferred
central urban locations can often exploit adjacent public parking.
2.15 Relevant national data (eg TRICS) shows that unfettered car use would
indicate standards of 1 space per 30 - 35m2gfa for offices and business
parks respectively (PPG 13 suggests 1 to 30m 2gfa). So even in Outer
London where car use dominates, a reduction factor of at least 10 was
implied by RPG 3. Just outside London, car use also generally dominates
and maximum parking standards are typically based on observed
unfettered car use, albeit with scope for reductions in certain circumstances
to encourage use of non-car modes.
2.16 RPG 3 thus introduced a dramatic boundary effect that was not reflected in
travel attitudes or behaviour. The lower limit in RPG 3 has subsequently
been revised down from 1 space per 300m2gfa to 1 space per 100m2gfa to
be compatible with RPG 9 (see below) and to reduce this boundary effect.
This standard still implies a reduction factor of 3 relative to unfettered use.
13
2.17 The impact of this discontinuity in standards can be illustrated by an
example. If we assume that average employment densities in offices are,
say 1 per 21m2gfa (from SERPLAN) then 10,000m2gfa of office
development would accommodate about 480 employees. The implied
mode choices for varying levels of parking standard are as follows.
2.18 The national average proportion of car use for the journey to work is 70%.
However, London is very different. In Central London, only 13% commuted
by car whereas in Outer London the proportion was close to the national
average at 68%. The overall average for London is 43%. The source of
this data is the Labour Force Survey for 2000.
2.19 This means that in Outer London and outside London and the other major
conurbations, unfettered car use is likely to be represented by between 70
and 80% of commuting trips being by car. Research into Travel Plan
effectiveness suggests that a major effort is required to reduce car use for
commuting down to 60% from such levels and that it may be very difficult to
improve further on this achievement, even in what are thought to be highly
accessible locations.
2.20 Thus the PPG 13 standard for offices of 1 space per 30m 2gfa represents a
very modest reduction on unfettered car use. The maximum standard of 1
space per 100m2gfa set out in RPG 3 (modified) and RPG 9 represents a
dramatic reduction in car use beyond that normally achieved by Travel
Plans, except in Central London and any other areas with similar public
transport accessibility. Manipulation of car occupancy assumptions does
not significantly change this conclusion.
14
2.21 We considered whether retail and leisure standards should be as restrictive
as the employment standards set out in RPG 3/RPG 9. We concluded they
should not be. It appears from PPG 13 that the Government believes that
the viability of retail development at least could be threatened by too
restrictive a standard and that this could jeopardise town centre
regeneration. Other reasons for not making these standards as restrictive
as the employment ones are set out below.
2.22 One supporting argument is that the journey to work is the prime cause of
peak period congestion. Congestion greatly increases pollution per vehicle
kilometre. It is therefore appropriate to bear down on peak period travel
demand. Furthermore, London’s public transport system is heavily
influenced by peak period commuting patterns. Retail and leisure travel is
substantially off-peak and, in the latter case, often in the evening.
Congestion is typically reduced at such times in Outer London locations and
therefore environmental concerns could be somewhat diluted, although off-
peak congestion is increasing, including at weekends. Furthermore, public
transport service provision reduces in the evening and there is greater
reliance on the car for personal security reasons. The available supply of
public town centre parking increases in the evening.
2.24 A third supporting argument for separating retail and leisure parking
standards from employment standards is that the former uses would be
expected, where possible, to share short stay public car parking in town
centres (reference PPG 6: Town Centres and Retail Developments,
endorsed in PPG 13). Employment standards relate to long stay parking
that would normally be discouraged in central areas.
2.25 It is therefore reasonable not to use the employment standards set out in
RPG 3 and RPG 9 (see below) as the starting point for retail and leisure
standards.
15
PPG 6: Town Centres and Retail Developments
2.26 PPG 6 (published by DoE in June 1996) provides planning policy guidance
on town centres and retail developments. Local authorities should produce
a comprehensive strategy and a set of policies for the provision and
management of parking designed to reinforce the attractiveness and
competitiveness of town centres and to support the locational policies in
PPG 13. The emphasis is on parking that serves the centre as a whole
rather than dedicated parking for individual developments. Local authorities
are advised to promote the provision of car parks that are shared between
shoppers and others needing short-term parking and to discourage long-
term parking by commuters.
2.27 PPG 6 introduced the sequential approach to site selection for retail and
other key town centre uses which attract a lot of people, including
entertainment and leisure. Adopting a sequential approach means that first
preference should be for town centre sites, followed by edge-of-centre sites,
district and local centres and only then out-of-centre sites in locations that
are accessible by a choice of means of transport. Developers are
encouraged to be more flexible about the format, design and scale of the
development and the amount of car parking, tailoring these to fit the local
circumstances.
2.28 PPG 6 was endorsed, added to and clarified by Planning Minister Richard
Caborn in his Ministerial Statement of 11 February 1999. The Ministerial
Statement made it clear that planning applications for shopping and leisure
development (including extensions) in edge-of-centre or out-of-centre
locations should be required to demonstrate both the need for additional
facilities and that a sequential approach had been applied in site selection.
2.30 RPG 9 differs from PPG 13 by referring to the need to consider varying
parking provision, generally implying reductions in provision to encourage
use of non-car modes. Variation should reflect the state of the local
economy, the size of a settlement and public transport accessibility, the last
two being linked. So the spatial variation principle is recognised. RPG 9
notes the need to avoid perverse effects when applying this approach,
echoing PPG 13 to achieve partial consistency.
16
Changes to the planning system
2.31 The Government wishes to make the planning system more efficient as part
of the process of modernising public services. It published a Green Paper
dealing with reform of the planning system in December 2001.
2.32 The Government has concluded that the existing planning system is
“complex, remote, hard to understand and difficult to access”. The plan-led
system is multi-layered and often out-of-date. National guidance is long
and mixes policy principles with good practice. Planning rules affect
different land uses in different ways. The appeals system is obscure. The
consultative processes involved are extensive but still fail to engage the
public. Overall, the process is too slow.
17
2.34 It appears that parking standards will find a home in the LDF statement of
core policies as these will include criteria-based policies that will form the
basis for development control.
2.35 The basis for setting parking standards will remain national guidance.
However, the Government now thinks that PPGs are too long, too
prescriptive and stifle appropriate local flexibility. This chimes with our
concerns about some aspects of PPG 13 expressed in paragraph 2.2
above. The Government proposes to review planning guidance and more
clearly distinguish between policy guidance and practical application. PPG
3: Housing is considered a good model; it is supplemented by five good
practice guides. PPG 13 is not included in the early review programme but
PPG 6 is.
2.36 The Government is also currently considering reform of the Use Classes
Order. A consultation paper has been issued. This is intended to respond
to modern retailing, leisure and employment practices and considers re-
organising the allocation of Use Classes. This affects “change of use”
issues but need not greatly disturb parking standards. Parking standards
have traditionally disaggregated Use Classes because the travel
characteristics of development categories within Use Classes vary
considerably.
18
2.39 Previously, if a developer could not meet the minimum parking required by
local authority standards on a development site, the authority could require
a payment (a commuted sum) based on the cost of providing parking
spaces away from the site to make up the deficit. However, with the move
to maximum standards, PPG 13 has confirmed the demise of commuted
parking payments.
2.41 The switch from minimum to maximum parking standards undermined the
basis for commuted parking sums. PPG 13 is clear that there is no basis
for seeking commuted payments in lieu of parking that is not being provided
on-site. Planning obligations should be used to improve public transport,
walking and cycling where such measures would be likely to influence travel
to the site either individually or as part of a package of measures.
Developers are expected to contribute more for improving non-car
accessibility where the site is located away from town centres and transport
interchanges (once again acknowledging spatial variation).
a good LTP will maximise the contribution of the private sector, both
as a source of funds and as a provider of services
2.43 LTP/LIP programmes include specific measures that are fully designed and
costed. They also contain less well developed programmes that may also
be particularly dependent on private sector funding.
19
2.44 In previous commissions we have advocated a two-strand approach to
transport-related developer contributions. A summary of our findings is
included as Appendix B.
20
3: Policy consistency within London
This section of the report recognises the need for policy consistency across all 33
London authorities when applying new guidance. This is not a trivial task.
Tensions between Inner and Outer Boroughs were caused by RPG 3’s treatment of
employment parking standards and, possibly, by LPAC’s previous guidance. The
Outer authorities argued that the guidance has been too Central London-orientated
and that non-car accessibility in their areas is much more reminiscent of authorities
outside London. The previous guidance was perceived to threaten their ability to
compete for investment.
This section considers how retail and leisure standards can be presented in a way
that ought to be acceptable to all London authorities.
Pan-London acceptability
3.1 The starting point is that major new development should generally only be
located where public transport accessibility is good or excellent. This
should broadly cover all of London’s major town centres and most district
centres. The key to pan-London acceptance of up-dated standards lies in
the ability to show that:
It is therefore proposed that car parking standards for retail and leisure
development in London vary according to the level of public transport
accessibility.
21
3.3 Although any assessment of non-car accessibility for a new development
must take account of local walk-in and cycle catchments, PTALs provide a
potentially consistent basis on which to base variation in parking provision
at new development. It is also a dynamic process that allows changes in
accessibility through public transport investment to be readily tracked. We
propose that PTALs are the basis for applying parking standards across
London but on a broad area-wide rather than site-specific basis. We also
note that because of the sheer scale and coverage of public transport
services in the central area, its PTAL 6 score is of a different nature to the
smaller PTAL 6 areas in outer London.
3.4 We recommend that TfL owns, maintains and up-dates such information
annually and provides a rolling forecast of PTALs to reflect imminent
accessibility changes resulting from the Mayor’s strategy. We are well
aware that PTALs calculations may have technical weaknesses in site-
specific applications and that they are sensitive to input assumptions.
However, the approach brings relative pan-London consistency and can be
applied in this context to whole areas (eg a town centre).
3.4 We also need to take some account of walk and cycle accessibility. Where
this is very good, there are opportunities for a substantial proportion of
employees and customers to walk and cycle, probably replacing some short
car trips. This should be reflected in reduced on-site parking provision at
new development. However, cycle and walking accessibility would not be a
continuous variable but a one step adjustment where appropriate. Its
significance would be assessed as part of a Transport Assessment. The
criteria in Government guidance provide a basis for judgement. Personal
security should be part of any assessment of walking accessibility and
security improvements (eg enhanced lighting) may be required as a
developer contribution.
3.6 Conversely, regeneration will not take place if the area is inaccessible.
Major improvements in public transport provision take time to implement
and will not be funded at all if there is no travel market. It is inevitable
therefore that initial regeneration will often be car-based in accessibility
terms. The way of ensuring eventual policy conformity is through phased
reductions in parking standards that are sensibly related to increasing non-
car accessibility. We do not think that economic viability needs to be
quantified as it is not a continuous variable in the process. There are
Government criteria to measure deprivation and related conditions.
22
3.7 Transport Assessments for new developments (which were introduced by
PPG 13) should provide an estimate of car parking demand within the
framework of maximising non-car travel and making the best use of
London’s public transport network. As explained below, PTALs-based
parking standards are the starting point for the iterative Transport
Assessment (TA) process. The process offers adequate opportunity for
refinement and adjustment to take account of local circumstances. This
could include detailed assessments of the overall PTAL value for a specific
development and its catchment.
3.9 The adverse impacts of the car dependency created by out-of-town retailing
can be minimised by siting such development in edge-of-centre locations.
This provides opportunities for town centre linked trips on foot, enhanced
transport choice, shared use of the parking provided (for the benefit of the
town centre as a whole rather than just the retail outlet) but keeps related
car traffic away from sensitive areas. Developers may provide shared
parking above the prescribed standard if it helps improve the adequacy of
the short stay town centre parking supply, as prescribed on PPGs 6 and 13.
However, developers would have to justify car-orientated retail development
in the terms set out in PPG 6 (eg Section 4). It is noted that a number of
leading car-orientated retailers modify their format to eliminate or greatly
reduce car parking in highly accessible locations.
3.10 Therefore, although major travel attractors should only be sited where
public transport accessibility is good or better (for example PTALs 4 - 6)
some account needs to be taken of inevitable and substantial car use
associated with some retail sectors. This suggests to us that the
appropriate parameters for establishing car parking at new retail
developments in London are:
locations that are suitable for major travel attractors and those that
are unsuitable
23
PTALs, to reflect variation in non-car accessibility
3.11 We concentrate on food and bulk shopping and retail parks because this
forms the majority of new retail development. We differentiate food
shopping by size because of well-established differences in travel
characteristics. Parking at retail parks should be assessed in accordance
with the above principles with account taken of individual elements and the
opportunity for a reduction in supply resulting from on-site linked trip-making
(see also Mixed use in Section 4). It is also envisaged that smaller
foodstores and supermarkets may be sited in district centres with PTALs of
3 or below.
3.12 Other forms of retail development should normally have no dedicated on-
site parking provision and should rely on the public parking supply, which
should be adequate in PPG 6 terms.
3.14 We did not have the resources in this study to review the relationship
between parking provision, public transport accessibility and mode split.
We recommend that the GLA and TfL reviews existing survey data eg LATS
to provide a basis for varying car parking standards in line with PTAL
values.
24
3.15 We set out below indicative standards for accommodating parking at new
development under various circumstances. We base the approach on the
knowledge that the two extremes of the relationship between parking and
important variables are known. A great deal of existing town centre
development is viable without any dedicated on-site parking. This includes
new formats for what was previously car-orientated development. At the
other extreme, we understand the peak parking demands associated with
unfettered car use. The remaining task is to interpolate between these two
extremes to reflect intermediate circumstances where some car parking is
appropriate.
3.17 These proposed standards for unfettered car use fit national as well as
London data, but are more restrictive than the indicative national standards
set out in PPG 13.
25
3.18 The starting point for the process for retail uses is therefore PTALs and
parking standards that are broadly derived from the benchmark standards
published in PPG 13. We use the term “broadly” because PPG 13 does not
provide enough disaggregation for a practical set of standards for
development control purposes nor does it set out an analytical basis for its
standards. We can demonstrate that PPG 13 standards reflect relatively
high car-dependency, certainly for retail uses, by reference to the TRICS
database and TRICS research. PPG 13’s standard of 1 space per 14m 2gfa
for food retailing would rarely impede car use. On the other hand, its
standard of 1 space per 20m2gfa for non-food retailing is, in our view,
unnecessarily generous. Unfettered demand would generally be
accommodated by a standard of 1 space per 25m 2 gfa or less.
3.19 It is easy in regeneration areas to deter inward investment by what are seen
to be over-restrictive development control policies. One way of addressing
this problem is to avoid using accessibility measurements (and hence
parking standards) that anticipate medium and long term investment in
public transport. However, account must be taken of committed schemes
that will deliver benefits within a few years and also of improvements
flowing from developer contributions, otherwise car parking over-provision
would undermine the viability of these transport investments and quickly
establish unsustainable travel habits. Phased reductions in parking
provision are one way of ensuring longer term sustainability without
deterring short term investment.
3.20 A matrix of the form illustrated overleaf seeks to address these issues. It
assumes a relationship between PTALs, mode split and parking provision
to interpolate between zero and demand-based parking provision (in the
absence of data that would better define the relationship). A curved
relationship could be convex in an upward or downward direction or a
straight line could be used (see illustration below). The first of these would
limit the onset of major reductions in parking provision until high PTAL
values were reached. The last would introduce relatively bigger reductions
at lower PTALs. A straight line would be a simple compromise.
% of unfettered demand
provided
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
PTAL
26
Retail land uses:
Percentage of relatively unfettered car parking demand
that could be provided
27
3.21 We have chosen a “curve” that is convex in an upward direction as the
basis for determining the amount of parking to be provided. We consider
this provides a suitable starting point for the TA process and avoids
unrealistic assumptions about levels of non-car use in locations with
relatively poor public transport accessibility. This is intended to help
support viable development in a range of locations rather than just in the
most accessible.
3.23 The proposed approach to maximum retail car parking standards is set out
in the matrix overleaf, based on the approach explained above.
28
Maximum car parking standards for retail uses
29
3.24 TfL has recently collated parking standards currently adopted/proposed by
London Boroughs. These figures are based on information supplied by the
Boroughs in February/March 2001 and updated to reflect subsequent UDP
reviews.
3.25 The exercise indicates wide variation in retail standards across London,
ranging from limited or zero parking in critical Central London Boroughs
(e.g. City, Westminster, Camden) to provision for unfettered demand in
Outer London Boroughs (e.g. Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Havering,
Sutton) and some instances of over-provision relative to national data on
the travel characteristics of new development. While Havering’s standards
(adopted in 1993) appear to pre-date the first issue of PPG 13 in 1994,
Barking and Dagenham appears to be the only Borough with minimum, not
maximum standards (note: no information is given in the table on this latter
point for Hammersmith and Fulham and Croydon).
3.27 Current practice is therefore substantially aligned with the overall approach
developed independently by this study.
30
3.29 We recognise that public transport service provision usually reduces later in
the evening and that car use is seen to offer better personal security for
lone females especially. It is also recognised that car park security can be
poor at night and where this is the case, section 106 contributions should
be sought to improve the situation.
3.30 Taking these points into account, we therefore propose that the starting
point for determining car parking provision at leisure developments is that,
where appropriate, these should be preferably in town centre locations with
an adequate public car park supply and that no dedicated on-site parking
should be provided with the development.
some leisure uses that are incompatible with town centre locations,
will be located on out-of-town sites and will generally have to be
accepted as car-based (eg golf courses)
31
Proposed leisure car parking standards
3.32 As established above, on-site parking should not normally be permitted at
leisure developments in town centres where the public parking supply is
sufficient. In other locations some parking will be required and
consideration should be given to using PTAL values to take account of
journeys by other modes to reduce the amount of parking required. The
matrix overleaf shows parking standards that reflect relatively unfettered car
use, but the Transport Assessment should be used to determine the
expected level of parking required taking account of accessibility by non-car
modes. The parking standards also provide a benchmark for assessing the
adequacy of publicly provided car parking in the centre.
3.35 The proposed approach to maximum leisure car parking standards is set
out in the matrix overleaf.
32
Maximum car parking standards for leisure uses
33
3.36 The following paragraphs describe the technical context for this approach to
parking standards.
3.38 Government guidance accepts that the private car will remain the most
common mode outside the centres of major towns and conurbations and
highways provision should be designed accordingly to ensure safe traffic
conditions are maintained, above all else. However, this new emphasis on
non-car modes in TAs should help ensure that off-site highways work and
on-site layouts incorporate high quality accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists
and public transport users as an integral part of the design, rather than an
optional extra.
3.40 Where car parking provision is proposed below that considered appropriate
in the light of this guidance, developers will have to justify their confidence
in the take-up of non-car modes in order to ensure that the development will
be viable without damaging parking overspill in adjacent streets.
34
Operational parking
3.42 The proposed approach to retail and leisure standards accepts that a
minimal amount of operational parking may be required on-site.
Operational parking is that which is required to enable the development to
function. It can include arrangements for maintenance and servicing but it
specifically excludes customer and employee car parking except for
“essential car users” (ie car use without which a development could not
operate). Operational car parking provision is included in the standards
developed for this study as such use is included in the survey data used to
establish parking standards relating to unfettered demand.
3.43 The onus would be on the developer to present the case for operational car
parking and service vehicle requirements in excess of recommended
parking provision or where non-operational car parking would not be
permitted. It is always important to remember that planning permissions
are attached to the land in question, not the prospective occupier (if known).
Hence any exceptional provision of operational space may be surplus to
future requirements if the prospective occupier fails to materialise or the site
is vacated. Genuine need for operational parking (eg a large car-based
sales force) should be minimised through the use of a Travel Plan to reduce
peak parking demand, for instance, by re-organising work patterns and/or
facilitating home-working.
Cycle parking
3.45 Appropriate provision should be made for secure cycle parking and for
other facilities that encourage cycling (eg showers). We understand that
cycle parking standards will be the subject of future work by TfL, in
consultation with the Boroughs.
Coach parking
3.46 A number of sports and other leisure activities generate a demand for
coach parking. Establishing the demand for such parking is one role of a
TA. A TA should accompany all significant development proposals, in line
with DTLR guidance issued in 2001.
35
36
4: Mixed use developments
Mixed use developments involve a variety of retail, leisure and other elements on
one site. Car parking may or may not be physically related to each element. The
time profiles of car parking demand vary according to use. If the peak parking
demands for each element are added together, the total will generally exceed the
expected peak parking demand for the development as a whole. Such over-
provision should be avoided through appropriate analysis.
Technical approach
4.1 It will not be possible for the GLA to indicate specific parking standards for
mixed use developments because they are all different and each element
could have very different parking characteristics. As explained below, the
general principle is that total parking provision should be less than that
which each element could warrant individually.
some stores act as anchors for the rest, resulting in linked trips on-
site
37
4.5 Planning inspectors have been very suspicious at appeal (as documented
in the Transport Appeals Journal) about ambitious claims for public
transport usage in these circumstances. They point out that catchments
can be large and complicated and that bus services will not readily be re-
orientated to provide the necessary network, especially in the evenings or
at weekends. They note that decisions to build new stations are ultimately
not in the hands of the developer and that third party land may easily be
involved, creating similar problems of uncertainty and unpredictability.
However, if the development has a regional or even national catchment
then an on-site rail station assumes much greater importance as rail
becomes much more competitive compared with car use.
4.6 Sequential testing as required by PPG 6 may undermine the large mixed
use development concept by showing that individual town centre sites could
provide a similar offer in aggregate. Developers’ claims for the indivisibility
of large concept stores/developments are no longer readily accepted by the
Government or the Planning Inspectorate.
4.7 The key to identifying transport impacts (and hence parking provision) lies
in an appropriate TA supported by retail and leisure impact studies. This is
the only way of understanding the likely catchment and competition impacts
of large mixed use developments, both of which affect transport impacts.
4.8 The TRICS research shows that trip rates for retail parks are significantly
lower than for most of the individual elements in isolation. Parking provision
should be reduced correspondingly. Linked trip-making can reduce parking
demand by up to 50%, and 25% appears readily attainable. It will remain
up to developers to demonstrate such effects in their TAs.
38
5: Parking standards for other uses,
excluding employment generating &
residential
This section sets out an approach to car parking standards for other uses as
identified above. This proposed approach for London draws on the same data
sources as the initial commission (eg TRICS/TRAVL) and takes account of the
approach proposed for retail and leisure uses. We have also taken account of
standards recently adopted/proposed by local authorities in the South East of
England. The latter tend to be historical standards but modified to eliminate over-
provision.
5.2 The presumption is that banks, building societies etc will be centrally
located and ancillary to the retailing function of the centre. Customers are
likely to visit the bank as part of a linked trip on foot and the public parking
supply should be used. No site-specific parking provision is appropriate.
39
The presumption is that most food and drink establishments will be
developed in these two locations. However, this will not always be
practicable for the following types of food and drink developments:
5.4 Maximum car parking standards for roadside restaurants, fast-food drive-
through restaurants and pub restaurants are proposed below.
40
B8 Storage or distribution
5.5 This Use Class includes wholesale warehousing, distribution centres and
repositories. Therefore, it cannot sensibly be included within RPG 3’s
“employment generating” category and hence some guidance is provided
below:
a B8 standard of 1 space per 75 – 100 m² gfa is considered to be Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
5.6 The presumption is that most storage or distribution developments are likely
to be located out-of-centre/town, with the focus of attention on operational
requirements rather than staff/visitor parking. Hence unfettered demand
would appear to be an appropriate starting point for the TA process and
identification of appropriate parking provision.
C1 Hotels
5.7 This Use Class is concerned with hotels, boarding houses and guest
houses. The proposed approach is that car parking should largely be
assessed on an individual basis as part of the Transport Assessment
process, with location, scale and format being key considerations. It is
envisaged that:
peripheral hotels on key arterial roads (e.g. Travel Inns) rely on car-
borne trade and are likely to require unfettered parking provision.
41
5.8 A benchmark maximum standard (based on unfettered demand) is
considered to be of the order of 1 space per bedroom.
C2 Residential institutions
5.10 This Use Class includes residential schools/colleges and hospitals and
convalescent/nursing homes. The proposed approach is that car parking for
residential schools/colleges and hospitals should be assessed on an
individual basis as part of the Transport Assessment process.
5.12 Proposals for new nursing homes occur more commonly and tend not to be
centrally located. A benchmark maximum standard (based on unfettered
demand to cater for resident staff and visitors) is considered to be of the
order of 1 space per 2-4 beds.
D1 Non-residential institutions
5.13 This Use Class includes a wide variety of non-residential institutions:
42
5.14 The proposed approach is that car parking for non-residential institutions
should largely be assessed on an individual basis as part of the Transport
Assessment process. One possible exception is surgeries/consulting
rooms (see below).
clinics and health centres are likely to be centrally located, but may
require some parking depending upon the size of the catchment
and the adequacy/convenience of the public parking supply; the
elderly and infirm prefer to use a car where possible
museums, public halls, libraries, art galleries and exhibition halls are
likely to be centrally located and visitors can make use of the public
parking supply
43
5.17 In respect of parking provision for non-residential education:
any overspill parking for uses outside the school day should be
accommodated through the use of dual purpose surfaces (e.g. all-
weather play areas, courts etc) as appropriate.
We note that the only maximum standard included in PPG 13 for education
relates to higher and further education above 2,500 m² gfa: 1 space per 2
staff plus 1 space per 15 students.
Cycle parking
5.19 Appropriate provision should also be made for secure cycle parking and for
other facilities that encourage cycling (e.g. showers). Indicative standards
are provided in the London Cycle Network Design Manual 1998. We
understand that cycle parking standards will be the subject of future work
by TfL, in consultation with the Boroughs.
44
6: Conclusions and recommendations
This concluding section summarises conclusions reached and the recommended
way forward. In addition to this report, Harrison Webb assisted in the initial drafting
of a policy statement on parking standards in the form of an Annex for inclusion in
the Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy.
Conclusions
6.1 In the course of this study, we reached the following conclusions:
locational policies for new development are critical and will not be
influenced by any significant future change in London’s road
network as this is not practical; locational policy should prevent
perverse incentives to develop in unsuitable locations
45
walk and cycle accessibility and economic regeneration also need
to be reflected in the process
the matrix should reflect the fact that social change has brought
relative car dependency for some retail formats and that this is
unlikely to disappear in the foreseeable future; such development
should be located where accessibility by non-car modes is good to
minimise car dependency and necessary car parking should rely on
publicly available spaces as far as possible
the findings of this study will be translated into guidance in the SDS
which the Boroughs can interpret to produce parking standards for
inclusion in their UDPs
46
subject to the sequential testing process, parking at mixed use
developments should be assessed by reference to location, the mix
of uses, future changes in operator and linked trips on-site; mixed
use will reduce the demand for parking overall.
Recommendations
6.2 We make the following recommendations:
that the matrices in the report and supporting notes are adopted as
a framework for determining parking standards for new
development
47
48
Appendix A
Consultation findings
49
50
Consultation findings
A small representative sample of London Boroughs were consulted on the main
findings of this study. Responses were received from 5 London Boroughs and are
discussed below.
Main point
No consultee disagreed with the basic approach, although there was some concern
about the use of PTALs to represent public transport accessibility. Comments are
addressed below with an indication of how the main text has been adapted where
thought necessary.
Comments
1 Why not make greater/specific use of TRAVL rather than TRICS?
2 The reference in para 2.19 to 80% car use for commuting outside London
and possibly in Outer London needs justifying as it seems very high.
Transport Statistics GB 2001 shows in Table 1.7 that main mode used for
journeys to work was as follows:
% by car
England 70
North West excl. mets 78
North East excl. mets 76
Yorks Humber excl mets 71
East Midlands 74
West Midlands excl mets 78
East of England 76
South East 76
South West 75
Central London 13
rest of Inner London 41
Outer London 68
51
Suggested rewording:
…unfettered car use is likely to be represented by between 70 and 80% of
commuting trips being by car.
Suggest we note that PPGs 6 and 13, LTP guidance and the Mayor’s
Transport Strategy all refer to the universal need for town parking plans.
This is the appropriate source of judgement about adequacy.
The PTAL approach may not be perfect but it brings consistency and can
be further developed via the PTAL working group. It is used as a starting
point for setting retail standards and, hence, for Transport Assessments
(TAs). If there is a sound basis for suggesting that PTAL 4 in say Hounslow
has a different utility to the same level in Westminster then this can be dealt
with in the TA. The Mayor will make a judgement about the weight to be
attached to the argument if he is involved in the application process.
Developing different standards for different areas of London with the same
PTAL would introduce more boundary effects. The iterative process in TAs
should help resolve this problem.
Suggest that text about applying PTAL is reviewed but the approach
maintained. Modify the standards such that PTAL 3 would be acceptable
for retail uses in town and local centres in Outer London.
6 The need for complementary parking polices is accepted ref para 2.3. But
developers should not be given impression that they pay 100% of costs.
Overspill is not automatic when on-site parking is less than unfettered
demand as mode split should alter according to relative accessibility.
52
7 Report should refer to Planning Green Paper and daughter document on
contributions. Developer contributions should relate to traffic impacts and
not be so great as to deter investment.
53
Green Paper is referred to but the daughter document is not.
The study brief did not require us to provide such standards. An appendix
of draft standards was included in the consultation draft for completeness
but had not been researched in a specific London context. Suggest cycle
standards are omitted from text. It is understood that they will be subject of
future TfL work.
10 Developers are going to suggest that reduced parking provision (eg in town
centres) makes development non-viable. Public parking can’t always cope.
Agree that parking provision is important but some developers now have
low (or zero) parking formats for “traditional” car-orientated shopping in
town centre or highly accessible locations (eg Tesco Metro format; recent
Tesco appeal in Lambeth for 2512m2 retail floorspace was allowed by the
SoS provided no more than 98 spaces were provided (at 1 space to 26m2
ie approaching 50% of unfettered demand).
54
It is not appropriate to attract higher car use in town centres. It may be OK
in edge-of-centre or local centre locations that still allow linked trips and
support the local retail economy. Developers may provide parking above
the prescribed standard on the basis that it helps make town centre parking
adequate as per PPGs 6 and 13. Developers would need to prove need for
a car-orientated retail format, in PPG 6 terms.
Agree.
55
14 All LBs should be consulted on this subject.
This is a matter for the GLA but the SDS will have its own consultation
process to which all LBs could contribute.
15 Outer London town centres may not comply with the ”preferred” PTALs
range of 4 to 6 and development could be inhibited.
56
57
Appendix B
Findings of previous work
on developer contributions
58
59
Developer contributions
1 Previous commissions have involved reviews of policy on developer
contributions. These commissions pre-dated the Government’s current
consultation document. We advocated a two strand approach.
60
4 This two-strand approach is broadly compatible with the preferred option in
the Government’s daughter document (to the Planning Green Paper) on
planning obligations. This can be summarised as follows.
7 We believe our approach could be applied to all development and that the
parking space tariff could be set so as not to inhibit development nor
significantly increase cost burdens on development relative to current
practice.
61