Parking Standards Review Background Evidence · Reference Issue Description Originator Checked Authorised 100001781_ Evidence 01 Milton Keynes Parking standards Review- Evidence Base

Parking Standards Review

Background Evidence

Milton Keynes Borough Council

December 2015

© Project Centre 2014 Background Evidence i

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Project Centre has prepared this report in accordance with the instructions from Milton Keynes

Borough Council. Project Centre shall not be liable for the use of any information contained herein

for any purpose other than the sole and specific use for which it was prepared.

Report

Reference Issue Description Originator Checked Authorised

100001781_

Evidence

01 Milton Keynes

Parking standards

Review- Evidence

Base

Colin Harwood

28.07.2014

Michelle Edser

31.07.2014

Ben Meekings

01.08.2014

Milton Keynes

Parking standards

Review- Evidence

Base

Tom Wood

24.12.2015

Ben Meekings

24.12.2015

Ben Meekings

24.12.2015

CONTACT

Ben Meekings

Head of Transport and Development Planning

[email protected]

(01273) 627185

38 Foundry Street

Brighton

BN1 4AT

© Project Centre 2014 Background Evidence ii

CONTENTS PAGE PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. MILTON KEYNES AREA PROFILE 2

3. POLICY CONTEXT 9

4. LOCAL AUTHORITY COMPARISON 13

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19

6. REFERENCES 21

QUALITY 23

APPENDIX A - PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY A

APPENDIX B - OVERVIEW OF CAR PARKING STANDARDS B

APPENDIX C - OVERVIEW OF CYCLE PARKING STANDARDS C

© Project Centre 2014 Background Evidence 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Centre has been commissioned by Milton Keynes Council to review and update

the council’s parking standards adopted in 2005. The purpose of these standards is to

outline the minimum and maximum requirements for car and cycle parking at new

developments in the borough. When adopted they will inform the determination of

planning applications.

1.2 This report provides details of research undertaken by Project Centre as follows:

Chapter 2 provides a brief area profile with information of relevance to the

development of future parking standards such as details of local car ownership;

Chapter 3 considers existing national and local policies;

Chapter 4 provides details of the parking standards adopted by comparable

local authorities;

Chapter 5 provides the report’s main conclusions and recommendations;

Chapter 6 provides relevant references.

1.3 Alongside consultation with key stakeholders, this document will be used to inform the

preparation of a draft of the parking standards for further consultation. It should be

considered as a background document and forms part of the evidence base for the

establishment of the revised standards.


2. MILTON KEYNES AREA PROFILE

Introduction

2.1 This chapter considers the relevant characteristics of the borough which will provide

context to the establishment of new parking standards and inform these where

appropriate. This includes an examination of the borough’s car ownership and use and

public transport accessibility. The chapter makes some observations about how the

data could potentially justify a certain approach to the setting of parking standards

which will contribute to the wider review. The approach ultimately taken will however

reflect all aspects of the evidence base and public consultation.

Milton Keynes Borough Characteristics

2.2 The south of the borough comprises the urban area of Milton Keynes town centre and its

suburbs. A number of smaller towns and villages such as Olney are located in the north

of the borough in an area which the Milton Keynes Core Strategy (2013, para 2.4)

describes as “rural”. In total, the areas surrounding the main urban area are home to

19% of the population.

2.3 Milton Keynes is subject to rapid development with the Core Strategy (para 5.18) stating

that this is forecast at a rate of approximately 1,750 households per annum in the period

2010-2026.

2.4 When Milton Keynes was developed as a new town in the 20th century, it was designed

as a multi-centred settlement linked by its grid system of roads. The Core Strategy states

that this is a strength of the area; however, peak hour congestion is experienced at key

junctions and there is concern that this will worsen even without development owing to a

forecast increase in car ownership. Current levels of congestion are however considered

to be lower than towns and cities of a comparable size. This may be partially attributable

to a discontinuity in car ownership levels between flats and houses as percentage car

ownership in flats, which make up a higher proportion of dwellings within the town’s core

areas, is only 58.5%, 26.7% lower than other accommodation types.

2.5 Para 2.9 of the Core Strategy however states that residential roads within the grid squares

are generally not designed for public transport and combined with the low population

density and a wide distribution of destinations, creates a barrier in the provision of high

quality bus services. As a consequence, Milton Keynes has a lower proportion of

residents who travel by bus than other urban areas with a comparable population.

Further consideration of the borough’s public transport accessibility and implications for

the setting of parking standards is provided later in this chapter.

2.6 Milton Keynes does not have any Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs), though residents

permit schemes are in place in the Central Milton Keynes, Bletchley, Loughton, Bradwell


Common, Conniburrow, Middleton, Neath Hill, Oldbrook, Vicarage Street (Woburn

Sands), Stony Stratford, Newport Pagnell and Wavendon.

Car Ownership and Use

2.7 Based on information obtained from the 2001 and 2011 censuses, Table 2.1 provides a

summary of car ownership levels for all wards within the borough as well as the level for

the authority as a whole. The main existing parking standard zones (for further details see

Chapter 3) covering each ward are also indicated.

2.8 As would be expected, Campbell Park ward, which includes the city centre Zone 1, has

the lowest levels of car ownership whilst wards within the rural Zone 4 such as Sherrington

typically have the highest car ownership.

Table 2.1: Milton Keynes Car Ownership by Ward

Ward

Parking Standard Zone Car Ownership (Cars per Household)

1 2 3 4 2011 2001 Change %

Change

Sherrington 1.83 1.72 0.11 6.0%

Hanslope Park 1.62 1.57 0.05 3.1%

Olney 1.56 1.56 0 0.0%

Danesborough 1.55 1.49 0.06 3.9%

Emerson Valley 1.51 1.44 0.07 4.6%

Newport Pagnell North 1.49 1.47 0.02 1.3%

Loughton Park 1.47 1.38 0.09 6.1%

Middleton 1.47 1.44 0.03 2.0%

Walton Park 1.43 1.39 0.04 2.8%

Linford North 1.4 1.37 0.03 2.1%

Newport Pagnell South 1.4 1.35 0.05 3.6%

Furzton 1.36 1.28 0.08 5.9%

Whaddon 1.32 1.28 0.04 3.0%

Stony Stratford* 1.29 1.19 0.1 7.8%

Linford South 1.27 1.31 -0.04 -3.1%

Stantonbury 1.24 1.23 0.01 0.8%

Denbigh 1.18 1.18 0 0.0%

Bletchley & Fenny Stratford 1.15 1.1 0.05 4.3%

Bradwell 1.11 1.11 0 0.0%

Wolverton* 1.09 1.07 0.02 1.8%

Eaton Manor 1.03 0.99 0.04 3.9%

Campbell Park 0.97 1.08 -0.11 -11.3%

Woughton 0.87 0.89 -0.02 -2.3%

Milton Keynes

Borough 1.3 1.26 0.04 3.1%

Source: 2011 and 2001 Census, Office for National Statistics (2014)

* Indicates boundary change


2.9 The majority of wards and the borough as a whole experienced an increase in car

ownership between 2001 and 2011. Three of the most central wards, namely Campbell

Park, Linford South and Woughton however experienced a decrease in car ownership.

2.10 Future car ownership levels can be considered by reference to the Department for

Transport’s (DfT) Trip End Model Presentation Program (TEMPRO). This allows trends in

respect of car ownership and trips to be forecast. Data for the borough indicates that

the total number of cars is forecast to increase by 32% between 2010 and 2025. This

reflects the growth of the borough and does not necessarily indicate that there will be

greater demand for parking in a particular area should the current density of

development not increase. Indeed, the number of households who do not own a car is

also forecast to increase by 22%.

Table 2.2: Milton Keynes Car Use by Ward

Ward

Parking Standard Zone Car Use (% Mode Share)

1 2 3 4 2011 2001 Change %

Change

Hanslope Park 72.2 69.4 2.8 3.9%

Newport Pagnell North 71.6 66.6 5 7.0%

Emerson Valley 71.4 71.1 0.3 0.4%

Whaddon 71 64.2 6.8 9.6%

Walton Park 70.3 70 0.3 0.4%

Newport Pagnell South 70.2 65.2 5 7.1%

Sherrington 70.1 68.4 1.7 2.4%

Middleton 69.5 69.3 0.2 0.3%

Olney 69.2 68.7 0.5 0.7%

Danesborough 68.8 68 0.8 1.2%

Furzton 68.7 66.9 1.8 2.6%

Linford North 68.4 63.9 4.5 6.6%

Denbigh 66.4 62.4 4 6.0%

Loughton Park 65.5 65.6 -0.1 -0.2%

Stony Stratford* 65.4 60.9 4.5 6.9%

Stantonbury 64.8 61.4 3.4 5.2%


Linford South 63.1 62.7 0.4 0.6%

Wolverton* 62.7 67.7 -5 -8.0%

Eaton Manor 61.3 54.5 6.8 11.1%

Bradwell 57.6 56.6 1 1.7%

Woughton 54.4 52.3 2.1 3.9%

Campbell Park 48.7 53.5 -4.8 -9.9%

Milton Keynes

Borough 65.3 62.9 2.4 3.7%




2.11 As mentioned above, the 2013 Core Strategy (para 5.18) indicates that 1,750 homes

per annum or a minimum of 28,000 will be built between 2010 and 2026. This represents

an increase of 28% on the 2011 level of 98,600. Whilst the 2013 Core Strategy and

TEMPRO data sets are not linked the above would suggest that the increase in the

number of cars will be greater than the increase in the number of homes. It is therefore

important that the residential parking standards allow for this so as to minimise problems

in areas where parking demand is likely to reach or exceed capacity at the same time

as avoiding the profligate use of land for parking.

2.12 Table 2.2 complements the car ownership data by providing a summary of current car

use and how this has changed since 2001. This is based on the mode of travel to work

by employed residents of the wards concerned using the latest available source of

data, the 2011 Census.

2.13 Table 2.2 indicates that overall car use increased though, in keeping with the fall in car

ownership levels, Campbell Park ward experienced the largest decrease should

Wolverton be excluded. The latter is likely to be an anomaly owing to the boundary

change affecting this ward and the sizeable reduction in car use indicated is not in

keeping with the trend for the suburban and rural parts of the borough.

Cycling Levels

2.14 Table 2.3 provides a summary of cycling levels based on the 2000 and 2001 census

mode of travel to work data for each ward. This indicates that there was a slight decline

in the number of residents cycling to work during this time. Although the trend varies

across different wards, the absolute changes are however marginal and there is a

danger that basing cycle parking standards on these figures would lead to under-

provision whilst such an approach would be unambitious in terms of increasing the future

mode share of cycling.

Existing Parking Surveys for Milton Keynes

2.15 Milton Keynes’ Council conducted a survey of residents concerning the use of on-plot

residential parking in 2012, covering the Broughton Gate, Brooklands and Oakridge Park

residential areas. The pertinent findings in respect of the current review of parking

standards are as follows:

A relatively small proportion (24.7%) of garages were used to park cars, though

this was more typical amongst households with double garages.

Tandem parking was not considered ideal, though the survey recorded that

50% of households with such a parking arrangement were happy to park both

cars on plot.


2.16 It is likely that the above will need to be reflected in both the standard for the level of

residential parking and associated design standards currently provided by the New

Residential Development Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2012).

Table 2.3: Milton Keynes Cycle Use by Ward

Vehicle Crime

2.17 Real or perceived vehicle crime is likely to have a significant bearing on where people

feel happy to leave their vehicle and is of particular importance with regards to

residential and other uses associated with night time parking.

2.18 Figure 2.1 provides a summary of vehicle crime by neighbourhood policing area, based

upon reported crimes during 2013. Though car crime is generally highest in the more

central areas such as Campbell Park, there is no direct correlation between an area’s

Ward

Parking Standard Zone Cycle Use (% Mode Share)

1 2 3 4 2011 2001 Change %

Change

Campbell Park 4.1 4 0.1 2.5%

Bradwell 3.8 3.6 0.2 5.6%

Woughton 3.7 3.9 -0.2 -5.1%


Wolverton* 3.5 4.4 -0.9 -20.5%

Stantonbury 3.4 3.2 0.2 6.2%

Newport Pagnell North 3.2 4 -0.8 -20.0%

Linford North 3.2 3.6 -0.4 -11.1%

Middleton 3.1 3 0.1 3.3%

Walton Park 3 2.4 0.6 25.0%

Newport Pagnell South 3 3.7 -0.7 -18.9%

Linford South 3 3.6 -0.6 -16.7%

Denbigh 2.8 2.3 0.5 21.7%

Loughton Park 2.5 2.9 -0.4 -13.8%

Furzton 2.4 2.7 -0.3 -11.1%

Eaton Manor 2.4 3.3 -0.9 -27.3%

Emerson Valley 2.3 1.7 0.6 35.3%

Stony Stratford* 2.3 3.2 -0.9 -28.1%

Danesborough 2 1.9 0.1 5.3%

Whaddon 1.9 2.3 -0.4 -17.4%

Hanslope Park 1.7 1.5 0.2 13.3%

Olney 1.7 1 0.7 70.0%

Sherrington 1.3 1.3 0 0.0%

Milton Keynes

Borough 2.9 3 -0.1 -3.3%




characteristics and the incidence of car crime. The analysis has however taken a high

level approach and not considered whether there are patterns between the actual

localities where crimes took place. In any case, it is not considered appropriate for zonal

standards to be based on the incidence of crime. Instead, the design standards

contained within the Parking Standards SPD will take account of car and cycle security

and provide appropriate guidance on how crime can be designed out. This may for

example be through the provision of natural surveillance in ensuring that parking areas

are well overlooked.

Figure 2.1: Milton Keynes Reported Vehicle Crime by Policing Area

Public Transport Accessibility

2.19 The suburbs of Milton Keynes and towns such as Newport Pagnell and Bletchley benefit

from a semi-frequent public transport service. Public transport accessibility is however

reduced in the rural north and south east of the borough as indicated on the plan

provided in Appendix A. A summary of the frequency and duration of services into

Central Milton Keynes during the weekday morning peak is provided in Table 2.4.

0 100 200 300

Newport Pagnell

Loughton Park

Rural Milton Keynes

Bradwell and Stantonbury

Danesborough/ Walton Park

Central Bletchley & Fenny Stratford

Shenley Brook End/ Tattenhoe

Campbell Park

Campbell Park South/ Woughton

Stony Stratford/ Wolverton

Total Vehicle Crimes 2013

Source: www.police.uk


Table 2.4: Frequency and Duration of Bus Services

2.20 The above confirms that parts of the borough are better served by public transport than

others. This supports the existing zone based approach to setting parking standards in

Milton Keynes in order to accommodate higher car ownership levels in those areas

where alternative transport options are less realistic. Similarly, the approach supports the

promotion of sustainable transport options where these are an attractive option.

Summary

2.21 The information presented within this chapter will be used to inform the drafting of

revised parking standards for Milton Keynes. The following chapter provides details of

relevant local and national policy which will also be reflected in the revised standards.

Area Bus Service (s)* Number of Buses 08:00-09:00 Mon-

Fri

Typical Duration

to Central Milton

Keynes

Bletchley 1,4,5,6,7, 19 2 on route 1, 8 on route 5/6, 6 on route 4, 2 on route 7, 2 on route 19 35 min

Fenny Stratford 5, 19 3 on route 5, 2 on route 19 35 min

Furzton 7 2 on route 7 27 min

Kingston 8 4 on route 8 16 min

Newport Pagnell 1,2 2 on route 1, 3 on route 2 25 min

Olney 21 2 on route 21 48 min

Stony Stratford 6 4 on route 6 30 min

Westcroft 2, 8 3 on route 2, 4 on route 8 24 min

Woburn Sands 300 2 on route 300 31 min

Wolverton 4,5,6,7 3 on route 4, 7 on route 5/6, 4 on route 7 36 min

Source: Milton Keynes Travel Guide (Milton Keynes Council, 2014)

* Indicates main service(s). Additional services, including longer distance and less frequent routes

may be available.


3. POLICY CONTEXT

Introduction

3.1 This chapter provides an overview of the relevant local and national policy context.

National Policy

3.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published by the Government in 2012

moves away from prescribed maximum parking standards which were previously

advocated within Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG 13) (2001), which was itself updated

in January 2011 when the maximum parking standards associated with residential

developments were removed.

3.3 Specifically, Paragraph 39 of the NPPF states:

“If setting local parking standards for residential and non-residential development, local

planning authorities should take into account:

The accessibility of the development;

The type, mix and use of development;

The availability of and opportunities for public transport;

Local car ownership levels; and

An overall need to reduce the use of high-emission vehicles”.

3.4 The NPPF does not set out minimum requirements for disabled parking, electric vehicles,

powered two wheelers or cycle parking, though all are encouraged.

3.5 With regards to the provision of parking for those with disabilities, Inclusive Mobility (2005)

provides more specific guidance on recommended levels as follows:

Car parks provided for public use by local authorities and private companies:

5%;

Car parks associated with existing employment premises: 2%;

Car parks associated with new employment premises: 5% (to accommodate

both employees and visitors);

Car parks associated with shopping, leisure or recreational facilities or open to

the general public: A minimum of one space per employee who is a disabled

motorist plus 6% of the total capacity for visitors;


Where the provision of disabled parking spaces close to the building is not

possible, a setting down point for disabled passengers should be provided.

3.6 The more recent BS 8300:2009 has similar standards though also recommends the

provision of enlarged spaces (5% for employment use and 4% for shopping and leisure)

which are capable of being converted to a designated disabled space if warranted by

future demand.

Relevant Local Planning Policy

3.7 Milton Keynes is a unitary authority and therefore acts as the planning and highways

authority on the majority of planning applications within the borough. It is located within

the geographic county of Buckinghamshire, though Buckinghamshire County Council

does not have its own parking standards which are instead published by the local

planning authorities.

3.8 The Milton Keynes Core Strategy was adopted by the Council in July 2013. Policy CS11

makes reference (p.76) to the priority transport schemes outlined in the third Local

Transport Plan (LTP3) which include the development of “appropriate parking standards

for new developments and in regeneration areas”.

3.9 In relation to residents parking, Policy CS10 of the Core Strategy (p.70) states that “to

reduce on-street parking, encourage residents to leave their car at home and enhance

their appearance, new neighbourhoods should provide sufficient parking spaces for the

projected car ownership levels for the type of dwellings (plus spaces for visitors)”.

3.10 Detailed parking policy for the borough is currently provided by saved Local Plan Policy

T15 of the Local Plan (2005, saved 2008), with this referring to the standards set out in the

Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on parking published in January 2005. An

addendum was subsequently adopted in April 2009 which set out revised residential

parking standards and new standards for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). An

assessment of the conformity of saved Local Plan policies with the NPPF was undertaken

in February 2014 and found that Policy T15 was compliant and as such these standards

will continue to be applied until the adoption of revised standards.

3.11 Policy T15 will be replaced by Plan:MK when the latter is adopted, a process informed by

the current review. Plan:MK is currently in development and will provide an early review

of the Core Strategy and include more detailed policies on a number of issues,

including parking. This is currently scheduled for adoption in 2015.

3.12 A summary of car parking standards contained with the Local Plan is provided in

Appendix B of this document whilst the current cycle parking standards are provided in

Appendix C. The existing standards adopt a zone-based approach whereby the

maximum car parking level varies geographically according to the characteristics of the

borough. The zones were last reviewed in 2009 and comprise the following:


Zone 1 (lowest provision)- Central Milton Keynes;

Zone 2 - New district centres (e.g. Westcroft) and older district centres (e.g.

Bletchley), defined as the area within 800m walking distance of retail centres;

Zone 3 - Remaining Milton Keynes city area and rural towns such as Newport

Pagnell;

Zone 4 (highest provision) - The remaining rural part of the borough not covered

by the above zones.

3.13 The existing parking standards cover the majority of land uses and consider parking for

powered two wheelers and those with disabilities as well as standard car parking,

although there is not currently a requirement for electric vehicle parking. In respect of

the latter, the Council is engaged in the Plugged in Places initiative which aims to

increase the uptake of electric vehicles by providing funding for public charging points

as well as an opportunity for businesses and residents to apply for funding to install

charging points. Support for electric vehicle parking spaces would also be consistent

with the “Spatial Vision: Milton Keynes in 2026” outlined on page 15 of the Core Strategy

and Policy CS11.

The Third Local Transport Plan

3.14 Parking standards have a role to play in the achievement of objectives set out within

Milton Keynes Council’s Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) covering the period from 2011 to

2031. It is therefore recommended that this be reflected in the development of revised

parking standards.

3.15 With regards to LTP3, the performance indicators and targets (LTP3 pages 103-109) likely

to be affected by the review and implementation of revised parking standards include

the following:

LTP3- Cycling Trips- 568% increase in bikes parked in CMK at 10:00am on a

weekday by 2031;

LTP4- Car journeys to school- Excluding car share, percentage of journeys by car

to reduce from 29% to 20% by 2031;

LTP7- Congestion- limit increase in current levels of morning peak congestion to

15 seconds by 2031.

3.16 For Milton Keynes to achieve the vision set out in the LTP3 (page 25) to “have the most

sustainable transport system in the country” by 2031, there is an implied need for parking

restraint where appropriate at new developments. As referred to above in respect of the

Core Strategy, the LTP3 (page 75) delivery plan does however state the following with

regards to the preparation of new parking standards (DP04):


“As the levels of employment, retail and other commercial land uses increases in Central

Milton Keynes, it is important that the level of parking increases commensurately. This will

require more multi-storey car parking (and possibly underground parking) to help maintain

Central Milton Keynes role as a sub-regional centre.

New parking standards will apply to the total numbers of parking spaces and to their

distribution and layout across the borough. In particular it will be essential to ensure that the

appropriate numbers of parking spaces for all user groups are provided and that these spaces

are properly distributed to serve new developments and minimise impact on the transport

network”.

3.17 It is also noted that the following interventions (page 17) were among those not included

in the LTP3 following consultation on an initial draft:

“More stringent demand management interventions in addition to those described in the Core

Strategy in the short term (e.g. road user charging, reductions in CMK parking stock, lower

maximum parking standards in residential areas)”.

Summary

3.18 This chapter has considered the national and local policy context. The following chapter

reviews the existing standards of a number of other selected authorities and compares

the approach taken to Milton Keynes Council’s existing (2005, 2009) parking standards.


4. LOCAL AUTHORITY COMPARISON

Introduction

4.1 All towns and cities have specific characteristics which make the application of universal

parking standards inappropriate. It is however, productive to consider the approaches of

local planning authorities with similar characteristics to Milton Keynes by means of an

initial benchmarking exercise. This ensures that the review is wide ranging whilst

continuing to take account of local characteristics and the views of stakeholders where

appropriate.

4.2 Appendix B provides a summary of the car parking standards associated with each

authority whilst Appendix C provides a summary of cycle parking standards.

Authorities Referenced

4.3 The parking standards of a number of local authorities have been referenced with the

following having characteristics that can be considered similar to Milton Keynes:

Crawley Borough Council;

Harlow Council;

Stevenage Borough Council;

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council1.

4.4 As shown in Appendix B, based on the 2011 Census, all the above boroughs have very

similar car ownership levels at between 1.15 and 1.32 cars per household which is

comparable to Milton Keynes’ level of 1.3.

4.5 The following authorities have also been selected as comparison cases given their

proximity to Milton Keynes and comparison against criteria not necessarily covered in

the above such as electric vehicle charging points (London) or more rural areas (South

Buckinghamshire).

London;

Oxford City Council;

Reading Borough Council;

South Buckinghamshire District Council.

1 Stevenage Borough Council and Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council have similar standards for many uses with both adapting guidance issued by Hertfordshire County Council to their local circumstances.


4.6 Average car ownership levels are generally lower than Milton Keynes with the exception

being South Buckinghamshire which has much higher car ownership (1.68 cars per

household), although this is comparable to levels for the more rural parts of the borough

shown in Table 2.1.

4.7 It is noted that many of the selected local authorities’ standards were adopted prior to

the publication of the NPPF or 2011 amendment to PPG13 and therefore at a time when

maximum levels of parking were mandatory. Several of the authorities are also in the

process of developing new or updated Local Plans which, in many cases will eventually

be accompanied by updated parking standards. As such, it is recommended that the

current adopted policies cited in Appendix B be used for reference purposes only and

not used as the only source in the development of revised standards for Milton Keynes

as is consistent with the methodology being adopted by Project Centre.

Approach

4.8 The authorities considered take a varied approach with some such as Harlow (Essex

County Council) providing a standard for the vast majority of uses accompanied by

guidance notes for each use on how the standard will be implemented. Others such as

Crawley and London provide less detailed guidance and place the emphasis on the

most common land uses.

4.9 Several authorities such as Essex County Council, Reading Borough Council and Oxford

City Council provide detailed guidance on parking layout and specification alongside

the parking standards helping to ensure that relevant policies are not overlooked as a

result of the need to refer to separate guidance published by the authority.

4.10 The majority of authorities set standards which ensure that parking provision takes

account of the characteristics of the location of the development site. As with Milton

Keynes, authorities such as Stevenage, Welwyn Hatfield and Reading take a map-based

zonal approach where the standards vary for each zone. Reading Borough Council

adopts the same approach as Milton Keynes Council’s current standards by providing a

number for each use for each zone. Others such as Stevenage adopt a less nuanced

approach by applying a percentage reduction to the maximum applied to the least

accessible parts of the borough.

4.11 Continuing with the current zone-based approach would therefore be consistent with the

approach of other local authorities.

Residential Car Parking Standards

4.12 As with Milton Keynes, Harlow, Reading, Stevenage and South Buckinghamshire apply

minimum parking standards for residential uses. Allowances are made however in the

majority of these standards, albeit to varying degrees, for a more relaxed approach

which allows low car or car free development to be permitted in appropriate locations.

The standards which focus on maximum allocations for residential uses such as Crawley


and Welwyn Hatfield are generally written at a time when there was a greater emphasis

on maximum standards within national policy (see previous chapter).

4.13 The above would support the evidence for continuing to apply a minimum parking

standard for residential uses within Milton Keynes. The NPPF does however allow for

maximum standards to be applied where justified and it would be appropriate for a

relaxation of minimum standards where geography and public transport accessibility

allow.

4.14 Of the local authorities considered, only Milton Keynes Council specifically excludes

garages from calculations of residential car parking. Four do not specify; however, the

remaining authorities, including Harlow and Stevenage take the approach of setting a

minimum size to allow for access together with bicycle and general storage space.

Were there a desire for the approach in Milton Keynes to reflect the approach of other

authorities, this would suggest that there is scope for relaxing the current stance in

respect of garages.

Non-Residential Car Parking Standards

4.15 Of the authorities considered, only South Buckinghamshire has a set minimum level of

parking for non-residential uses. Lower levels may however be permissible in town and

village centres, for example where off-street parking is available. All the other authorities,

including those considered most comparable to Milton Keynes adopt maximum

standards for non-residential uses.

4.16 On this basis, there would therefore be external precedents for continuing Milton Keynes

Council’s current approach of restricting parking at the destination as opposed to origin.

As previously mentioned, this would accommodate high car ownership but discourage

use of the car for local journeys where alternative means of transport are available.

4.17 The format of the standard for non-residential uses varies for each authority with some

basing the calculation on floor area alone and others taking account of employee

numbers. In order to provide a more direct comparison with the new town authorities,

Figures 4.1 and 4.2 provide a summary of the maximum car parking requirement for the

following hypothetical developments at central and outer locations respectively.

Residential: 10 one bedroom flats and 20 three bedroom houses:

Food retail: 2,500 sqm supermarket with 147 full time equivalent (FTE)

employees2;

Non-food retail 2: 750 sqm unit with 39 FTE employees3;

2 Based on Employment Densities Guide 2nd Edition, Drivers Jonas Deloitte for the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) (2010) rate for A1 food superstore of one FTE per 17 sqm 3 HCA rate for A1 retail (High Street) of one FTE per 19 sqm


A3: 300 sqm cafe/ restaurant with 17 FTE employees4;

Office: 2,000 sqm and 166 FTE employees5;

Primary School: 360 pupils and 40 staff.

Figure 4.1: Comparison of Maximum Car Parking Standards- Central Locations

Figure 4.2: Comparison of Maximum Car Parking Standards- Outer Locations

4 HCA rate for A3 restaurant and cafe of one FTE per 18 sqm 5 HCA rate for B1(a) general office of one FTE per 12 sqm

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

School

Office

Cafe

Non-Food Retail

Food Retail

Maximum Number of Spaces

De

ve

lop

me

nt S

ce

na

rio

Welwyn Hatfield Central

Stevenage Central

Harlow Central

Crawley Central

Milton Keynes Central

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

School

Office

Cafe

Non-Food Retail

Food Retail

Maximum Number of Spaces

Dev

elo

pm

ent Sc

en

ario

Welwyn Hatfield Outer

Stevenage Outer

Harlow Outer

Crawley Outer

Milton Keynes Outer


4.18 The comparison shows that Milton Keynes’ standard equates to very similar numbers of

parking spaces as many of the other authorities for office and retail uses in outer

locations whilst the standards for central locations is on the mid-range of the spectrum.

The standard for A3 uses is the lowest of all authorities in both central and outer

locations. For the selected uses, the only scenario where the maximum permitted level

of parking exceeds that of all the other authorities considered is for a primary school in a

central location.

Parking for Disabled Users

4.19 All the standards which have been considered generally set a similar minimum level of

provision for disabled users which is consistent with the national guidance outlined in the

previous chapter. Milton Keynes Council may wish to give greater consideration within

the standards to ensuring that a greater proportion of car parking is disabled compliant

at sites where there is likely to be greater demand (e.g. wheelchair accessible residential

units).

Cycle Parking

4.20 Milton Keynes Council’s current minimum standard for cycle parking at residential uses is

largely consistent with comparable authorities such as Harlow, Stevenage and Welwyn

Hatfield. The provision for larger dwellings of one per unit can however be considered to

be relatively low with the majority of other authorities requiring a minimum of at least two

spaces. Whilst the standards for London, Reading and Oxford could arguably reflect a

greater potential for cycling in these areas, the standard for Milton Keynes is still lower

than that of Crawley Borough Council for example. In addition, the suburbs of London,

Reading and Oxford where the standard continues to apply could be considered to

have characteristics more in common with Milton Keynes.

4.21 The standard for non-residential uses are generally similar to Crawley, Harlow, Stevenage

and Welwyn Hatfield, though each of these authorities provide a separate standard by

floor area and staff. Therefore, as with the car parking standards discussed above, Figure

4.3 provides a summary of the minimum cycle parking requirement for the hypothetical

development proposals.

4.22 The comparison indicates that for the majority of uses, Milton Keynes has a similar cycle

parking standard to several of the other authorities with Crawley having the largest

minimum standard of all authorities for retail and A3 uses by some margin. Milton Keynes

falls below the standard set by other authorities for office uses which, whilst consideration

would need to be given to actual and potential cycling levels, suggests that there is

scope for a more ambitious standard for this use. In contrast, for the primary school use,

Milton Keynes has a considerably higher standard than most other authorities with the

exception of Harlow Council. This is partly owing to the fact that the current Milton Keynes

standards do not distinguish between primary and secondary schools. Unless there is


particular evidence for local cycling rates to primary schools that supports the current

standard, there does appear to be an argument for relaxing the current standard for

younger pupils. This would potentially provide greater opportunity to support sustainable

travel in the longer term with commitments instead being sought for other, potentially

more productive, school travel initiatives. This could include for example scooter storage

in infant schools.

Figure 4.3: Comparison of Minimum Cycle Parking Standards

Parking for Powered Two Wheelers

4.23 Most of the authorities considered stipulate that parking for powered two wheelers is

provided as a minimum proportion of vehicle parking. The majority provide variation by

use and the size of the development and base this on either a local target for the use of

powered two wheelers or on national estimates of ownership.

Summary

4.24 This section has compared the car and cycle parking standards of a number of

authorities with varying degrees of similarity to Milton Keynes. A number of observations

have been made in areas where the borough’s standards differ from the other

authorities which will be considered in the development of revised standards.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

School

Office

Cafe

Non-Food Retail

Food Retail

Residential

Minimum Number of Spaces

De

ve

lop

me

nt S

ce

na

rio

Welwyn Hatfield

Stevenage

Harlow

Crawley

Milton Keynes


5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 This document has reviewed relevant local data such as that on car ownership and use

together with national and local policy as well as that of other local authorities. The key

findings of this review and main recommendations are as follows:

National policy through the NPPF allows greater scope to move away from

maximum parking standards where this is deemed appropriate. Maximum

parking standards can however be set where justified and the Council deems

appropriate;

There is a need for the parking standards to reflect the ambitious vision set out

within Milton Keynes Council’s LTP3 whilst respecting the associated consultation

response with regards to the implementation of more stringent demand

management interventions;

Local car ownership is forecast to increase, supporting an argument for

adequate parking provision in residential areas with the potential use of parking

restraint at destinations together with a package of travel plan measures to

reduce levels of everyday car use where alternatives are available. The latter is

comparable to other authorities with the majority of those considered setting

maximum standards for all non-residential uses;

However, trends in car ownership and use for the central parts of the borough in

particular suggest that parking restraint for residential developments in these

areas may be appropriate;

In contrast, higher car parking standards are likely to be required in outlying

areas, particularly those where public transport accessibility has been shown to

be low. This supports the continuation of a zone-based approach in Milton

Keynes which is also consistent with that of comparable local authorities;

Recent surveys undertaken by Milton Keynes Council suggest that garage

parking in the borough is underutilised and as such the inclusion of garages in

calculations of parking provision should be carefully considered. However, Milton

Keynes Council’s current policy of excluding all garage parking is not in keeping

with other authorities with several instead adopting a size threshold;

Existing requirements for disabled parking are generally considered compliant

with national guidance and the other authorities considered. There may

however be more scope for Milton Keynes to allow for the needs of additional

disabled users where appropriate, such as a development with a high number

of wheelchair accessible units;


An extension to Milton Keynes minimum cycle parking standards for residential

units of more than one bedroom would be justified when comparing the existing

standard to other authorities. Whilst the existing standards are consistent with

other authorities for the majority of land uses, there may also be a need to

consider the minimums for the office (relatively low) and primary school

(relatively high) uses;

5.2 The above will be considered alongside the results of the initial consultation exercise

which are presented within the accompanying Consultation Report. Both documents will

inform the production of draft revised parking standards for Milton Keynes which will then

be taken forward for wider consultation.


6. REFERENCES

Crawley Borough Council (2008) Planning Obligations and S106 Agreements SPD

http://www.crawley.gov.uk/pw/web/int150419

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2012) National

Planning Policy Framework

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2

Homes and Communities Agency/ Drivers Jonas Deloitte (2010) Employment

Densities Guide 2nd Edition

https://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/employment-densities-guide-2nd-ed

Essex County Council (2009) Parking Standards Design and Good Practice

http://www.essex.gov.uk/Environment%20Planning/Planning/Transport-

planning/Infomation-for-developers/Documents/Parking_Standards_2009.pdf

Greater London Authority (GLA) (2011) London Plan Revised Early Minor Alterations

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/REMA%2011%20October%202013_0.pd

f

Greater London Authority (GLA) (2011) London Plan (Chapter 6- London’s Transport)

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LP2011%20Chapter%206.pdf

Harlow Council (2011) Design Guide SPD

http://www.harlow.gov.uk/sites/harlow.gov.uk/files/documents/files/Harlow%20Design

%20Guide%20SPD_Adopted_HiRes%2022.03.11_Part1.pdf

Harlow Council (2006) Adopted Replacement Local Plan

http://www.harlow.gov.uk/arhlp

Milton Keynes Council (2012) New Residential Development Design Guide SPD

http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-applications-

appeals-and-advice/new-residential-development-design-guide-supplementary-

planning-guidance-spd-adopted-april-2012

Milton Keynes Council (2011) A Transport Vision and Strategy for Milton Keynes Milton

Keynes Local Transport Plan 3- 2011 to 2031

http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/streets-transport-and-parking/transport-roads-and-

travel/local-transport-plan-3

http://www.crawley.gov.uk/pw/web/int150419

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2

https://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/employment-densities-guide-2nd-ed

http://www.essex.gov.uk/Environment%20Planning/Planning/Transport-planning/Infomation-for-developers/Documents/Parking_Standards_2009.pdf

http://www.essex.gov.uk/Environment%20Planning/Planning/Transport-planning/Infomation-for-developers/Documents/Parking_Standards_2009.pdf

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/REMA%2011%20October%202013_0.pdf

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/REMA%2011%20October%202013_0.pdf

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LP2011%20Chapter%206.pdf

http://www.harlow.gov.uk/sites/harlow.gov.uk/files/documents/files/Harlow%20Design%20Guide%20SPD_Adopted_HiRes%2022.03.11_Part1.pdf

http://www.harlow.gov.uk/sites/harlow.gov.uk/files/documents/files/Harlow%20Design%20Guide%20SPD_Adopted_HiRes%2022.03.11_Part1.pdf

http://www.harlow.gov.uk/arhlp

http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-applications-appeals-and-advice/new-residential-development-design-guide-supplementary-planning-guidance-spd-adopted-april-2012



http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/streets-transport-and-parking/transport-roads-and-travel/local-transport-plan-3

http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/streets-transport-and-parking/transport-roads-and-travel/local-transport-plan-3


Milton Keynes Council (2011) Milton Keynes Core Strategy (Milton Keynes Council,

2013)

http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy/adopted-

core-strategy

Milton Keynes Council (2005) Milton Keynes Local Plan

http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy/adopted-

local-plan-pdf

Milton Keynes Council (2005, 2009) Milton Keynes Parking Standards

http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/streets-transport-and-parking/parking/parking-

standards

Reading Borough Council (2011) Parking Standards and Design SPD

http://www.reading.gov.uk/businesses/Planning/planning-policy/supplementary-

planning-documents-topics/parking-standards-design-supplementary-plannin/

Oxford City Council (2007) Parking Standards, Transport Assessments and Travel Plans

SPD

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/Direct/61407AdoptedParkingStandardsSPD.pdf

South Buckinghamshire District Council (2011) South Buckinghamshire District Local

Plan

http://www.southbucks.gov.uk/article/3696/South-Bucks-District-Local-Plan-adopted-

1999

Stevenage Borough Council (2012) Parking Provision SPD

http://www.stevenage.gov.uk/content/15953/26379/26422/Parking-Provision-SPD-

FINAL.pdf

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (2004) Welwyn Hatfield District Plan Review Parking

Standards SPD

http://www.welhat.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1075&p=0

http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy/adopted-core-strategy

http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy/adopted-core-strategy

http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy/adopted-local-plan-pdf

http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy/adopted-local-plan-pdf

http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/streets-transport-and-parking/parking/parking-standards

http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/streets-transport-and-parking/parking/parking-standards

http://www.reading.gov.uk/businesses/Planning/planning-policy/supplementary-planning-documents-topics/parking-standards-design-supplementary-plannin/

http://www.reading.gov.uk/businesses/Planning/planning-policy/supplementary-planning-documents-topics/parking-standards-design-supplementary-plannin/

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/Direct/61407AdoptedParkingStandardsSPD.pdf

http://www.southbucks.gov.uk/article/3696/South-Bucks-District-Local-Plan-adopted-1999

http://www.southbucks.gov.uk/article/3696/South-Bucks-District-Local-Plan-adopted-1999

http://www.stevenage.gov.uk/content/15953/26379/26422/Parking-Provision-SPD-FINAL.pdf

http://www.stevenage.gov.uk/content/15953/26379/26422/Parking-Provision-SPD-FINAL.pdf

http://www.welhat.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1075&p=0


Quality

It is the policy of Project Centre to supply Services that meet or exceed our clients’ expectations of

Quality and Service. To this end, the Company's Quality Management System (QMS) has been

structured to encompass all aspects of the Company's activities including such areas as Sales,

Design and Client Service.

By adopting our QMS on all aspects of the Company, Project Centre aims to achieve the following

objectives:

Ensure a clear understanding of customer requirements;

Ensure projects are completed to programme and within budget;

Improve productivity by having consistent procedures;

Increase flexibility of staff and systems through the adoption of a common approach to

staff appraisal and training;

Continually improve the standard of service we provide internally and externally;

Achieve continuous and appropriate improvement in all aspects of the company;

Our Quality Management Manual is supported by detailed operational documentation. These relate

to codes of practice, technical specifications, work instructions, Key Performance Indicators, and

other relevant documentation to form a working set of documents governing the required work

practices throughout the Company.

All employees are trained to understand and discharge their individual responsibilities to ensure the

effective operation of the Quality Management System.

© Project Centre 2014 Background Evidence A

APPENDIX A - PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY

© Project Centre 2014 Background Evidence B

APPENDIX B - OVERVIEW OF CAR PARKING STANDARDS

© Project Centre 2014 Background Evidence C

APPENDIX C - OVERVIEW OF CYCLE PARKING STANDARDS

© Project Centre 2014 Background Evidence D