SPG ‘access and parking’ - Blackpool · This SPG is intended to inform District Local Plan/Local Development Framework (LDF) production, the operation of the Development Control

joint lancashire structure plan

and parking’SPG ‘access

ADOPTED MARCH 2005

This document has been prepared by the Joint Authorities of Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council,Blackpool Borough Council and Lancashire County Council.

© The Joint Advisory Committee for Strategic PlanningLancashire County Council,Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council,Blackpool Borough Council

ISBN 1 899907 64 5

Copies of this document are available from:Adrian Smith, Lancashire County Council, Environment Directorate,PO Box 9, Guild House, Cross Street. PRESTON. PR1 [email protected]: 01772-534160 Fax: 01772-530641

www.lancashire2016.com

March 2005

Text is available in large format on request

ww

w.lan

cashire2016.co

m



contentsPage

Introduction 1

How the parking standards work - a guide 2

Additional Policy Guidance 9

Methodology 13

Completion of Accessibility Questionnaires andSimple Transport Assessments 25

Definitions 28

Appendix 30

Bibliography 34

list of tablesTable A - Transport Assessment Characteristics 4

Table B - Key Features of Travel Plans 5

Worked Examples - 1 7

- 2 7

- 3 7

- 4 8

Table C - Parking Framework 15

Table D - Application of Standards by Level of Centre 17

Table E - Accessibility Reductions 20

Table F - Accessibility Questionnaire 21

Table G - Accessibility Questionnaire (Residential) 24

diagramDiagram 1 2

i

contents


ii

1

introductionintroduction

Planning Policy Statement 12 ‘LocalDevelopment Frameworks’ describesSupplementary Planning Documents (SPD)as a means of setting out more detailedguidance on the way policies in theDevelopment Plan will be applied inparticular circumstances or areas.Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)prepared as part of the Joint LancashireStructure Plan has the status of ‘saved’documents under the 2004 Planning &Compulsory Purchase Act. This SPGsupplements Policy 7 in the Joint LancashireStructure Plan 2001-2016 and is consistentwith national and regional planning policy. Itshould be read in conjunction to theTechnical Appendix “Parking Standards”. Itis not the role of SPG to set out criteria fordecisions on planning applications thatshould properly be included in the planpolicies themselves. Whilst it does not formpart of the plan, SPG may be taken intoaccount as a material consideration indeciding planning applications.

This SPG is intended to inform District LocalPlan/Local Development Framework (LDF)production, the operation of theDevelopment Control process, as well asdevelopers and land use managers aboutthe general principles of access and parkingissues and how these are consideredthrough the planning process.

Main Aims of the SupplementaryPlanning Guidance

• To provide guidance on the application ofthe parking standards.

• To provide additional advice on parkingpolicy and layout.

• To outline the methodology underlyingparking policy in the Joint LancashireStructure Plan.

These aims combine to reflect the main goalof the “Parking Standards” and thisdocument:

• To maximise efficient use of land byencouraging high levels of utilisation ofcar parking.

A computerised spreadsheet has beenproduced in conjunction with this documentto facilitate calculation of standards forindividual development. A link to this can befound on the Joint Lancashire Structure Planwebsite www.lancashire2016.com.


2

Diagram 1

how the parking standardswork: a guide

Does proposal involvedevelopment land of under

500m2?Yes

No

Development of over 500m2

Identify accessibility reduction shown by completed Accessibility Questionnaire

Select relevant standard

Calculate mobility impaired, motorcycle and bicycle spaces

TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED

Use baseline standard for Use Classfor appropriate level of Centre

Ask developer to completeAccessibility Questionnaire (Table F)

and check Table E of “ParkingStandards” for requirements for

Transport Assessment and TravelPlan

3

how the parking standards w

ork

1.1Diagram 1 of this document indicates theprocess that should be followed in assessingan application for new development. Thefollowing paragraphs amplify the process:

Baseline Standard

1.2For all uses a specific maximum standard isspecified in the Technical Appendix “ParkingStandards”. This is the “base” standard forthat use and indicates the maximum level ofparking that would be allowed. It applies forall developments of under 500m2 or wherea use is defined as having lowaccessibility.

Accessibility Levels

1.3Developers should be requested tosubmit Accessibility Forms (Table F) forall applications of over 500m2 gfa. Thisshould apply to new buildings or where anexisting structure is to be extended by atleast 500m2 gfa. Local Authorities can tailorthis form to their own circumstancesprovided that it broadly reflects the approachin Table F. Where a site is shown to havemedium or high accessibility the maximumlevel of parking allowed should be reduced.

1.4Where a use has medium or highaccessibility the standard should be selectedfrom within the relevant range identified. Thespecific standard determined by the LocalPlanning Authority should take into accountthe following factors:

• Accessibility Table score;

• accessibility issues revealed in theTransport Assessment;

• the overall parking framework for thesettlement;

• the economic strength of the centre.

1.5The reduction in car parking allowed on siteshould be calculated on the basis of the levelof accessibility before any walking, cyclingand public transport improvements aremade. This is to avoid developers beingpenalised for improving public transport.

1.6For residential developments the ResidentialAccessibility Questionnaire should be used(Table G). This document is advisory. It isintended to indicate where opportunities toreduce parking and/or improve accessibilityexist. Local Authorities and Developers mayalso find completion of the Questionnairevaluable in analysing the accessibility ofresidential development proposed in LocalPlans.

Transport Assessments and Travel Plans

1.7A simple Transport Assessment should berequested for all developments of over500m2 gfa with a full assessment for allapplications above the thresholds given inTable E of the “Parking Standards”. TravelPlans will also be required where thethreshold levels exceed those in Table E. Acopy of the Simple Transport AssessmentForm is included as an Appendix to thisdocument.

1.8Transport Assessments and Travel Planshave a significant link with the levels ofparking to be provided on a development.Together with the Accessibility Questionnairethey enable a picture to be built up of howeasy the site is to reach by alternatives tothe car. This in turn should inform decision-making on the level of parking required andits management. The latter is particularlyimportant in and around town centres.Improvements required to walking, cyclingand public transport within and beyond thesite should be identified. An importantobjective of the planning system is to


4

improve accessibility for all and reduce socialexclusion. Thus, while opportunities toreduce car parking on “low accessibility”sites may be limited, developers should berequired to improve non-car accessibility,wherever possible, to at least “mediumaccessibility” level. Equally, requirements forpublic transport improvements on sites withexisting “high accessibility” will on mostoccasions be less.

1.9Transport Assessments should provideinformation and proposals for enhancementsthat are specific to the application site and itssurroundings. The content should reflectTable A below.

Table A - Transport Assessmentcharacteristics

Development proposal

Description of land-use proposals.

Baseline Data

Audit of existing access to the site by all modes, identifying any current problems/barriers.

Transport characteristics of scheme

• Movements expected to be generated by site, including likely origins (destinations forresidential).

• Identification of times of peak demand.• Any special transport characteristics of the development.• Relationship to Structure Plan, Local Transport Plan and Local Plan/LDF proposals

affecting site.

Modal share

• Expected modal share of walking, cycling, public transport and car including justification.• Options for sustainable distribution, including use of rail or water.

Mechanisms for achieving modal share

• Identification of infrastructure improvements required for walking, cycling and publictransport as a priority.

• Justification of any Highways improvements.• Parking controls and management.

Implementation and monitoring

• Use of planning conditions.• Use of planning obligations for public transport services and parking management.• Mechanisms for enforcing modal targets.

5


ork

1.10Travel Plans are documents designed withinindividual or groups of organisations toreduce the impacts of car travel. It may notbe possible to produce detailed Travel Plansfor speculative developments where staffdetails are not known. In suchcircumstances a preliminary documentshould be produced indicating a frameworkof the measures to be pursued and the

targeted reduction in car journeys to the site.This should be used as a framework forpreparation of a detailed Travel Plan within 2years of commencement of development.All Travel Plans should have clear targets, beenforceable and reflect the contents of TableB. Advice on preparing Plans can beobtained from the Travel Plan Officer at therelevant Highway Authority.

Table B - Key Features of Travel Plans Content of Plans

• Collection of accurate baseline data on travel origins and behaviour.• Identification of measures supported by staff that will enhance accessibility by non-car

modes.• Set short and medium term targets for different modes.• Plans should be monitored at least on an annual basis and reviewed every three years.• Identification of enforcement measures if targets not met.

Examples of measures within Travel Plans

• Travel Plan Co-ordinator.• Car sharing register and priority parking spaces for car sharers.• Bike sheds.• Public transport enhancements.

Subsidised public transport passes

• All targets for parking reductions should be clearly quantified and related to specific timeperiods.

Retail, office, leisure and lightindustrial uses

1.11Retail, leisure, office and light industrial usesare identified as land uses that are key to thevitality of town centres in PPG6. Two levelsof standard are provided, reflecting theeconomic strength and accessibility of thecentres in which these uses are located.Level 1 & 2 settlements and Level 3 & 4settlements (see Table D for levelsapplicable to individual towns) are combinedtogether for the purposes of identifyingparking levels on new development. Level 1

and 2 centres broadly reflect those identifiedin Regional Spatial Strategy parkingstandards as “Urban conurbations” whereslightly higher standards apply.

1.12Local Authorities should consider whether alldevelopment in or at the edge of towncentres should be classified as ‘high’accessibility when making developmentcontrol decisions or revising their LocalPlan/LDF. Retail and leisure uses in and onthe edge of town centres as defined byPPG6 may be allowed, at the discretion ofthe local planning authority, to provide


6

parking at baseline levels for that centre withno accessibility reductions applied. It will notbe applicable to sites outside theselocations. Additional parking above this willonly be allowed if it can be demonstratedthat there is an existing shortage of shortstay parking in the town centre andadditional provision is compatible with theparking strategy. Control over the creationand use of large amounts of additional towncentre parking is particularly important tooverall parking strategies. Planningobligations or conditions should be used toensure, in particular, that new Private Non-Residential parking complements existingcharging and limited waiting policy.

1.13For smaller towns in italics, listed in Table Dthe parking standard for the higher level ofcentre applies (e.g. parking for developmentat Bamber Bridge would be calculated on thebasis of Level 1 because of its proximity toPreston). This reflects the relationship ofthese towns to neighbouring largesettlements in Policy 2 of the JointLancashire Structure Plan. The onlyexception to this would be for developmentsunder 1,000m2 gross floor area, which shouldbe considered at the parking level applicableto a Level 4 centre. This is intended tosupport these smaller towns while at thesame time avoiding a situation wheredevelopment more suitable to the principalsettlement is attracted here because of moregenerous parking.

Mobility impaired, cycle andmotorcycle parking

1.14Mobility Impaired parking should be providedas 10% of the total of all parking on site. Itis not calculated in addition to it. This figurereflects the current level of disabled driversin the County. Parent and child parking isincorporated within this standard. Where itcan be clearly demonstrated that 10% is too

high for an individual site a lower figure maybe provided, provided that local disabilitygroups are consulted.

1.15Motorcycle parking, including infrastructurefor locking machines to, should be providedat a level of 1:25 car spaces in addition tocar parking.

1.16Cycle parking should be provided as 10% ofthe baseline figure used for the specified useand be in addition to car parking. Short-stayparking, defined as four hours or lessduration, may be of “Sheffield stand” varietybut should be under cover. Long-stay cycleparking, defined as over 4 hours, should belocated in a secure shed or locker. Alldevelopments including 30 or more carparking spaces for staff should providecovered cycle parking. For developmentswhich serve the public, such as foodstoresand leisure uses, local planning authoritiesshould exercise their discretion to determinehow the total number of cycle spaces shouldbe split between staff and customers.

Worked Examples

1.17The final parking figure for the developmentis a sequential process based on the sum ofthe following:

Step 1:Baseline figure for the use and location.

Step 2:Make reductions to parking in locationswith medium or good existing publictransport.

Step 3:Calculate the total amount of car parkingallowed on site after taking into accountSteps 1 and 2. Identify the number ofdisabled, motorcycle and bicycle spacescalculated on the final parking figure forthe site.

7


ork

Example 1: Conference centre of 2,250m2

gross floor area with medium accessibility

Step 1: Baseline = 1:35.Step 2: Accessibility level = Medium

Reduce parking by 5-15% (1:37-1:41) 10% selected.2,250÷1:39 = 58 spaces

Step 3: Mobility impaired spaces = 10% ofall car spaces = 6Motorcycle spaces = 4% based oncar parking total = 2Bicycle spaces = 10% based on carparking total = 6 (% of these to belong stay for staff)

Total Parking = 52 car spaces, 6 mobilityimpaired, 2 motorcycle spaces and 6bicycle spaces.

Example 2: A1 retail in level 3 town centreof 5,500m2 gross floor area

No accessibility reduction applied.

Step 1: Baseline for Level 3 = 1:14 Step 2: No accessibility reduction (para 1.12)

5,500÷1:14 = 393 spacesStep 3: Mobility impaired spaces -10% of all

car spaces = 39Motorcycle spaces - 4% based oncar parking total = 15Bicycle spaces -10% based on carparking total = 39 (% of these to belong stay for staff)

Total Parking = 354 car spaces, 39mobility impaired, 15 motorcycle spacesand 39 bicycle spaces.

Example 3: 1,500m2 B2 unit in mediumaccessibility location

Step 1: Baseline 1:45Step 2: Accessibility level = Medium

Reduce parking by 5-15%(1:48-1:53) 5% selected1,500÷1:48 = 31 spaces

Step 3: Mobility impaired spaces = 10% ofall car spaces = 3 Motorcyclespaces = 4% based on car parkingtotal = 1 spaceBicycle spaces = 10% based on carparking total = 3 spaces (long stay)

Total = 28 normal spaces; 3 mobilityimpaired; 1 motorbike and 3 long staybicycle spaces.

1.18The final step of calculating the total amount ofparking should also take into account theopportunities for shared parking where there ismore than one land use on the site. Wherepeak parking demand for the uses on the siteoccurs at different times of the day thedominant land use with respect to gross floorarea (gfa) will form the basis of the calculationof spaces needed. In situations where bothuses have the same peaks of demand the totalfor the individual uses should be calculated andthe totals combined. Any opportunities forreductions should be assessed from this figureon a site-by-site basis.


8

Example 4: Shared parking on mixed usesite with different peaks of use: level 2 edgeof centre location

No accessibility reductions applied.

Step 1: Baseline1,500 seat cinema = 1 per 8 seats =188 spaces (Dominant Use)120m2 pub = 1:8 = 15 spaces949m2 A1 Non-Food retail = 1:22 =43 spaces

Step 2: No accessibility reductionStep 3: Mobility impaired spaces = 10% of

all car spaces = 19Motorcycle spaces = 4% based oncar parking total = 7 spacesBicycle spaces =10% based on carparking total = 19 spaces (% longstay for staff)

Total = 169 normal spaces based ondominant use, plus 19 mobility impaired;plus 7 motorcycle spaces and 19 bicyclespaces.

Planning Obligations

1.19The approach to planning obligations reflectscurrent good practice. Further GovernmentGuidance is due to be published both onplanning obligations and the accessibility ofnew developments. The advice that followsshould be read in conjunction with thesedocuments.

1.20Planning Obligations should be utilised toensure that walking, cycling and publictransport enhancements are implementedand parking effectively managed. LocalPlanning Authorities should set out theapproach to be taken to transport relatedplanning obligations in their Local Plan/LDF.

1.21The following factors in particular should betaken into account in determining the level oftransport contributions for newdevelopments. These are:

- Local Transport Plan proposals - thecontribution should facilitate theachievement of the proposals included inthe LTP for the area.

- Accessibility - where a site has a highaccessibility level identified in theQuestionnaire, developer contributionsshould only be sought where a TransportAssessment indicates that specificenhancements are necessary.

- Existing or proposed ParkingStrategies - the contribution shouldcontribute to measures identified in theStrategy such as parking management,security and signing.

- Traffic generation potential - certainland uses, such as retail, leisure andoffices are significant trip generators andas such place particular demands ontransport infrastructure. Where peak timecongestion exists or would exist followingconstruction of the development, thisshould be reflected in the contributionsrequested for these types of development.

- Existing site specific constraints - thiswould include, for example, the need toprovide bus services to parts of thecatchment area of the proposal that arecurrently inaccessible by public transport.

- Contributions to the town centreparking strategy - e.g. funding extracapacity in the town centre CCTV systemto allow its extension to the site.

9

additional policy guidance

Car free or low car developments

2.1There will be circumstances where “on site”parking levels substantially less thanmaximum levels may be appropriate andindeed encouraged. In some cases this caninclude “car free” or “low car” developments.These are especially relevant in town centresand other locations where high quality publictransport is available. “Car free” and “lowcar” developments can include initiativessuch as “living over the shop” and other highdensity residential developments, includingstudent housing . “Car free” or “low car”development can also be appropriate inenvironmentally sensitive locations such asConservation Areas as it reduces thephysical impact of parking. Care shouldhowever be taken to ensure that the impacton the economic performance of individualdevelopments and the town centre as awhole is acceptable. Attention should alsobe given to ensuring that developments withlittle or no parking do not create parkingproblems outside the boundaries of the site.General criteria and specific sites for “Carfree” and “low car” development should beidentified in Local Plans/LDFs and throughSupplementary Planning Documents.

Design and layout of parking

2.2The design and layout of parking at newdevelopments should reflect current goodpractice. Particular attention should be givento the following:

2.3Quality - Car parks should reflect goodurban design principles and contributepositively to the context in which they arelocated. Large unbroken areas of tarmacshould be avoided. The use of appropriatehigh quality landscaping can significantlycontribute to this but should be carefullydesigned in order not to create securityconcerns.

2.4Use of different hard surfacing materials andhigh quality signage can be of value indifferentiating elements of larger car parks.In sensitive locations, such as ConservationAreas, use of materials sympathetic to thelocal context will be particularly encouraged.

2.5In residential areas the principles of “Places,People and Movement: A Companion Guideto Design Bulletin 32 - Residential Roadsand Footpaths” (DETR 1998) and anyrelevant subsequent guidance should bepursued in the design of new road andparking layouts. Good practice in design isnot restricted to new housing and similarprinciples should be pursued for alldevelopments.

additional policyguidance


10

2.6Pedestrian and cycle priority - Parkingshould be designed to create clearly definedpedestrian routes from different parts of thelayout to the main entrance. This isimportant to minimise pedestrian/vehicleconflict. Where the car park is to have apublic role, the footpath layout should alsofacilitate direct routes out of the site to thepedestrian and public transport network.

2.7Mobility Impaired and “parent and child”parking bays should be located as close aspossible to a level (preferably the main)entrance to the building.

2.8There should also be a clearly marked anddirect route for cycles to the cycle parking.This should link to cycle routes external tothe site, including, where appropriate the useof “Toucan” crossings over major roads.

2.9Pedestrian routes to and from car parks tothe wider urban area should be consideredas part of the overall development. Thequality of such linkages with respect to easeof crossing major roads, lighting, securityand general attractiveness can havesignificant impacts on the use of the carpark.

2.10The development of “Home Zones” and thecreation of areas limited to 20mph shouldpay particular attention to how parking willbe accommodated without compromising theaims of the project. In certain areas it maybe necessary to create additional parking,e.g. in Victorian terraced areas with nodedicated parking. This should be done in amanner that complements the objectives ofpromoting pedestrian/cycle safety throughthe design process.

2.11Safety and security - The design of carparking should follow the principles of“Secured by Design” in order to maximisepedestrian security and minimise vehicletheft. Particular attention should be given toproviding good quality lighting and promotingclear views within and through the site.Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) may beappropriate in some locations.

2.12Signage - Parking provision should beclearly signed at main entrances todevelopments, including transportinterchanges. This should incorporate thelocation of bicycle and motorcycle parking.

2.13For large car parks (over 50 spaces) that willbe utilised by the public, signage should beprovided on main routes leading to the site inliaison with the Highways Authority, or theHighways Agency with respect to trunkroads. Developer contributions to this maybe sought. Where feasible, the use ofVariable Message Signing, such as installedin Preston, should be considered, indicatingthe number of spaces currently available.

2.14Technical Issues - Where a barrier is to beused to manage access into or out of a sitethe design of the entrance road and thebarrier should reflect the categories ofvehicles to be allowed onto the site. Thisincludes any relevant service vehicles. Thedesign of the barriers should permit easyuse by mobility-impaired drivers andmotorcycles. A separate but convenientroute into and out of the site should beprovided for pedestrians and cyclists.Entrance barriers, especially drivercontrolled, should be avoided where this maycreate queuing onto neighbouring roads.

11

additional policy guidance

2.15Large car parks generate substantialamounts of surface water runoff. Oil Trapsshould be fitted to prevent pollution of thedrainage system. Sustainable DrainageSystems (SuDS) can help reduce the impactof this and should be pursued wherepossible.

2.16 Cycle parking - this should be located closeto the main entrance of the building on thesite, be well lit, preferably covered, with aclear, safe route to the exit. For allapplications where thirty or more staff will beemployed covered cycle facilities, showerand changing facilities should be provided.For smaller employers the possibility ofshared cycle parking should be considered.Long-stay parking (over 4 hours) should belocated in lockable sheds or secure lockers.

2.17Motorcycle parking - this should be locatedaway from trees and areas susceptible toflooding and be flat, well lit and visible.Where possible, concrete or block paviorsshould be used in preference to tarmac asthese surfaces are not prone to sinking inwarm weather. Secure anchorage points orrailings, ideally at about 60cm above theground, should be provided. Locking pointsabove drainage grates should be avoided toprevent loss of keys. Parking or accessroutes should not be located close to oiltraps. Long-stay motorcycle parking (overfour hours duration) should be provided in asecure covered structure. This may beshared with cycles.

Operational Parking

2.18The parking levels set out in the standardsare for “non-operational” use, e.g. for visitorand staff parking. “Operational and serviceparking” will be required for the day-to-dayoperation of businesses, e.g. the deliveryand dispatch of goods by light and heavygoods vehicles. This should be provided inaddition to levels identified in the standards.

2.19Reduced operational provision will beencouraged where opportunities areavailable for shared use of spaces. Thisshould be considered as part of a TravelPlan for the site, particularly where there arefrequent visits by employees to “satellite”locations. An example of this would bemedical staff based in a Hospital butspending most of their time visiting clinicselsewhere in the area.

2.20Opportunities for on-street servicing mayexist in some locations. However, great careneeds to be taken, particularly in the mixedindustrial/residential areas of older towns.All on-street servicing should be consideredagainst the following criteria:

1. Would it cause inconvenience to otherusers of the site or neighbouring property.

2. Would it cause local environmental harm,such as through noise.

3. Would it have an adverse affect on theflow of traffic or road safety.


12

Transport interchanges/stations

2.21Parking for all modes at rail and bus stationsis important to facilitate integrated transport.Development or redevelopment of busstations, rail stations and interchanges shouldtherefore encourage interchange betweendifferent modes. This should include theprovision of secure, covered bicycle parking;secure motorcycle parking; taxi bays andlimited waiting “drop-off/collection” points.

2.22At rail stations/interchanges car parkingprovision should be considered as part of anintegrated strategy to encourage modal shiftto rail. Calculation of the level of parkingspaces should reflect the relevant LocalTransport Plan Interchange category, theexisting level of use of the station (whererelevant), and assessment of expectedincreases in usage. The overall size of thecar park should reflect realistic levels ofusage in order not to sterilise land close tothe station that could be used for higherdensity land uses. For larger stationsproposals to increase parking should beassessed against the possibility that this willencourage passengers to drive longerdistances rather than use their local station.

2.23The Joint Structure Plan Authorities will workwith the rail industry to ensure the effectivemanagement of car parking space at railstations including through the use of pricing.It is important that parking at stationscontributes to the overall parking strategy,especially in town centres. Parking should bemanaged for passengers, rather than being afree overspill facility for non-rail users.

2.24“Park and Ride” sites will be promoted atlocations where this will help reduce traffic flowsalong main routes into town centres. This willinclude locations on relevant rail corridors. Inpractice the most appropriate settlements for

this are Preston, Blackpool, Blackburn andLancaster. Parking should be provided at alevel designed to achieve modal shift on thecorridor in question while maximising utilisation.As such sites will be located in edge of townand rural areas. Particular attention should begiven to breaking up large parking areas,landscaping and the design of lighting.

Lorries

2.25Lorry parking for businesses should beincluded as operational provision within thesite. In addition to this, Districts shouldconsider whether there is a need for dedicatedovernight provision for Heavy Goods Vehicleswithin their area. Such parking can helpreduce undesirable informal parking in or closeto residential areas. Such provision will beespecially applicable at locations close to theM6 corridor, as well as other sites close tomotorways and the trunk road network.

2.26Lorry parks should incorporate welfarefacilities for drivers, including toilets, showersand refreshments. They should have goodaccess to the trunk road network and belocated away from residential areas.Landscaping, noise mitigation and securitymeasures should be incorporated into thedesign wherever possible.

Coaches

2.27Coach parking is particularly important forcertain land-uses. Examples include majortourist destinations, stadia, concert halls andhotels. Provision for coach parking shouldbe made at, or in close vicinity to, suchlocations.

2.28Coach parking may be provided “off-site”subject to satisfactory pick-up/drop-off pointsbeing provided at the development. Shareduse of lorry parking may be feasible in somelocations.

13

methodology

background

3.1Lancashire first produced Parking Standardsin 1976. These were updated in 1988. In1997 “Parking in Lancashire” was produced.This marked a change from the previousapproach of “minimum” levels of parking fordesignated land uses to “maximum”standards. These effectively set a ceiling forthe amount of parking provision on any newdevelopment. Lancashire was one of thefirst authorities in the country to adopt thisapproach.

3.2There have been a number of importantnational and regional policy changes since1997. Notable among these are thefollowing:

3.3Transport White Paper “A New Deal forTransport: Better for Everyone” (July1998) - emphasises an integrated approachto transport. Particular encouragement isgiven to encouraging transport choices thatare less environmentally damaging andreduce the need to travel in the first place.

3.4PPG3 “Housing” (March 2000) - Thisguidance seeks to increase residentialdensity and improve the quality of housinglayouts. One way identified of doing this isby limiting parking spaces to an average of1.5 per dwelling.

3.5PPG13 “Transport” (March 2001) - RevisedPPG13 for the first time introduces nationalmaximum parking standards for a smallnumber of key land uses. Parking levels onnew developments are seen as one elementof broader parking policy that includes onand off-street charges.

3.6Regional Planning Guidance for the NorthWest (March 2003) (now Regional SpatialStrategy) - includes maximum parkingstandards for a significantly greater range ofuses than PPG13. Standards are set for thewhole of the Region with slightly tighterlevels for ‘Urban Conurbation’ areas.

3.7Preparation of the standards by the JointStructure Plan Authorities has been informedby the input of the Parking Working Group.This consisted of representatives from eachof the Joint Structure Plan authorities,together with officers from a number ofDistrict Councils. Working Group Memberswere selected by, and reported back to, theDistrict Engineers and District PlanningOfficers Groups. This ensured acollaborative and representative approach.

3.8The Parking Working Group recognised atan early stage in the preparation of thestandards that accurate baseline data wasessential. Colin Buchanan and Partnerswere therefore commissioned to undertakean audit of car parking, planning policy anddevelopment trends for 20 town centres inthe Joint Structure Plan Area. This wassupplemented by detailed case studies onfive centres, incorporating extensiveconsultation with interested parties. Thisresearch has informed the approach taken toparking in this document. A Structure PlanParking Forum including business, LocalAuthorities and voluntary sectorrepresentatives was held in November 2001where the results of the Buchanan Studyand the first Working Draft of the ParkingStandards were discussed. Commentsreceived at the Forum and duringsubsequent formal public consultation havebeen incorporated in this document.

methodology

3.9The Joint Lancashire Structure Plan “ParkingStandards” are set at maximum levels. Thepurpose of maximum standards is topromote the efficient use of land andencourage the use of alternatives to theprivate car. The individual levels selectedseek to recognise the economic importanceof parking, minimise overspill ontoneighbouring streets and at the same timelimit over-provision. In practice, applicationof the standard means that for any particularproposal parking may be provided up to, at,but not beyond the designated standard.

3.10Standards for mobility impaired parking,bicycles and motorcycles are set at minimumlevels. Parking should therefore be providedat or above these standards. This is toensure that the needs of these groups arefully catered for and accessibility for allencouraged.

3.11Standards form part of an integratedapproach to parking, in particular themanagement of on and off street parking.Accessibility by walking, cycling and publictransport is also significant to parking policy,both for those without use of a car and as analternative for car users.

Review of individual parkingstandards in context of national policyand local circumstances

3.12Policy 7 “Parking” of the Joint LancashireStructure Plan makes clear that parkingstandards form one element of a widerparking policy context. Spaces provided onindividual new developments usually form arelatively small proportion of the total parkingstock in a particular settlement. Therelationship of standards to the amount andmanagement of existing on and off streetprovision is therefore crucial. Whileimportant, Parking Standards, in isolation,are a blunt instrument for tackling issuessuch as congestion and the encouragementof modal shift.

3.13Parking is an important element in facilitatingthe effective economic functioning of towns,settlements and rural areas throughout theCounty. Inadequate provision of parking atnew developments can reduce theattractiveness of the development itself aswell as the place where it is located.Displacement onto surrounding roads cancause traffic congestion and parkingdifficulties for local residents.

3.14 Parking is one factor within widertransport policy. The availability of parkinghas been shown, at a national level, to havemore influence on people’s choice to use acar than the existence of good qualityalternatives. Thus placing limitations on theamount of parking available, particularlywhere there are good walking, cycling andpublic transport links, can have an impact onhow people travel. It is therefore importantto consider parking in the context of overallaccessibility, including proposals in LocalTransport Plans. Provision of excessiveparking, that is never fully used, is aninefficient use of land.

14


The Buchanan Report

3.15Colin Buchanan and Partners studied twentytown centres in Lancashire during 2001,including five detailed case studies. Thestudy examined the following factors:

- existing amount of, quality and demand forparking

- economic health, vitality and viability andpotential growth

- environmental factors- public transport accessibility

3.16The Study identified a 3 Strand Frameworkfor consideration of car parking. Standardsform only one element of this Framework,which is set out in more detail in Table C.The principles of Buchanan’s approach wereaccepted by the Joint Structure PlanAuthorities as the basis for standards withinthe Structure Plan.

15

methodology

Table C - Parking FrameworkSTRAND 1 STRAND 2 STRAND 3

Existing Parking Parking Standards Traffic and Parking ManagementLevels

Increase Medium Public transport enhancements (facilitiesand service, including Park and Ride)

Maintain Low Reduce long-stay and increase short-stay

Decrease High Town centre schemes (pedestrianisation,calming etc.)Parking restriction options e.g. ControlledParking Zones; Parking Charging; balanceof on-street to off-street car parking, etc.Location of development (in relation tointerchanges, park and ride, etc.)Operational Car ParkingEnforcementReduce on-street parking or introducestricter controls

Source: Colin Buchanan and Partners

3.17The Parking Policy Framework in Table Csets out the relationship of standards to thebroader parking policy context. Establishingeffective parking policy for individualsettlements requires that the relationshipsbetween each of the strands be taken intoconsideration. Elements of each strand canbe combined as appropriate, to develop a

parking strategy reflecting the circumstancesof each town. The reasoning behind eachStrand is set out below:

Strand 1- existing parking levels

Settlements within Lancashire have widelyvarying levels of both on-street and off-streetparking provision. Rates of occupancy alsodiffer substantially. Allowing additional


16

parking in towns with a large existing supplytends to increase the tendency for people totravel by car. In certain circumstances theremay be scope for removing unpopular publicparking. In other towns with low parkinglevels and high levels of usage, provision ofadditional spaces may be justified to avoidexcessive congestion. The amount ofparking on new developments shouldtherefore be linked to existing numbers ofspaces and their use.

Strand 2 - parking standards

Parking standards should be set at levelsthat reflect the economic, environmental andtransport contexts of different settlements.Towns that are relatively strong economicallyand have good public transport systems canaccommodate more restrictive parkingstandards than weaker towns.

Strand 3 - traffic and parkingmanagement

Many town centres in particular havecontrols on the management of on and off-street parking. Parking provided on newdevelopment needs to be integrated with anyexisting management framework to ensurethat existing controls are not undermined bylarge amounts of uncontrolled spaces. Alarge number of Traffic and ParkingManagement actions will require involvementby the County Council and UnitaryAuthorities in their role as HighwayAuthorities. Where a trunk road is affectedthe views of the Highways Agency should besought.

Spatial implications of the framework

3.18On the basis of the detailed auditundertaken by Colin Buchanan and Partners,including five detailed case studies, theconsultants proposed a hierarchy of centres.This has been accepted by the JointStructure Plan Authorities. The strongestcentres are ranked as Level 1 with the mostvulnerable as Level 4.

Centres are defined as follows:

Level One - Attracts significant investorinterest for retail and commercialdevelopment and has experienced significantrecent growth/development.

Level Two - Attracts a good level of investorinterest for retail and commercialdevelopment (and continues to do so) and/or has a good level of growth/development.

Level Three - Attracts comparativelymedium/low levels of investor interest and/orhas experienced comparatively medium/lowlevels of growth/development.

Level Four - Attracts lower levels ofcommercial investor and has experiencedlower levels of retail and commercialgrowth/development.

3.19Towns included in the Buchanan Study areidentified in bold type within Table D. It wasalso felt important to include other significanturban settlements in Lancashire that werenot included in the original study. These arethose listed in Joint Lancashire StructurePlan Policies 2 and 4, either as part of awider urban area or as free-standingsettlements and are shown in italics withinTable D. All other settlements in the Countynot listed in the Table plus Rural Areas areclassified as Level 4.

Table D - Application of standards by levelsof centre

For land use classes A1, A2, B1 & D2 only. All settlements not identified in this Table,plus rural areas, are classified as Level 4.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Blackburn Blackpool Accrington ColnePreston Burnley Clitheroe Fleetwood

Lancaster Cleveleys LythamBamber Bridge Chorley LeylandLostock Hall DarwenPenwortham Morecambe AdlingtonWalton-le-Dale Nelson BacupWhitebirk Ormskirk BarnoldswickWilpshire Rawtenstall Burscough

St Annes CarnforthSkelmersdale Garstang/Catterall

Great HarwoodAughton Kirkham/ WeshamBrierfield LongridgeChurch PadihamClayton-le-Moors Poulton-le-FyldeHaslingden RishtonHeysham WhalleyOswaldtwistleThornton

17

methodology

Towns shown in Bold are the main centres in each category.

For each town in Levels 1-3 shown in italics, the standards appropriate to that category willapply apart from developments of less than 1,000m2 where Level 4 Standards will apply.

3.20The need for consistency in approach hasbeen recognised at national and regionallevel. Standards in the Joint LancashireStructure Plan reflect this and seek to applyNational and Regional standards to Countylevel. The principle of the strongest centreshaving more rigorous standards is reflectedin the RSS approach to ‘UrbanConurbations’. The intention is to provideconsistency across Lancashire whilst thehierarchy enables local circumstances to betaken into account for particular land uses.

Policies for different hierarchy levels

3.21The overall strategy policy approach for eachlevel of centre is listed below. All smallersettlements shown in italics within Levels 1-3form part of a Principal Urban Area/MainTown/Key Service Centre (Market Town). Inorder to prevent perverse incentives to locateoutside the main centre the parking levels inthe smaller towns will be the same as for theprincipal settlement. The exception to this isthat all new developments under 1,000m2


18

gross floor area in these named smallersettlements will be calculated on the basis ofLevel 4. This reflects the economic retailposition of these centres. Definition of therelevant boundary for parking purposes willbe undertaken by Local Planning Authorities.Parking Strategies produced by Districtsshould take into account the impact of theStrategy on the whole settlement, includingthese smaller towns.

Level 1 Centres (Blackburn{including Whitebirk and Wilpshire},Preston {including Bamber Bridge,Lostock Hall, Penwortham andWalton-le-Dale})• Existing Public and Private Non-

Residential Parking Provision: Reduceoverall amount of car parking in town centrewherever possible. Seek to reduce amountof parking that is related to commuter use(long-stay) in town centres. Do not allowadditional public car parking to be developed.

• Parking Standards on new development:Apply rigorous car parking standards for newdevelopment and promote “no car”developments.

• Traffic and Parking Management: Controlall on-street car parking in town centres andremove/reduce in environmentally sensitiveareas.

• Seek to change proportion of long-stayparking in town centres to short-stay parking.

• Introduce policy to secure improvements tocar parking facilities.

Level 2 Centres (Blackpool,Burnley, Lancaster) • Existing Public and Private Non-

Residential Parking Provision: Reduce,where possible, current level of car parkingin town centre by removing unpopular carparks and do not allow additional public carparking to be developed. Seek to reduceamount of parking that is related tocommuter use (long-stay) within towncentre.

• Parking Standards on new development:Apply strong car parking standards to newdevelopment and promote “no car” parkingdevelopments.

• Traffic and Parking Management:Control all on-street car parking in towncentres and remove/reduce inenvironmentally sensitive areas.

• Change long-stay parking to short-stayparking in town centres where possible,except in Blackpool for tourism uses.

Level 3 Centres (Accrington{including Church, Clayton-le-Moors and Oswaldtwistle}, Chorley,Cleveleys {including Thornton},Clitheroe, Darwen, Morecambe{including Heysham}, Nelson{including Brierfield}, Ormskirk{including Aughton}, Rawtenstall{including Haslingden}, St Annesand Skelmersdale)

• Existing Public and Private Non-Residential Parking provision: Maintaincurrent level of public car parkingstandards but do not allow additional publiccar parking to be developed.

• Parking Standards on NewDevelopment: Apply moderate car parkingstandards for new development and allow“no car” parking development to occur.

• Traffic and Parking Management:Manage car parking facilities and trafficmanagement to promote public transport,cycling and walking.

• Pursue significant enhancements to localpublic transport as well as cycling andwalking.

• Change long-stay parking to short-stayparking in town centres where possible,except for tourism uses at coastal resorts.

• Reduce long-stay parking in town centres.

Level 4 Centres (Adlington, Bacup,Barnoldswick, Burscough,Carnforth, Colne, Fleetwood,Garstang and Catterall, GreatHarwood, Kirkham and Wesham,Leyland, Longridge, Lytham,Padiham, Poulton-le-Fylde,Rishton, Whalley) • Existing Public and Private Non-

Residential Parking Provision: Maintaincurrent level of car parking standards andconsider allowing additional facilities to bebuilt - if public transport is not enhancedand where environmental enhancementswill be secured.

• Parking Standards on NewDevelopment: Apply moderate car parkingstandards for new development. Theemphasis is on public parking facilitiesgiving the ability to redevelop facilities forother uses when parking is no longerrequired.

• Traffic and Parking Management:Manage car parking facilities and trafficmanagement to promote public transport,cycling and walking and environment of thecentre.

• Consider developing/extending pedestrianfriendly areas.

For all levels of the hierarchy Councils willseek to secure investment in public transportthrough negotiating Section 106 Agreements.

3.22For the purposes of Parking Standards onnew development, the Joint Authoritiesdecided to combine Level 1 and 2settlements together. The same approachwas taken to Levels 3 and 4 towns. Thepurpose of this was to simplify the use of thestandards. Councils should however seek toapply all 3 strands of parking policy to thetowns in their area. The four level hierarchyis felt to provide the relevant level of detail toachieve this.

Parking Strategies

3.23Individual local authorities should developParking Strategies based on the frameworkin paragraph 3.21 applying it to their localcircumstances (preferably for individualtowns) as recommended in PPG6 “TownCentres and Retail Development”. TheseStrategies should address issues such asthe location and quality of public and privatecar parks; management of long and shortstay parking; pricing policy; decriminalisedparking and parking policy; improvements towalking, cycling and public transport; trafficmanagement and signing and therelationship to broader development planpolicy for the area. The involvement of allrelevant parties, including the businesscommunity, should be sought as part of thisprocess. Particular attention should be givento the issue of reducing long stay commuterparking in town centres and any increase intraffic flows arising from provision of greatershort stay provision.

Parking Standards for specific landuses

3.24The Technical Appendix of the JointLancashire Structure Plan sets out ParkingStandards for a broad range of land uses.These were developed on the followingprinciples:

- Latest national and regional policy.- Continuity where existing standards had

been shown to be effective.- Simplicity of use.- Efficient use of land and relationship to

broader transport policy.

19

methodology


20

3.25The baseline Parking Standards forindividual uses assume a consistent level ofaccessibility throughout the County. Inpractice, most rural and suburban areas havemuch poorer levels of public transport thanexist in town centres, at public transporthubs such as stations and along principalbus corridors. Where good qualityalternatives to the car exist this should bereflected in tighter car parking levels topromote modal shift. Table E identifies whatreductions should be implemented. A rangeis used to reflect that there is a level ofdiversity of accessibility, even within definedcategories. In order to avoid perverseincentives for developers to locate in lessaccessible areas in order to obtain moreparking, developers in such locations will beexpected to demonstrate how accessibility bynon-car modes can be improved to at least“medium level”. Land uses covered by PPG6“Town Centres and Retail Development” willbe expected to demonstrate that a sequentialapproach to development has been followed.Local Authorities may exercise flexibility innot applying accessibility reductions for useclass A1 and D2 developments located in“town centre” or “edge of centre” locations(see paragraph 1.12).

3.26Table F provides the mechanism foridentifying the relative accessibility of sitesand should be submitted by developersalong with Transport Assessments forproposal over 500m2 gfa. It is intended toprovide an indication of the accessibility ofsites to guide Local Planning Authorities indetermining the level of accessibility. TableG on residential development is for use atthe Local Planning Authorities’ discretion. Itis anticipated to be of use not only inconsidering planning applications but alsowhen assessing the sustainability of sitesthrough the development plan process.Work on analysing accessibility to differentservices in the county is being undertakenusing Geographic Information Systems(GIS). It is intended that this will beintegrated with an analysis of the time takento travel to facilities by different forms oftransport using a computer programmemade available by the Department forTransport. This will enable a moresophisticated approach to accessibility to bedeveloped over the period of the JointStructure Plan.

Table E -AccessibilityReductionsLow AccessibilityNo change to baseline level

MediumReduce baseline by 5-15%

HighReduce baseline by 15-35%

Table F - Accessibility QuestionnaireSite Description:Application Reference:

Access Criteria Criteria Scores Score Sub-ScoreType

Walking Distance to nearest bus <200m 5stop from main entrance <300m 3to building (via direct, <500m 1safe route) >500m 0

Distance to nearest <400m 3railway station from main <1km 2entrance to building >1km 0

Cycling Proximity to defined <100m 3cycle routes <500m 2

<1km 1

Public Bus frequency of Urban/Transport principal service from Suburban

nearest bus stop during 15 minutes or less 5operational hours of 30 minutes or less 3the development >30 minutes 1

Villages and RuralHourly or less 52 Hourly or less 21 or more per day 1

Number of bus services 4 or more localities 5serving different localities servedstopping within 200 metres 3 3of main entrance 2 2

1 1

Train frequency from 30 minutes or less 3nearest station (Mon-Sat 30-59 minutes 2daytime) Hourly or less 1

frequent

Drive to nearest station 10 minutes or less 215 minutes or less 1

Other Travel reduction Facilities on site or opportunities within 100 metres

that reduce the needto travel:* food shop/cafe 1* newsagent 1* crèche 1* other 1

Total Aggregate Score

Accessibility LevelHigh: 24-30 Medium: 16-23 Low: 15 or less

21

accessibility questionnaire


22

3.27Parking standards are set as maxima. Thisdoes not mean that all developments shouldautomatically provide parking to the highestpossible level. In some circumstances, suchas densely developed urban cores, provisionof maximum parking will not be physicallypossible. In other circumstances, the LocalPlanning Authority (or developers) maypursue lower parking standards for individualsites, e.g. to maximise site densities andimprove urban design. In some situationsindividual proposals may not be required toprovide any “on-site” parking due to theexistence of high quality public transportand/or adequate public parking in the vicinity.Such schemes are classified as “no parking”developments.

3.28Some developments involve a combination ofdifferent (mixed) land uses occurring on onesite, creating the opportunity for sharedparking. Parking levels should reflectopportunities to reduce spaces wheredemands for parking occur at different times(e.g. day and evening). Calculation ofparking levels may take into account existingpublic parking not directly linked to thedevelopment but adjacent to it. Whereparking is proposed that will provide forpublic use a Section 106 Agreement onmanagement should be pursued.

3.29The management of parking at retail andleisure developments in town centres mustintegrate with the Parking Strategy for thatCentre. The length of short-stay parkingpermitted should reflect the overall strategy,including the promotion of a centres’ overall“leisure experience” providing this does notexceed four hours in duration.

Mobility impaired, motorcycle andbicycle parking

3.30Parking Standards are not purely aboutprovision for cars. The only situation whereminimum standards are applicable to newdevelopment relates to parking for themobility impaired, motorcycles and bicycles.Mobility impaired users (which for thepurposes of this guidance includes “parentand child” parking) have specific needs.Mobility impaired spaces should be locatedclose to the main entrance of buildings andrequire wider parking bays (minimum width3.6m). Additional space may also berequired at the rear of the vehicle to unloadwheelchairs, etc. A minimum of 10% ofprovision (calculated as a proportion of themaximum standard) will be required and will

be calculated as part of the overall standard.This reflects the fact that Lancashire has, ataround 10%, the highest levels of registereddisabled drivers (blue badge holders) inEngland. “Parent and Child” parking isassumed to constitute 50% of the 10%figure, on the basis that not all disableddrivers will require parking at the same time.There may be situations where provision ofgreater than 10% would be valuable e.g. atHealth Centres. In other circumstances itmay be argued that 10% of provision wouldbe excessive. Relaxations may be justified incircumstances where existing or future usageby mobility impaired users is likely to besignificantly less than 10% of all vehicles.Local Authorities should consult withdisability groups before permitting less than10% disabled provision on an individual site.

3.31Dedicated parking for motorcycles andbicycles should be provided to meet thespecific requirements of these groups and toencourage modal shift. Motorcycles aremore environmentally friendly than cars forsingle person trips but at present there islittle secure parking available. Provision at arate of 1:25 car spaces is slightly higher thancurrent usage but reflects anticipated growthin usage, e.g. of scooters. Bicycle parking isset a level of 10% of maximum parkinglevels to encourage modal shift.

23

accessibility questionnaire


24

Table G - Accessibility Questionnaire (Residential)Site description:Application reference:

Access type Criteria Criteria scores Sub scoreWalking Distance to nearest <200m 5distance bus stop <400m 3from centre <500m 1of site to >500m 0facilities Distance to nearest <400m 3using a safe, railway station <800m 2direct route >800m-1000m 1

>1km 0Distance to nearest <200m 5Primary School <400m 3

<600m 1>600m 0

Distance to nearest <200m 5Food shop <400m 3

<600m 1>600m 0

Cycling Proximity to defined <100m 3distance from on or off-road cycle <500m 2centre of site route >1km 1

Distance to nearest <400m 3Secondary School <600m 2

<1km 1>1km 0

Distance to nearest <1km 3town centre <3km 2

<4km 1Distance to nearest <1km 3business park or <3km 2employment <4km 1concentration

Public Bus frequency from Urban/suburbantransport nearest bus stop 15 minutes or less 5

(Mon-Sat daytime) 30 minutes or less 3>30 minutes 1Rural includingvillagesHourly or less 52 hourly or less 31 or more per day 1

Train frequency from 30 minutes or less 3nearest station 30-59 minutes 2(Mon-Sat daytime) Hourly or less frequent 1

Accessibility Accessibility to other At least 3 within 400m 5to other basic services (GP, At least 3 within 800m 3basic Post Office, Library, At least 3 within 1.5 km 1services Bank and Pub)

Accessibility to Play <200m 5Area or Park <400m 3

<600m 1 >600m 0

TOTAL AGGREGATE SCORE

Accessibility level High 35-48 Medium 20-35 Low Less than 20

accessibility questionnaire andsim

ple TAguidance

4.1The purpose of this section is to providedevelopers with clear guidance on the datarequired to complete AccessibilityQuestionnaires and Simple TransportAssessments

How to fill in the AccessibilityQuestionnaire

4.2General - Be as accurate as possible withmeasurements. Absolute precision is nothowever required. Use of Ordnance Surveymapping provides a good baseline but localknowledge can also be used.

4.3Walking distances - these should becalculated on the basis of walking distancesfrom the main entrance to the main buildingon site. The route should be the most directand attractive available (e.g. would it beattractive to female users on winter nights?)

4.4Cycling - a defined cycle route would includethe following:

• Part of the national cycle network (usuallymarked with blue signs with a red numbersuch as 6 or 68).

• A signed off-road route, e.g. along canaltowpaths.

• Continuous marked routes along roads,i.e. not just a few road markings atjunctions.

Further information on cycle routes can beobtained from the Cycling Officer in the LocalHighway Authority.

4.5Bus timetable information - There are anumber of possible sources of informationon this. These include:

• Timetable cases on bus stops near thesite.

• The Travel Information Centre at the localbus station.

• Websites such as www.ukbus.comand www.transportdirect.info

Trams, where relevant, should becounted as buses.

4.6Destinations served by buses - theintention is to identify what maindestinations are served from the site.If the development is on the end of abus route linking to the town centre itwould score one point. If however anumber of buses go past the site to arange of destinations, e.g. different towncentres or housing areas, these shouldbe counted separately.

4.7Train times - There are a number ofsources of information on train frequencies. These include:

• Local station or Travel Information Centre.• National Rail Inquiries on 08457 484950.• The Network Rail website,

www.networkrail.com• Train time information is not required

where the development is more than1km from a station and a score of0 should be entered in such cases.

4.8Drive time - This should be calculated usingthe most direct route in normal drivingconditions.

4.9Travel reduction opportunities - The listedfacilities should be on site or within 100metres of the site entrance.

4.10Calculation of score - The total score foreach element of the questionnaire should beinserted on the right hand column of thesheet. All the scores should then be addedtogether to obtain a total.

The score obtained will identify whether thedevelopment fits within the low, medium orhigh accessibility levels.

25

completion of accessibilityquestionnaires and simple

transport assessments


26

Note on residential development:There is no requirement to complete anAccessibility Questionnaire for housingschemes. Developers are howeverencouraged to complete the questionnaire atTable G of Supplementary PlanningGuidance “Access and Parking”. This is ofvalue in determining the sustainability of theproposal.

Simple Transport Assessments

4.11The form should be completed as fully aspossible. Where relevant background dataor evidence is available this should attached.

4.12Baseline data - The purpose of this sectionis to paint a picture of how easy it is to reachthe site by different means at the presenttime.

Much of this information can be obtainedfrom the same sources as for theAccessibility Questionnaire (see above). Theproximity of bus stops should ideally becalculated in metres from the main buildingentrance.

Any specific problems should be noted onthe Form. Examples may include thatexisting roads to the site are narrow or thatpeople walking to the site from the bus stophave to cross a busy main road.

4.13Transport characteristics of the scheme -The residential section of this form does nothave to be completed for non residentialuses and vice versa.

Estimation of the number of trips to andfrom the site is important for calculating thelikely impact on the local road network. Itcan also act as a baseline for measuring anyfuture changes in how people travel to thesite.

Possible sources of data include:

• Patterns of travel/delivery at your existingsite(s) (if relevant)

• Asking employees travel intentions• Using national databases containing

traffic generation figures for different typesof land use, e.g. TRICS

If no reliable sources of information areavailable, please provide a “best guess”estimate.

Where the proposal is an extension of anexisting operation it would be helpful ifexisting and anticipated numbers ofadditional journeys could be quoted.

4.14Special transport characteristics of the sitemay include need to have early morningdeliveries; specific shift patterns or the factthat the proposal is aimed at providinghousing for the elderly.

Information on transport schemes affectingthe site, e.g. a new bus lane or roadwidening, are shown on Plans available fromthe Council.

4.15Parking numbers should be based on therelevant levels listed in Table A of the“Parking Standards”. Please ensure thatnumbers for the mobility impaired, cyclesand motorbikes are included.

4.16Planned measures to limit transport impacts- Measures to influence travel patterns canbe shown in a comprehensive manner, e.g.,through a Travel Plan. Where the ParkingStandards do not require these, examples ofappropriate individual measures could varyfrom providing bus timetable information,setting up a car sharing database or loansfor bikes/public transport.

Measures to improve freight could includecodes of conduct and liaison meetings withsuppliers.

Improving the road network could includecontributions to road widening, signage ortraffic calming.

4.17Enhancements to walking, cycling and publictransport may include direct walking routes,signage and lighting, improved bus sheltersor financial contributions to improve busservices.

4.1Parking controls and measures could includecar park passes, charging and internalprocedures to stop employees parkingindiscriminately on nearby streets.

4.19Other transport impacts foreseen - Thepurpose of this section is to identify what thetransport and community impacts are likelyto be. If “none” or “minimal”, please state so.If not, please specify the likely affects, e.g.noise of lorries leaving site at unsocialhours. If the proposal is considered animprovement on the existing situation, pleasestate why.

27

accessibility questionnaire andsim

ple TAguidance


28

“Car parking space” - A standard size of 2.4x 5.0 metres is assumed.

“Cycle locker” - an enclosed, lockablestructure for individual bicycles.

“Decriminalised parking” - management ofpublic and on street parking by the localauthority rather than the Police.

“Home Zone” - a residential area wherelayout of streets, parking andpedestrian/cycle routes is designed to slowdown traffic speeds, increase pedestriansafety and security and encourage children’splay.

“Interchange categories” - developed inLancashire Local Transport Plan 2001 - 2006as a mechanism for determining the roleplayed by different types of public transportinterchange (page 53). The hierarchy is asfollows:

• Category A: Major Strategic -Interchange served by national or regionalservices plus local routes and whichprovides for more than one mode oftransport.

• Category B: Major Local - Should have atleast three routes or groups ofintersecting, usually local but may beregional/national. An example would be atown centre bus station or a local jointbus/rail facility.

• Category C: Local - At least tworoutes/groups of routes offeringpredominantly local services. A smalltown centre, suburban high street or railstation with a bus service would beexamples.

• Category D: Boarding - A location foraccessing the public transport network,e.g. a group of bus stops or a local railstation with park and ride.

• Category R: Rural Interchange - Withinrural areas with access and provision formissed connections being especiallyimportant.

“Linked trips” - trips involving parking in onelocation, for example an “edge of centre”supermarket, leaving the car and walking toother locations such as the town centre forshopping, leisure or other purposes.

“Local Transport Plan (LTP)” - a statutory 5year plan produced individually byLancashire County Council, Blackburn withDarwen Borough Council and BlackpoolBorough Council establishing the authoritiestransport investment priorities.

“Long-stay parking” - parking managed topermit stays of a long duration, of over 4hours, particularly for commuters.

“Management Agreement” - a legalagreement signed by a local authority and adeveloper/company under Section 106 of theTown and Country Planning Act 1990 (asamended) to manage parking in an agreedmanner.

“Mobility Impaired/Parent and Child space” -A standard size of 3.6 x 5.0 metres isassumed. Such places should be clearlymarked as being for this purpose. Additionallength may be provided.

“Non-operational parking” - spaces forcommuting employees, customers, businesscallers and visitors.

“Off-street parking” - parking provided onlocations off the public highway, either withinindividual developments or designated publicparking areas.

“On street parking” - parking located withinthe public highway, whether controlledthrough restrictions by time/payment or withunlimited use.

“Operational parking” - spaces for vehiclesregularly and necessarily used in theoperation of the business.

“Parking Strategy” - a document establishinga comprehensive programme for themanagement of all parking within a town,area or District.

definitions

“Perverse incentives” - a situation wheredifferential parking provision penalisespreferred locations.

“Planning Policy Guidance (PPG)” - advicepublished by national government prior to2004 on specific aspects of the planningsystem.

“Private Non-Residential (PNR) Parking -spaces intended primarily for the use ofemployees, customers, visitors, etc. of aparticular development other than housing.

Such spaces may be utilised for public use.

“Residential Parking” - A garage is countedas one parking space. Where constructed,garages should have minimum dimensions of6 x 3 metres to enable parking of at least 1bike in addition to a car.

Residential spaces may also be provided onparking or “garage” courts where parkingspaces are grouped together to serve anumber of dwellings.

Parking on driveways, including in front ofgarages, will count as vehicle space(s)based on the number of standard sizespaces that can be accommodated takinginto account space required to close garagedoors and gates.

“Section 106 Agreements” - a legalagreement or unilateral undertakingprepared under Section 106 of the Town andCountry Planning Act 1990 (as amended).Such agreements may be used to manageparking, secure production andimplementation of Strategies/Travel Plan andto fund infrastructure improvements.

“Section 278 Agreements” - a legalagreement under Section 278 of theHighways Act 1980 to secure improvementsto the highway network.

“Secured by Design” - a national initiativeinvolving the Police, the developmentindustry, the parking industry and localauthorities identifying “good practice” in the

design process that will minimise crime.

“Service Parking/Space” - the area requiredfor vehicles to load/unload goods, services orpassenger traffic generated by the site.

“Shared Parking” - parking shared by two ormore users, either at the same time or atdifferent times, in order to facilitate moreeffective use of spaces.

“Sheffield Stand” - a steel, inverted U shapedstructure embedded in the ground to whichbicycles may be locked.

“Short-stay Parking” - management ofparking through waiting restrictions and/orcharges to maximise turnover of vehicles, upto a maximum of 4 hours duration.

“Transport Assessment” - a statementsubmitted by a developer to a localplanning/highways authority analysing theease of access to a site by all modes oftransport including identification of measuresto improve this, especially by walking, cyclingand public transport.

“Travel Plan” - a document identifying howindividuals do (will) access a site by differentmodes; targets for increasing non-car modesand mechanisms by how this will beachieved.

“Zero Parking” - a development where noparking is provided within the boundary ofthe site.

29

definitions


30

Simple Transport Assessment FormNational Planning Policy Guidance (PPG13 “Transport”) recommends a broad approach toassessing the transport implications of development proposals. This Transport Assessmentform should be completed in conjunction with the planning application form for alldevelopments above 500m2_gfa but below the relevant thresholds indicated in Table E of theJLSP “Parking Standards”.

It would be helpful if applicants could support any quantitative figures stated, and to providedetails of their source, such as employee numbers.

1. Proposal and Baseline Data

Description of land-use proposals

Please list all existing ways of getting to thesite, identifying any current problems/barriers:

• Roads

• Bus stops and bus routes

• Pedestrian access

• Cycle routes

• Rail (where appropriate)

appendix

2. Transport Characteristics of Scheme

Non-Residential

Expected number of employees visiting thesite per day (if relevant).

Of which approximately how many areexpected to arrive by:CarCar SharingBusTrainBicycleWalkingOther (please specify)

Expected number of visitors per day visitingthe development (if relevant)

Of which approximately how many areexpected to arrive by:CarCar SharingBusTrainBicycleWalkingOther (please specify)

Expected number of deliveries, pick-upsand service trips per day (if relevant).

Of which approximately how many areexpected to be:Light Goods VehiclesOther Goods Vehicles

Residential

Expected number of residential movementsper day, including likely destinations(if relevant).

Of which approximately how many areexpected to come and go by:CarCar SharingBusTrainBicycleWalkingOther (please specify)

31

appendix -sim

ple transport assessment


32

All Uses

Please identify any expected times of dayand week for peak departures and arrivals.

Please identify any special transport characteristics of the development.

Please state the relationship (if any) of thedevelopment to Structure Plan, LocalTransport Plan and Local Plan/LDF transportproposals affecting the site.

Please provide details of the number ofparking spaces to be provided.

• Cars,• Disabled bays• Cycles (state if covered)• Motorbikes (state if covered)

3. Outline of any planned measures to limit transport impacts(Please read attached note 1)

Please describe any measures planned toinfluence the way employees and visitorsaccess the site (such as encouraging walking,cycling and public transport)

Please describe any measures you proposeto ensure freight and delivery traffic isefficient and causes as little disruptionas possible.

Please describe any proposed measures toalter or improve the surrounding road network.

Please identify any improvements proposedto enhance walking, cycling and publictransport within or outside of the developmentsite.

Please provide explanation of any parkingcontrols and parking management.

Note 1. As part of the planning application the Local Planning Authority may requireadditional information on proposed measures to reduce the impact of traffic generated byactivities at the site. This may take the form of a Travel Plan or changes to the layout anddesign of the buildings. It may also cover proposed changes to the surrounding roadnetwork. Particular emphasis will be placed upon addressing the likely impacts of freightmovements and deliveries.

4. Other transport related impacts foreseen(Please read attached note 2).

Are there likely to be any impacts on thesafety of road users (including pedestrians)in the area?

Are there likely to be any impacts on thelocal environment and community causedby transport to and from, or within the site?

What impact will traffic accessing the sitehave on the surrounding road network?

Note 2. As part of the planning application the Local Planning Authority may requireadditional information on the likely impacts of the proposed development upon thesurrounding road network, for example upon safety. It may also require an assessment ofthe impact upon the local community and environment.

33

appendix -sim

ple transport assessment


34

1) Lancashire County Council (1997) CarParking Standards. Lancashire CountyCouncil.

2) Lancashire County Council (2000) LocalTransport Plan 2001-2006. LancashireCounty Council.

3) Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council(2000) Local Transport Plan 2001-2006.Blackburn with Darwen BoroughCouncil.

4) Blackpool Borough Council (2000) LocalTransport Plan 2001-2006. BlackpoolBorough Council.

5) Colin Buchanan and Partners (2002).Lancashire Parking Audit and PolicyStudy - Main Report and Appendices.Colin Buchanan and Partners.

6) DETR (1998) “A New Deal for Transport:Better for Everyone” Transport WhitePaper. HMSO.

7) DETR (2000) Planning Policy GuidanceNote 3: Housing. The StationeryOffice.

8) DoE (1996) Planning Policy GuidanceNote 6: Town Centres and RetailDevelopment. HMSO.

9) DETR (2001) Planning Policy GuidanceNote 13: Transport. The StationeryOffice.

10) DETR (1999). “Preparing yourorganisation for transport in the future:The benefits of green transport plans”.

11) ODPM (2003) Regional PlanningGuidance for the North West - RPG13(now Regional Spatial Strategy for theNorth West.)

12) Hampshire County Council (2001)Hampshire Parking Strategy andStandards - Final Draft. HampshireCounty Council.

13) Hertfordshire County Council (2000)Supplementary Planning Guidance:Parking Provision at New DevelopmentHertfordshire County Council.

14) DETR (1996 and following) NationalCycling Strategy and supportingdocuments. HMSO/Stationery Office.

15) British Motorcycle Federation (2001)Better Biking. BMF.

selectivebibliography

35

notesnotes


36

notes



Graham Harding

BEng CEng FICE MIMgt

Environment Director

Lancashire County Council

Tim Brown

BA MRTPI

Acting Head of Planning and

Transportation Policy

Blackpool Borough Council

Adam Scott

BA(Hons), DipTP, MIED

Director of Regeneration

Housing & Neighbourhoods

(Planning & Environmental Health)

Blackburn with

Darwen Borough Council

www.lancashire2016.com