Parking Standards SPD

Ended on the 7 May 2018

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.

(8) CHAPTER 2

Residential parking

How much parking?

2.1 Table 1 below sets out the parking standards for residential development, incorporating a mix of parking allocated to a particular property (usually on plot), and a proportion of

unallocated (predominantly on street) provision. The evidence and justification used to develop these standards is set out in a separate supporting evidence paper, and design principles

for accommodating vehicle and cycle parking are set out in detail later in this chapter.

Table 1

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Type of development	Threshold/criteria	No. of allocated spaces	No. of unallocated spaces	Cycle parking spaces
New dwellings	1 bed	1	20% of total allocated parking space provision across the site, where a development includes 10 or more dwellings.	1
	2 bed	2		2
	3 bed	2		3
	4+ bed	3		1 space per bedroom
Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs)				1 / 2 bedrooms
Purpose built student accommodation (PBSA)		Each case to be considered on merit*
Sheltered housing for the active elderly	Residents	1 space per unit		1 space per 5 units
	Non-resident staff	1 space per 2 staff members		1 space per 5 people
	Visitors	1 space per 10 units
Sheltered housing for frail elderly	Warden	1 space per resident warden		1 space per 5 people
	Non – resident staff	1 space per 2 staff members
	Visitors	1 space per 5 units		1 space per 10 bedrooms

*Refer to Section 2.2 of the supporting evidence paper

Applying the standards

2.2 The parking standards set out in Table 1 will be expected to be achieved on all new build residential development unless special circumstances can be demonstrated which would justify greater or lower provision. The standards apply equally to market and affordable housing.

2.3 It is accepted that in some circumstances, it may not be possible to achieve the amount of parking set out in this SPD. This is most likely to be the case where properties in established built up areas come forward for conversion or redevelopment, and where other matters such as conservation impacts and Resident'sParkingZones(RPZ)need to

be considered. Where the allocated requirements cannot be achieved, the submission of a parking survey is required with any planning application as set out in the Local Validation List. The methodology for undertaking such a parking survey and the information to be included in any submission is set out in appendix A, and discussed further below.

2.4 Parking provision that falls below the allocated element of the standards set out will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there will be no adverse impact on on-street parking arising from the development. This may be because one or more of the following criteria are met:

a) There is sufficient capacity for on street parking (whether within a Resident's Parking Zone or not) without detrimentally affecting the safety or convenience of other residents and occupiers.

b) It is in a RPZ but a S106 agreement** will be put in place to waive or reduce the resident's rights to parking permits within the RPZ. Where this is proposed and the development site is within a RPZ but also within 200m of an area or areas where the street is not subject to a RPZ, a parking beat survey will be required of the area (or areas) outside the RPZ to demonstrate that any additional demand could be

accommodated within reasonable walking distance of the development outside the RPZ.

c) There is no on-street parking permitted in the vicinity of the development, and therefore there is no potential for on-street parking to detrimentally affect the safety and convenience of other residents or occupiers

d) The development includes a 'car club' secured through S106 agreement**

e) The development meets other planning objectives and would not unacceptably worsen the parking situation.

** A template Unilateral Undertaking is included in Appendix B

2.5 If criteria (a), (c) or (d) are met then it is expected that the development will only appeal to those households with a level of car ownership that can be accommodated on-site. Alternatively, the applicant may be able to demonstrate that there is regularly sufficient off-street parking available without displacing significant numbers of vehicles. In any such cases, the Council will need to be satisfied that the development would not result in an overspill of car parking onto nearby streets where parking controls are weaker.

2.6 In some instances, there may be particular urban design or conservation issues such as the reuse of a listed building which, in accordance with criteria (e), might justify car parking below the standard set out in this SPD. Each case will be considered on its own merits.

2.7 Unallocated parking spaces should be provided as set out in the standards where:

Development of more than 10 new dwellings (with new adoptable standard highway) – it is anticipated that these are likely to be provided on street
All developments of new flats – these should be included within parking areas associated with the flats

Undertaking a Parking Survey

2.8 Parking surveys should be undertaken using the methodology set out in appendix A. The methodology is based on that developed by the London Borough of Lambeth

Leamington Spa

2.9 The methodology in appendix A identifies an additional requirement for schemes being put forward in the six wards of Leamington Spa. Namely that parking surveys undertaken within the town should be undertaken only within Higher Education term-time (principally the University of Warwick). This is designed to reflect the large

concentration of HMOs in this area, which led to the imposition of an Article 4 Direction in 2012 in order to give the Council greater control over the development of HMOs.

2.10 Approximately 81% of HMOs within Warwick District were found to be occupied by students. Whilst it is challenging to evidence the level of car parking

demand generated specifically by students, it is likely that some demand does exist, and in order that this is factored into survey results, surveys undertaken within the 6 wards of Leamington Spa (i.e. the area covered by the Article 4 Direction) should be completed within Higher Education term-time only.

Residential parking accommodation

Parking space dimensions

2.11 In line with emerging WCC advice, parking space dimensions required by this SPD are greater than those that have been sought in the

past. The dimensions below are minimumrequirements:

Bay parking: 2.5m (W) x 5 m (L)

***please note that minimum dimensions for an electric vehicle parking space are 2.8m wide – see page 24 for electric charging requirements

If a parking space is located against a wall or other boundary structure, additional width should be provided:

3.0m (W) x 5m(L)

Driveway width 3m (W) x 5.5m (L) (11m long for a tandem driveway)

And between two boundaries this should be increased further to 3.5 (W) x 5.0m (L)

Best Practice

2.12 'Lifetime Homes' specifications regarding residential parking are considered to be best practice and will be supported. These standards aim to provide parking that makes it as easy as possible to get into or out of a vehicle for the widest range of people possible, including those with reduced mobility and/or those with children. Lifetime Homes standards outline principles and dimensions to be provided, or measures that would ensure space could be cost effectively adapted should need arise.

Other considerations

2.13 The space dimensions cited above address only the space required to park a car with relative ease and open the doors on each side. Dependent on the layout of a plot, it is possible that additional space (width) may be required to enable residents to pass a parked car or cars with for example a bicycle or a wheelie bin. This might be necessary for example to access cycle storage in a shed/garage/back garden or to access designated bin store or preferred discrete bin space near for example a kitchen door.

Width of a cyclist pushing a bike – 1100mm
WDC 240litre wheelie bin dimensions – H: 1100mm W: 580mm D: 740mm

2.14 Where the layout of any plot is likely to necessitate the movement of a wheelie bin or a bicycle

past cars parked in allocated parking spaces to storage locations, it must be demonstrated that sufficient space/width has been designed in to allow for this to occur without hindrance.

Allocated parking provision – how should it be incorporated?

2.15 There are a number of options for how allocated spaces can be accommodated as set out below. Allocated parking spaces are not usually acceptable

within the adopted/adoptable highway in new build development. Each of the typical methods of accommodating allocated parking (as set out in Car Parking – What Works Where?) has pros and cons, which are set out below and illustrated with local examples as much as possible.

2.16 In the cases of rear parking courts and parking on plot at the rear, the cons are generally considered to be of sufficient weight that they are specifically discouraged, and should only be used where all other options have been exhausted.

2.17 A mix of allocated parking solutions across any residential development is advocated, and over-reliance on a single solution will usually be resisted.

Garages

2.18 Garages should be considered in addition to the parking standards set out in this document, and should not usually form part of the allocated parking provision. This recognises that garages are not regularly used for car parking. As a result of excluding garages from the overall parking provision, garage parking typologies have been excluded from on plot parking typologies discussed in the table on the following pages.

2.19 Where garages are provided in addition to the relevant parking provision set out in table 1, it is recommended that they should be designed to be capable of

accommodating a parked car and other general storage commonly accommodated within garages, including bicycles, garden tools, and children's play equipment.

**4m (w) x 6.5m (l)

2.20 Where special circumstances have been demonstrated and agreed with the LPA so that some garages are specifically designed as part of the parking solution (i.e. are to be counted part of the provision required in table 1),

the minimum internal** dimensions are set out below will be required:

2.21 This is designed to maximise the potential for it to be used for regular car parking, by ensuring that it is easy to get the car into and out of the garage and open the doors once parked in the garage, whilst still providing some space for storage

of other common items such as bicycles, garden tools, white goods etc.

2.22 Minimum garage set back from the rear of the footway is 6m, and for a tandem driveway arrangement this should be 11.5m. This is to ensure that a car might park in in front of the garage without overhanging the highway.

On plot

2.23 There are numerous configurations for providing parking spaces on plot. A mix is advocated with pros and cons considered below. Over reliance on a single solution will be resisted.

Configuration	Pros	Cons	Recommendations
SIDE (SINGLE OR TANDEM)	Convenient for residents Cars usually visible from habitable rooms within the property Creates activity at the front of the property and helps to animate the street.	Tandem driveways can be less convenient as cars may need to be swapped around. This can sometimes lead to cars being left on the street. If there is not sufficient width to comfortably open car doors, move around the vehicle and manoeuvre wheelie bins and bicycles past a parked car, they are unlikely to be used.	Ensure that an element of soft landscaping is included at the front of the properties and/or within the street scene. Ensure that driveways to the sides/in between properties meet the minimum dimensions set out above, and that where necessary there is sufficient space to manoeuvre wheelie bins and bicycles etc.

CONS

In this example (south of Leamington Spa), a resident has chosen to park on the pavement in front of the property

– possibly because the width of the driveway appears ungenerous

Configuration	Pros	Cons	Recommendations
CAR PORT	Assist in providing a sense of enclosure to the street Enclose the vehicle but cannot be used for secure storage of other items	Sometimes used for wheelie bins

PROS

Car port

Configuration	Pros	Cons	Recommendations
IN FRONT SINGLE OR DOUBLE	Convenient for residents Cars usually visible from habitable rooms within the property Creates activity at the front of the property	Creates large areas of hard landscaping which can adversely impact on the street scene.	Hardstanding across the entire frontage of the property should be avoided. Ensure frontage includes elements of soft landscaping – ideally a 50/50 ratio.

PROS

South East Warwick – balance of parking and

soft landscaping

Configuration	Pros	Cons	Recommendations
REAR	Convenient for residents to access their properties. Can remove need to park at the front, where this is desirable – e.g. where the street frontage forms part of the strategic network.	Can reduce activity to the street at the front where residents can more conveniently use the back door. Can be more challenging to locate the relevant property from the back (e.g. how do you know you have located property no. 22?) Can reduce the size of the rear garden Often observed being used for bin storage	This approach should be avoided unless other options have been exhausted. They are often observed to be under-used. If they need to be used the following should apply: - Space dimensions should be generous (see dimensions above) with convenient access direct to the host dwelling. - Lighting of the spaces should be incorporated - High quality boundary treatments should be used

CONS

Rear spaces often underneath

Configuration	Pros	Cons	Recommendations
CUT OUT OR DRIVE THROUGH	Can be utilised to assist in the creation of a continuous sense of enclosure to the street, where this is a design objective. Reduces need for hard standing within the street scene Subject to appropriate width, provides a convenient route to move bicycles and wheelie bins etc. between the front a rear of the property.	It can become more convenient to access the properties from the back, thus reducing activity within the street.	Use gates not doors to discourage use of the space for storage Ensure sufficient width allowed – see minimum dimensions above.

PROS

Cut out or drive through provide continuous enclosure to the street

Configuration	Pros	Cons	Recommendations
FRONT COURT	Convenient for residents Cars usually visible from habitable rooms within the property Forms a threshold between the street and the dwelling	Can create significant areas of hard landscaping which can appear unattractive if not adequately mitigated by soft landscaping	Include boundary treatments and landscaping which create definition between the street and semi- private space

CONS

Front courts - significant area or hardstanding

Configuration	Pros	Cons	Recommendations
REAR COURTS	Have the potential to reduce the amount of hard landscaping areas in the street scene.	Often not used in favour of parking at the front – perceived to be more convenient and often better overlooked. Often poorly overlooked from the properties they serve, leading to perceived and actual security concerns. Lack of perceived ownership of the space can lead to use for rubbish storage. Require lighting	Rear parking courts should generally be avoided. They should only be utilised when all other options for accommodating parking have been exhausted. Where they are used, they should: - be small (less than 10 spaces), - use high quality boundary materials - have a narrow access to create defensible space. This should however enable two cars to pass each other taking into account any utilities in the area such as flues or meter boxes

REAR COURTS

CONS

Rear courts

- appears under utilised

Off street frontage parking

Configuration	Pros	Cons	Recommendations
PERPENDICULAR TO THE STREET (usually utilised in front of rows of terraced properties)	Convenient for residents to reach their front doors. Usually well overlooked by habitable rooms. Generates activity within the street	Can create long expanses of hard standing, and be dominant within the street scene Can create a sense of disconnection with the street, as parked cars form a ‘barrier’ between dwellings and the highway. Possible conflict between vehicles and pedestrians as cars have to cross footpaths Can blur the boundaries between public and private space.	No more than 4 spaces should be located together in a block without a break Groups of spaces should be separated by soft landscaping with vertical emphasis – e.g. trees and shrubs. Ensure that good pedestrian routes to front doors are established – wide and direct – bear in mind that people may walk from the footpath, and will not always be arriving by car! High quality materials should be used Provide an area of defensible private space to the front of dwellings. Ensure there is pedestrian visibility for drivers and pedestrians

PROS

Established example in Leamington Spa utilises railings to define parking spaces, which are interspersed with soft landscaped areas.

CONS

South of Leamington

Spa- long run of frontage parking dominates the street scene.

Unallocated parking – how should it be accommodated?

2.24 Unallocated parking spaces can be provided in shared car parking areas or within the street. The pros and cons of shared court parking are outlined above. On street parking for visitors and occupants with higher than average numbers of vehicles at their properties is advocated as the preferred method of accommodating unallocated requirements set out in table 1, as this type of parking is considered to have the greatest sense of shared ownership.

2.25 Any parking spaces provided within the adopted/adoptable highway are not permitted to be allocated for the exclusive use of any particular property. As such, on street/unallocated

parking is considered to be a more efficient means of car parking. The types of on street parking arrangements are from the typologies set out in 'Car Parking –What Works Where?' and discussed using local examples as far as possible.

Configuration	Pros	Cons	Recommendations
PARALLEL TO (IN LINE WITH) THE STREET (Bays may be marked or unmarked)	Flexible and efficient to use Well surveyed from activity within the street and surrounding properties Generates activity within the street May assist traffic calming	Streets need to be sufficiently wide to ensure people don’t park on the footpaths. Some bays have been observed not being used in favour of parking on the pavement – perceived convenience important to usage.	Landscaping (preferably vertical) is a benefit to soften the appearance.
RIGHT ANGLED TO THE STREET	Flexible and efficient means of accommodating parked vehicles Well surveyed from activity within the street and surrounding properties May assist traffic calming	Requires generous street widths to accommodate reversing space (therefore building heights and enclosure need to be considered accordingly) Can become visually dominant within the street scene.	Landscaping (preferably vertical) should be utilised to break up blocks of parking bays, at least every 4 bays. Ensure good pedestrian routes to front doors of buildings, ensuring that parking does not become a barrier to people travelling on foot.

PROS

Right angled to the street

Configuration	Pros	Cons	Recommendations
ANGLED TO THE PAVEMENT (i.e. less than a right-angle to the pavement)	Flexible and efficient to use Well surveyed from activity within the street and surrounding properties Generates activity within the street May assist traffic calming	Requires space for reversing within the street (though less space than right- angled parking) Can create some awkward spaces at the ends of the rows Can become dominant in the streetscene Cars can overhang the pavement	Landscaping (preferably vertical) should be utilised to break up blocks of parking bays. Ensure good pedestrian routes to front doors of buildings, ensuring that parking does not become a barrier to people travelling on foot. Need to ensure sufficiently wide footpath as vehicles likely to overhang the footpath.
CENTRAL RESERVATION Kerbside parking arranged around both sides of a strip dividing traffic flows with marked bays for parking in same direction as the traffic flow.	Potential to provide additional capacity Well overlooked by surrounding properties Potential traffic calming effect.	Additional highway space required Greater pedestrian movements across the carriageway to get to and from parked cars.	Building heights and proportions need to be designed to reflect the wider street requirements. Comprehensive street design required to ensure appropriate and safe crossing opportunities to and from parked cars.
HOUSING SQUARE (Kerbside parking arranged around a central landscaped space. Further parking on the opposite side of the streets.)	Flexible and efficient means of accommodating parked vehicles Well surveyed from activity within the street and surrounding properties May assist traffic calming	Requires additional pedestrian movement across the carriageway to and from parked vehicles	Ensure there is natural surveillance from habitable rooms in the properties surrounding the space. Street design to be carefully considered to ensure vehicles are encouraged to travel at appropriate speeds.

PROS

Landscaped space with parking ??

2.26 As indicated a mix of allocated and unallocated spaces is required by these standards. In addition, a mix of arrangement for both allocated and unallocated provision is encouraged.

Electric charging facilities

2.27 Policy TR1(d) of the adopted Local Plan requires, where practical, the incorporation of facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles where the development proposals include provision for off street parking and is for one or more dwelling. Recharging points should be provided in line with the Low Emissions Strategy Guidance for Developers (April 2014) or any subsequent revision.

For residential development:

PARKING TYPE	PROVISION RATE
Allocated parking	1 charging point per unit (house with dedicated parking)
Unallocated parking	1 charging point per 10 spaces (unallocated parking)

2.28 To prepare for increased demand in future years, appropriate cable provision should be included in scheme design and development in agreement with the Council.

Designing for Electric Vehicles

2.29 It is important that there is sufficient grid capacity, and infrastructure in the ground and across the site is sufficient to meet additional energy demands.

2.30 The location of Electric Vehicle charging points should be considered early in the masterplanning process, so that the most suitable locations are identified i.e. hub sites for public access charging points. Provision of public infrastructure to accommodate visitors and opportunities for pooling of Electric Vehicles will be supported.

2.31 Equipment provision should be in accordance with the 'IET Code of Practice for Electric Vehicle ChargingEquipment'.

2.32 The following issues should be considered when designing for the provision of Electric Vehicle bays/Charging points:

EV Bays should be a minimum of 2.8m wide.
EVCPs must be protected from collision and should be positioned to avoid becoming an obstruction or trip hazard.
They should not be in the immediate vicinity of trees or other street furniture.
They should avoid existing utilities cabling and equipment in the vicinity.
Electric Vehicle Charge Points and cable enabled points should be shown on the layout plan.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.