APPENDIX 18
Memorandum submitted by the Commission
for Architecture and the Built Environment
1. THE ROLE
OF CABE
1.1 CABE was set up by the first Secretary
of State for Culture, Media and Sport in 1999 with the mission
to promote high quality architecture and design within the built
environment. CABE's vision is of a country that by 2010 will lead
Europe in understanding and harnessing the ability of great buildings
and spaces to transform neighbourhoods, to generate social value
and to sustain economic growth.
1.2 CABE is now jointly funded by the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister (ODPM). The sponsorship arrangements are with the
DCMS. As at 31March 2004, CABE comprised a team of 16 commissioners,
appointed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport,
and 82 staff appointed by CABE itself.
2. CABE INVOLVEMENT
ON CAR
PARKING ISSUES
2.1 While not the primary focus of the Committee's
inquiry, the physical provision and design of car parking, particularly
in new developments, is an important element of an effective parking
policy. CABE's role in supporting and championing high design
quality in the creation of new buildings and places has included
substantial involvement in the delivery of the Sustainable Communities
Plan. The Commission's experience suggests that the design and
nature of car parking provision is critical to the success of
these neighbourhoods, and to future traffic management.
2.2 The Commission has been active in particular
in the Housing Growth Areas and the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders,
supporting Local Delivery Vehicles in raising design outcomes
and providing opportunities for practitioners to share experiences.
In addition, the Commission, along with the House Builders Federation,
has established the Building for Life Initiative, which sets criteria
for good design in new housing developments. These criteria include
car parking and, having looked at many new developments across
the country, it is clear that parking remains a major issue.
2.3 The Commission has added to this evidence
base with a series of research projects, including opinion surveys
of residents" attitudes and a series of audits of new housing.
Both have confirmed the importance of car parking in debates about
new neighbourhoods. In particular, our opinion surveys show that
limited parking provision has led many to reject higher density
living, and causes resentment, frustration and negative perceptions
of contemporary housing. At the same time, the Commission's audits
have found that the poor design of car parking spaces was one
of the main failings of many housing schemes. In short, the current
approach to restrictions on car parking provision undermines resident
satisfaction with new developments while the design of parking
layouts is generally unsuccessful, undermining the sustainability
of neighbourhoods.
3. WHAT IS
HAPPENING?
3.1 Many promising housing schemes fail
to adequately address the key issue of highway design. This has
often created car-dominated environments, where the layout of
roads does not promote the use of the street by pedestrians. Highway
and safety considerations often outweigh other elements of good
design, with the result that the public realm effectively becomes
a "technical" area for storing and manoeuvring cars,
rather than spaces or places in their own right. The residential
street in particular has become a conduit for traffic movement
rather than an important space, which through good design and
management can enhance the quality of life for residents young
and old.
3.2 Providing parking in off street, private
spaces seems to be much more popular than using streets themselves
to accommodate parking. When off street spaces have to be incorporated
into developments this can prevent safe and inclusive neighbourhoods
being created. On-street solution might enable an enhanced design
solution overall, with more natural surveillance and activity
in the public realm. For the developer, however, narrower streets
can mean less expenditure and an increased amount of saleable
land. Similarly, for the adopting authority, wider streets incorporating
on street parking results in a maintenance liability.
3.3 A key issue here for overall quality
relates to density. At densities below 25-30 dwellings per hectare
(dph) it is easier to deal with the numbers of cars present, as
it is at high densities (100 dph+) when parking is often underground.
At the middle range of 30-80 dwellings per hectare—which
includes the 30-50 dph target in PPG3—development economics
dictate surface parking, and sheer numbers can lead to a dominance
of parking areas and parked cars. The design of these areas can
be crucial to the perceived quality of a scheme. A well-designed
courtyard which happens to have a lot of cars parked in it at
night can be a very pleasant space during the day—whereas
an empty car park is just that—and nothing more.
3.4 It is clear from the Commission's housing
audits that poor highway and parking design is a key contributor
to the great majority of the schemes assessed being graded as
"Average" or "Poor". Better Streets, Better
Places: Delivering Sustainable Residential Environments (July,
2003), published by the ODPM, concluded that there were substantial
and widespread problems in highways authorities adopting streets
designed to meet PPG3 objectives. Much of the existing policy,
legal and technical framework in force is not geared to the delivery
of better quality streets. The report goes on to suggest the withdrawal
of Design Bulletin 32 and its companion guide Places, Streets,
and Movement and its replacement with a new "Manual for Streets".
In addition, the report suggests other legislative changes, alongside
better training and guidance. Clearly, these measures are still
needed.
4. WHAT SHOULD
PARKING POLICY
BE TRYING
TO ACHIEVE?
4.1 Cars are personal possessions; they
are expensive to buy and run and can be seen as an extension of
ourselves and our lifestyles. For some journeys at some times
in our life we need a car, for others we don't. They also represent
an individual's freedom and ability to access services and in
some ways civil liberties. But it is well understood that there
is just not enough space or resources for every trip people might
want to make by car. Environmental impacts from pollution to safety
have to be regulated in the public interest and public transport
needs people using it to make it viable and so available for all.
4.2 So there are possible environmental,
social and equality objectives to restricting and managing car
use and indeed a range of policy instruments are in use or under
consideration to achieve this. However, there are no measures
aimed at restricting car ownership, other than in planning guidance
on parking ratios for new residential developments. As such, there
is an understandable tension between public policy objectives
in relation to the ownership and use of cars.
4.3 In terms of parking policy objectives,
it is worth looking at a few scenarios. First, if parking restriction
is to achieve a more equitable allocation of space, affordability
and ensure good public transport is available to people on a variety
of incomes, is this being achieved? There is evidence that residents
are willing to pay a significant amount of money for parking spaces.
If parking policy is intended to help create equal access to transport
opportunities, maybe it is failing.
4.4 In terms of parking to reduce or slow
traffic flows, does this work? It requires a realistic assessment
by the driver that he or she will not be able to park, and so
not drive, otherwise it just spreads parking problems across areas.
There are opportunities for parked cars to physically slow traffic,
as seen successfully in homezones on the continent. But this requires
on street parking, not allocated parking spaces. It also requires
a significant shift in thinking on road safety and the "rights"
of different road users. Integrating land uses and a shift in
cultural perceptions of the acceptability of driving are vital
to meet such policy objectives.
4.5 In terms of pollution, energy use and
the environmental impact of car use, does restricting and so making
more expensive parking actually make a difference? If people are
paying a lot to own, tax, service and park their cars, aren't
they going to be even more determined to actually use them?
4.6 Similarly, unrealistic assumptions that
parking restrictions on one site will not create problems on another
can lead to road closures stop people parking outside the site
and a constricting of the movement opportunities in an area. Finally
off street parking courts can become tarmac wastelands and worries
over damaging cars or being knocked down can restrict opportunities
in these public spaces for the play and socialising that help
create communities.
4.7 To help prevent unwanted outcomes from
parking policy, or unrealistic expectations of its effectiveness,
policy objectives should be set out at the start. So if parking
is meant to restrict or slow road use, it should be designed to
achieve this. If it is to be equitable, it must be managed in
this way. If it is to be expensive, private, and help reduce car
ownership it must not be allowed to undermine good design and
accessibility for all. Creative ways of accommodating the car
to enhance and not detract from a place are vital, without them
car parking will remain a problem in the delivery of the urban
renaissance.
5. WHAT SHOULD
BE DONE?
5.1 It is suggested that there needs to
be a development of a shared language between planners and transportation
practitioners. Planning policy should tie far more closely with
Department for Transport policy to achieve good parking requirements
that support liveable neighbourhoods. The DfT and ODPM document
Better Streets, Better Places discusses the potential problems
of PPG3 parking policy, including how policy is being misinterpreted
and misused. Standard methods of measuring parking spaces, using
the 1.5 average maximum and the limitations of site by site parking
management are all touched upon. It is suggested that this document
would be a good source for the forthcoming draft PPS3.
5.2 The incorporation of parking into residential
contexts/developments can have a considerable impact on the nature
and quality of residential neighbourhoods. The issue of parking
should be addressed in a way that is responsive to the character
and contributes to the liveability of neighbourhoods. The DfT's
Manual for Streets should be reviewed in tandem with PPS3 to ensure
complementary policy between ODPM and DfT. In particular, parking
policies should aim to not only manage car use and storage, but
contribute to the quality and liveability of a neighbourhood.
October 2005
| 
