The Development Manager introduced the report which invited Members to agree the revised draft version of the Vehicle Parking Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).  This had been considered by Members at the Local Plan Panel meeting on 5 September 2019, and the document had been amended to reflect Members’ comments at that meeting.  There had also been a 6-week public consultation process at the end of 2019.  The recommendations in the report would be submitted to Cabinet for their agreement so that the document could be formally adopted by the Council.

The Development Manager explained that some of the photographs in the SPD document needed to be updated, to include local examples.  This would be done once the Covid-19 restrictions had been lifted, and the new photographs would be added to the final version of the document.  The Development Manager also responded to a question submitted by Councillor Alistair Gould, to explain in more detail the meaning of the words ‘Advisory’ and ‘Recommended’ as noted in Appendix A (page 35 of the SPD).  He explained that Advisory standards had been applied where the accessibility of the location was likely to justify a reduced provision than that detailed.  This should be supported by clear evidence and where necessary contribution given to other sustainable transport modes to encourage reduced car ownership for residents, as detailed in note 1.  Recommended standards had been applied to more rural locations and those where parking controls were limited.  In these instances, the recommended standards should be adhered to as opportunities for sustainable transport measures were likely to be more restrictive in nature.  Should a developer promote sustainable transport through the provision of car clubs and dedicated bus services, reduced parking might be acceptable.  Both these definitions would be added to the final version of the document.

The Development Manager said that this document would provide an appropriate and effective response to parking issues relating to new developments across the Borough and he gave an overview of the process.  This included Members agreeing at the Local Plan Panel meeting on 5 September 2019 that the SPD document be consulted on.  The document went through a 6-week consultation process.  He advised that 14 different groups had responded to the consultation and these responses were set-out on pages 11 to 26 of the report.  The Development Manager said that most responses were supportive of the document, and where necessary, changes had been made to the final document, set-out at Appendix 4 of the report.  He advised that once adopted, this would provide bespoke parking standards for Swale and would carry considerable weight in the determination of planning applications.

Members were invited to ask questions and make comments.

Councillor James Hunt referred to paragraph 1.2 in the report, and asked what weight the draft SPD parking standards had?  The Development Manager explained that it currently had limited weight, as the Borough was still working under the guidance of Kent County Council (KCC) parking standards and this is what any Planning Inspector would currently consider when determining any development proposals that were the subject of an appeal.  Once the draft SPD was formally adopted, it would be given full weight and be considered a material consideration when determining planning applications and appeals.  Councillor Hunt referred to Car Clubs, on page 19 of the SPD document and suggested the wording needed to be bolstered-up and more work carried out on this.  The Development Manager acknowledged Councillor Hunt’s point and explained that car clubs were currently not operational in Swale, and so there was not much detail at the moment.  The Head of Planning Services explained that car clubs were included in the travel plans on large scale planning applications, and so could be looked at as these came through in the future.  Councillor Hunt referred to Parallel Parking Bays as set-out on page 23 of the report, and to the dimensions on Table 7, on page 22 of the SPD, and a conflict in two widths of 2.7metres and 3.7 metres, and asked for clarification on the additional car park space width for disabled drivers, in relation to tandem parking.  Mr Paul Lulham (DHA Consultancy) said that he would look at the measurements again, and update for the final version of the document.  The Development Manager confirmed that tandem parking for disabled drivers would be re-considered when there was an obstruction present.

Councillor Mike Whiting considered there should be one parking space per bedroom of each property and was disappointed that this was not included within the SPD, even though there had been support for this initiative in the consultation.  The Chairman explained that this had been discussed at previous Local Plan Panel meetings, but had not been considered to be practical.  He added that car parking spaces had been increased in out-of-town areas.  Councillor Whiting considered 2metres was too narrow for a car parking space, and sought clarification on the scenarios that were considered in the process of determining the width of car parking spaces.  The Development Manager said that different scenarios were looked at, such as being next to a wall, and the individual setting of the surroundings, and it was considered that 2metres was sufficient.   Mr Lulham referred to Table 7, on page 32 of the SPD document and stated that the minimum parking bay, with no restrictions on either side, was now recommended to be 2.5metres, and with a hard boundary on each side, this would be increased by a minimum of 0.2metres on each side.  Councillor Whiting stated that parking at the front or side of a property was the ideal situation where it could be accommodated, and that this was also good for Electric Vehicle (EV) charging points.

Councillor Ghlin Whelan supported the one car parking space per bedroom scenario, and sought clarification on whether figures were minimum or maximum.  The Development Manager advised that whilst some figures in the report were minimum figures, he referred Members to Appendix A on page 35 of the SPD which set-out the advisory and recommended guidance on spaces in different scenarios including town centre, edge of centre, suburban and rural.  This gave a more flexible approach to parking and he confirmed that the Council had moved away from maximum figures.

Councillor Eddie Thomas welcomed the information on Table 2, on page 9 of the SPD which showed vehicle ownership by type and tenure of dwelling.  He also spoke in support of car clubs, and was happy to see further information within the document on car barns and stated that covenants should be placed on car barns to prevent them being converted.

Councillor Whiting referred to the comments made by the Development Manager on the flexible approach to parking and considered this could be taken advantage of, and robust minimum standards were the least the Council should expect.  In response, Mr Lulham reminded Members that minimum/maximum standards had been discussed at previous Local Plan Panel meetings, and a flexible approach was preferred.  Minimum standards might not be viable, especially in a town centre environment, but he referred Members to the advisory approach on this, with generally a minimum requirement, and any variation of this needed to be justified with evidence from developers.

Councillor Richard Palmer agreed with one parking space per bedroom especially out-of-town.

Councillor Alistair Gould defended the use of advisory, and considered this to be appropriate for town centre development where in the future there was likely to be a shift towards other modes of travel, away from car use.

Councillor James Hunt referred to the flexible approach and suggested the document be checked to ensure there was not too much flexibility in it before it was considered by Cabinet.

Councillor Monique Bonney referred to the comments made by Highways England on pages 13/14 of the report.  She considered the measures set-out for ‘last mile’ deliveries, should also be applied to residential areas as well.  Councillor Bonney suggested that page 25 of the SPD should be headed ‘Parking for Ultra Low Emission Vehicles’ (ULEV).  She also sought clarification on the town centre maps, where it indicated that Sheerness Town Centre would not have town centre parking standards.  Mr Lulham explained that they had looked at the potential of including Sheerness Town Centre in town centre standards, but because of the limited and fragmented nature of on-street parking controls here, relative to Sittingbourne and Faversham, an edge of centre approach was considered more appropriate.  Mr Lulham explained that the ‘last mile’ was a very relevant issue.  He added that some developments had van parking bays, but it was impossible to determine who would own a van.  More generous parking was included so that vans could fit in those spaces as well, and there be more useable parking for vans.  If the carriageway was increased for van deliveries, this would be to the detriment of landscaping and might result in higher vehicle speeds.   Councillor Bonney asked whether the plug-in points for electric cycles, referred to on page 25 of the SPD, applied to commercial space as well as residential space.  Mr Lulham agreed to confirm this to Members.  Councillor Bonney referred to the parking dimensions on page 33 of the SPD, and whether there was a later version of the ‘Design Recommendations for Multi-Storey and Underground Car Park’ (2011).

Councillor Ghlin Whelan asked for clarification on Table 1, page 8 of the SPD, and Mr Lulham explained that the wards were not electoral wards, but areas defined by the census.

Councillor Carole Jackson asked about provision of parent and child parking bays.  The Development Manager referred to Appendix D of the SPD and the child-friendly approach to space sizes, with there being different sizes of spaces, dependent on the circumstances.  Mr Lulham drew attention to page 43 of the SPD, and the first note for A1 retail use where this looked at this issue in more detail and that parking was to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Recommended:

(1)      That the revised draft Vehicle Parking Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) be noted and agreed, and delegated authority be given to officers to make the final changes to the document.