north fareham sda smarter choices and parking study ...€¦ · 110112-cpsrf2 f3 january 2012 final...

North Fareham SDA

Smarter Choices and Parking

Study

Parking Standards Study

For

Fareham Borough Council

Project No:

10776

January 2012

Campbell Reith Hill LLP

Somerset House

47-49 London Road

Redhill

Surrey

RH1 1LU

Tel: 01737 784500

Fax: 01737 784501

www.campbellreith.com

Fareham SDA Parking Study

ADad10776.110112.CPSRF3 January 2012 F3 2

Document History and Status

Revision Date Purpose/Status Author File Ref Check Review

D1 October 2011 1st draft A Dumbrell

ADad10776.181011.CPSR

D1 D Innes

D2 November 2011 2nd

Draft A Dumbrell ADad10776.071111.CPSR

D2 N Murphy D Innes

F1 December 2011 Final for issue A Dumbrell ADad10776-

191211-CPSRF1

N Murphy D Innes

F2 January 2012 Re Issue A Dumbrell ADad10776-

110112-CPSRF2

F3 January 2012 Final issue A Dumbrell ADad10776-

270112-CPSRF3

N Murphy A Dumbrell

This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of CampbellReith’s

appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of the appointment. It is addressed to

and for the sole use and reliance of CampbellReith’s client. CampbellReith accepts no

liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes,

stated in the document, for which it was prepared and provided. No person other than the

client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without

the prior written permission of Campbell Reith Hill LLP. Any advice, opinions, or

recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context

of the document as a whole. The contents of this document are not to be construed as

providing legal, business or tax advice or opinion.

© Campbell Reith Hill LLP 2010

Document Details

Last saved 27/01/2012 15:10

Path Document1



Author A Dumbrell

Project Partner David Innes

Project Number 10776

Project Name North Fareham SDA; Smarter choices and parking Study



Contents

1.0 Introduction 5

2.0 Background to the study 6

3.0 The study 7

4.0 Alloctaed and unallocated parking 18

5.0 Residential parking standards 22

6.0 Design Guidance 30

7.0 Non residential parking 31

8.0 Conclusions 38

Appendix A: calculation of 2026 parking Demand 39

Appendix B: Illustrative parking layouts 41



1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. The CampbellReith Engineering Consortium has been commissioned by Fareham Borough

Council to undertake a study to inform the development of a sustainable transport strategy

for the North of Fareham Strategic Development Area (SDA). The Study comprises two

elements: Smarter Choices (including Travel Planning), and Parking Standards. This volume

of the Study considers the parking requirements of the SDA and sets out parking standard

options that could be adopted as part of the emerging Area Action Plan.

1.2. A number of evidence based studies have already been undertaken which have informed

the recently adopted Core Strategy and the development of the sustainable transport

strategy for the SDA.

1.3. The emerging Transport Strategy has three overarching themes: reduce, manage and

invest: with a number of proposals under each theme. Of these three overarching themes,

reduce relates to the Smarter Choices and parking strategies for the SDA. The main

streams contained within the reduce theme are:

Integrating planning and transport;

Creating well connected places;

Encouraging self-containment;

Promoting Smarter Choice measures; and

Managing car parking

1.4. The aim of the Parking Study has been to review and make recommendations on the

approach to parking standards for each of the main land uses within the SDA. In so doing

we have examined the existing Fareham Borough Council and Hampshire County Council

parking standards, along with those of other local authorities, to determine the potential for

differing standards with greater eco town bias and levels of accessibility.



2.0 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

North Fareham SDA

2.1 The North Fareham Strategic Development Area is located to the north of the M27

motorway and the historic town of Fareham, adjacent to junction 10 of the motorway and

extends west towards Knowle and Funtley and eastwards to Junction 11.

2.2 The proposals and objectives for the SDA, as set out in the adopted Core Strategy, are to

deliver a highly sustainable mixed use development of between 6,500 to 7,500 dwellings

and some 90,000m² of employment floorspace, offering a range of employment

opportunities.

2.3 The Core Strategy envisages a high level of self-containment for the SDA with up to 40% of

residents of the new community working within the SDA. The 2009 Mott Gifford Report1

states that a self-containment figure of less than 40% would have a significant impact on the

Strategic Road Network.

1 Fareham SDA Access Study, Mott Gifford, February 2009



3.0 THE STUDY

3.1 Methodology

3.1.1 The policy basis for this study in relation to residential parking is Planning Policy Statement 3:

Housing (PPS3) November 2006, and for non-residential parking Planning Policy Guidance

Note 13: Transport (PPG13) March 2001, and in particular Annex D of the document.

RESIDENTIAL

3.1.2 Paragraph 51 of PPS3 states that:

“Local planning Authorities should, with stakeholders and communities, develop residential

parking policies for their areas, taking account of expected levels of car ownership, the

importance of promoting good design and the need to use land efficiently.”

3.1.3 Clear advice on parking that reflects PPS3 is included in section 8.3 of the Manual for Streets

(MfS) March 2007 by the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and

Local Government (DCLG).

3.1.4 The MfS also references “Car Parking; What Works Where” by English Partnerships, at

paragraph 8.3.34 which refers to a methodology developed by Alan Young and Phil Jones.

This methodology was given further weight as a means of responding to paragraph 51 of

PPS3 with its publication by DCLG under the title “Residential Car Parking Research” May

2007. However the document is caveated as follows:

“Although this research was commissioned by Communities and Local Government, the

findings are those of the author and DO NOT necessarily represent the views of the DCLG”

However, it nevertheless puts the methodology more firmly in the public domain. The

published research was undertaken by WSP LTD in association with Phil Jones Associates,

TRL and David Lock Associates. It considered expected levels of car ownership and the

factors that have a significant influence on car ownership and car parking demand, including;

Dwelling size, type and tenure;

Dwelling location;

Availability of allocated and unallocated parking spaces;

Availability of visitor parking and;

Availability of garage parking.



3.1.5 The methodology that has been used for the residential element of this parking study is that

included in Residential Car Parking Research, May 2007. It focuses on both national and

local Census data.

3.1.6 Since publication of the DCLG research paper, a number of local authorities have accepted

the methodology for creating their own residential parking guidance. Although the 2001

Census data is now somewhat dated, a combination of growth factors taken from TEMPRO2

have been used in updating the data.

3.1.7 CampbellReith produced a data set from the 2001 Census, and this showed the number of

cars owned against the number of habitable rooms3 for all households in the Borough of

Fareham. This data was then grouped into a lower layer Super Output Area for each of the

18 wards, and further grouped by household type (house or flat) and household tenure

(owner occupied or shared/rented).

3.2 Car ownership

3.2.1 The results from the 18 wards within the borough shows Fareham to be a diverse area with

the 2001 Census data showing that car ownership levels vary from ward to ward. Despite

the varying factors that influence car ownership across each of the wards, the 2001 Census

data shows that over the borough as a whole car ownership per household is1.4, which is

above the national average of 1.1. Of the 18 wards, only two have car ownership levels

below the national average; these being the wards of Fareham South and Town centre.

2 TEMPRO is a computer program developed and issued by the Department for Transport

3 The Census defines number of habitable rooms as follows: The count of the number of habitable rooms in a household’s accommodation does

not include bathrooms, toilets, halls or landings, or rooms that can only be used for storage.



Figure 1: Cars per household by Ward in Fareham Borough (Source 2001 Census)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Fareham Town Centre

Fareham South

National Average

Porchester East

Fareham North-West

Fareham East

Fareham west

Stubbington

Fareham North

Fareham Average

Hill Head

Porchester West

park gate

Titchfield Common

Locks Heath

Titchfield

Warsash

Sarisbury

3.2.2 Closer examination of the Census data shows that overall, only 14% of households in the

Borough of Fareham do not own a car; this compares to the national average of 27%. The

data also shows that 42.4% of Fareham households have one car, 34.6% of Fareham

households have two cars and 1.54% of Fareham households have four or more cars.

3.2.3 The Census data is also able to provide us with the patterns in car ownership according to the

size of home, tenure and, to a smaller extent, whether the property is a house or flat.

3.2.4 In relation to dwelling type, the 2001 census data shows that within Fareham 46.8% of

detached dwellings have two cars and 32.2% of semi-detached dwellings have two cars.

However, this falls to 28.9% in terraced dwellings and just 7.5% for flats and apartments.



Figure 2: Percentage of households with two cars by dwelling type

46.8

32.2

28.9

7.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

detached Semi detached terraced flat

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Dwelling Type

Figure 3: Car ownership in Fareham by tenure

3.2.5 The 2001 Census data is now somewhat dated and the data from the 2011 Census will not be

available until mid/late 2012. Therefore, in order to project the likely future car ownership

within the borough, the car ownership data from the 2001 Census was calculated using local

growth factors from TEMPRO (the Trip End Model Presentation Program). TEMPRO has

been in existence for several years and is designed to allow analysis of pre-processed trip

10.3

42.4 37.7

7.3 2.3

24.3

47.2

24.2

3.2 1.1

54.9

36.9

7.1 1 0.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

No car 1 car 2 cars 3 cars 4 cars

Pe

rce

nta

ge h

ou

seh

old

Number of cars

private owned

private rented

LA Rented



end, journey mileage, car ownership and population planning data from the National Trip End

model (NTEM).

3.2.6 In using the TEMPRO model we have assumed that the first phase of residential development

within the North Fareham SDA will be under construction and partially occupied by 2016 and

that a substantial part of the SDA will be constructed and occupied by 2026. We have

therefore used 2016 and 2026 as the two benchmark years for estimating future car

ownership within Fareham.

3.2.7 These factors were calculated by obtaining the number of cars per household both recorded

in 2001 and forecast for 2016 and 2026 from TEMPRO. This allowed for the cars per

household to be calculated for these years. The growth factor was calculated by dividing the

cars per household in 2016 and 2026 by the cars per household in 2001.

3.2.8 The TEMPRO model predicts that by 2016 car ownership within Fareham will increase by

11% and by 19% in 2026. As stated above, the 2001 Census data provided us with the

overall car ownership based on dwelling size; using this data we can apply the predicted

levels of car ownership to determine car ownership by dwelling size for both 2016 and 2026.

Table 3.1 sets out the predicted car ownership.

Table 3.1: Predicted car ownership by dwelling size

3.3 Factors influencing car ownership and parking demand

3.3.1 As set out earlier, the key factors that have a significant influence on car ownership and

parking demand include:

Dwelling size, type and tenure;

Dwelling location;

Parking provision (garage, allocated and un-allocated).

2001 Overall Car

Ownership Predicted Car

ownership 2016 (11% growth)

Predicted car ownership 2026

(19% growth)

1 Bed Dwelling 0.55 0.61 0.65

2 Bed Dwelling 0.94 1.04 1.12

3 Bed Dwelling 1.36 1.51 1.62

4 plus Bed dwelling 1.88 2.09 2.24



Dwelling size, type and tenure

3.3.2 Dwelling size and type are factors in determining car ownership levels. This is logical as

larger dwellings are more likely to be inhabited by more people of driving age and/or

households with larger incomes. Conversely, smaller dwellings tend to be occupied by

smaller households.

3.3.3 Tenure is another influence on household car ownership. In particular, households

occupying rented accommodation tend to own fewer cars than owner-occupied households

in dwellings of similar size and type.

3.3.4 This is confirmed by the Census data as set out in Figures 2 and 3 above, and the Fareham

Parking Survey undertaken in March 2009.

3.3.5 The March 2009 questionnaire based Fareham Parking Study, allows the car ownership per

dwelling size to be identified. Figure 4 shows the level of car ownership per dwelling size.

Figure 4: Car ownership by dwelling size

0.75 1

1.84 2.07

2.23

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed 5 Bed

Nu

mb

er

of

cars

Dwelling Size



Parking Provision

3.3.6 Residents attitude towards parking provision and parking at home both nationally and within

Fareham are recorded by the national research and surveys undertaken for the Department

for Transport by the Office of National Statistics4 and the 2009 Fareham Parking Study.

3.3.7 In relation to parking provision and attitudes to parking availability at a national level, the

Department for Transport survey found that:

62% of households considered the availability of a garage/off-street parking to be very or

fairly important;

48% of all households had access to a garage and 57% to other off-street parking;

There is a significant difference between the proportion of car owning households that

have access to a garage and the proportion that use a garage for overnight parking;

Of the 48% that have access to a garage, only 23% make use of the garage for parking.

3.3.8 The Department for Transport report also found that the importance of parking, not

surprisingly, increased with the number of cars available to a household, and that even

those living in non-car households 30% considered the availability of parking to be important.

3.3.10 At a national level the findings of the 2009 Department for Transport Report also indicates

that the higher a person’s income, the more likely that their household is to have access to a

garage. Similarly the more affluent an area the more likely the household will have access to

a garage. In addition, the surveys shows that households with more than one car were also

more likely to have access to a garage or off-street parking (63% and 72% respectively)

than households with only one car (46% and 52%)

3.3.11 The results from the national surveys also show that the most common location where cars

are actually parked overnight was outside of the home, but off the street, which applied to

56% of households.

3.3.12 Figure 5 sets out the access to the various forms of residential parking by the number of

cars within the household.

4 2009 Report published by the Department for Transport : Public Experiences of and Attitudes Towards Parking



Figure 5: Access to residential parking by number of cars in house

3.3.13 At a national level The Department for Transport report found a significant difference between

the proportion of car-owning households that have access to a garage (55%) and the

proportion of these households that actually use a garage for parking their car overnight

(23%).

3.3.14 In relation to those car-owning households that have access to off-street parking, the

difference between the availability of the off-street space and its use is considerably less;

62% of households had access to off-street parking, of which 52% actually used the space for

parking their car overnight. This is illustrated in Figure 6

17 21 32

53

17

46

15

52 54

18

63

8

72 64

20

48

13

57 58

19

01020304050607080

A Garage A residents'car park

Other off-street

parking

On-streetparkingoutsidehouse

On-streetparkingsome

distancefrom house

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Type of Parking

Access to residential parking by number of cars in the household

No car

One Car

2 or more cars

All



Figure 6: Type of residential parking the household had access to and where The household cars are usually parked overnight

The 2009 Fareham Parking Study

3.3.15 The 2009 questionnaire-based Fareham Parking Survey also ascertained residents attitudes

towards residential parking. Figure 7 below shows where respondents chose to park their

cars. The vast majority of respondents parked in garages or allocated off-street spaces

(mostly private driveways). These results are however undoubtedly affected by the types of

respondents, given that 82% of respondents lived in privately owned detached or semi-

detached properties the percentage of respondents parking in private spaces was bound to

be higher than those that lived in rented or flatted properties.

19

59

62

12

55

4

25

56

10

23

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

On-street parking some distancefrom the house

On-street parking outside thehouse

Other off-street parking

A residents' car park

A garage

Percentage

Typ

e o

f p

arki

ng

acce

ss

The use of parking facilities over night Type of parking access



Figure 7: Fareham residents parking habits.

3.3.16 Compared to the national figures, a higher percentage of Fareham residents tend to use their

garage to park their car overnight. 80% of the respondents to the Fareham Parking Study

owned a garage, however, only 45% used it for parking their car, whereas 78% used it for

general storage and 41% used it for storing a bike.

3.3.17 Of those Fareham residents that owned a garage but did not then use it to park their car, 31%

stated that this was due to the garage being too small, whereas, 41% said it was because

there was adequate parking provision elsewhere and 65% stated it was because the garage

was better used for other things.

3.3.18 The results from the Fareham Parking Survey therefore tend to show that providing a garage

does not always equate to providing a parking space. However, it also tends to show that

unless adequate parking is provided elsewhere, the consequence of not using a garage can

have an adverse impact on overall parking demand.

3.4 The above data provides the current and predicted average car ownership profiles for the

residents of Fareham. The use of average car ownership values takes account of the

variation in numbers of cars owned by different household size and tenure. As a consequence,

the use of average car ownership values allows flexibility when looking at the lifetime cycle of

car ownership of each property.

34%

48%

3% 4%

7%

1%

3%

Garage

Allocated off-street

unallocated off-street

Unallocated on street

Allocated on street

Car park

Underground Parking



3.5 In line with the requirements of PPS 3, it is considered reasonable and robust to use the

predicted 2026 average car ownership figures as the basis for developing the residential

parking options for the North Fareham SDA.

Interested Parties workshop

3.6 As part of the study process a Smarter Choices and Parking Strategy Workshop for the north

Fareham SDA was held at the offices of Fareham Borough Council on Thursday 22nd

September 2011. The workshop was attended by 18 interested parties including consultants,

public transport operators and client representatives. The participants of the work-shop were

divided into groups and considered a range of issues that included: the scope of Smarter

Choices measures, parking considerations, potential barriers and delivery mechanisms. The

findings of the workshop sessions have been used to inform the study.

3.7 In relation to parking, the issues raised by the participants were as follows:

There was a perception, particularly from the developers, that a reduction in parking

standards could be seen to reduce the marketability of the development;

Although garages are not always used for parking vehicles, the provision of a garage was

considered to be beneficial when marketing and selling a property;

Reduced parking provision is unlikely to influence the purchase or ownership of a car.



4.0 ALLOCATED AND UNALLOCATED PARKING

4.1. Historically, local planning authority approaches to residential car parking have typically

focused on off-street provision, brought about by concerns that on-street parking may lead

to problems of congestion and road accidents. In the case of existing streets these concerns

may have some justification. However in the case of new development, allocating spaces

makes car parking much less efficient and on-street parking can make a valuable and

flexible contribution to the overall parking supply.

4.2 Allocated parking is defined as a space that is provided within the curtilage of a property and

includes the garage, driveway or a space that is off-plot such as in parking courts. Other

than dedicated spaces for disabled users, spaces provided on the adopted public highway

cannot legally be allocated to any single dwelling.

4.3 In general, local authority parking standards project a level of parking provision for visitors,

which is in the order of 20%. A study of Lower Earley in Reading undertaken by Noble and

Jenks in 1996 determined that most visits by non-residents occurred during evenings and

weekends, coinciding with the period when some residents were using their cars elsewhere.

In their study Noble and Jenks went on to calculate that if the majority of resident parking

was unallocated then the visitor inflow balances with the resident outflow as spaces are

available for both visitors and residents. As a result of these findings, Noble and Jenks

recommended that no special provision be made for visitors when at least half of the parking

provision is unallocated.

4.4 Further research that built upon the Lower Earley Study was undertaken by Alan Young and

Phil Jones to show the impact of allocating residential parking spaces on overall parking

provision. Using the 2001 Census data, which as previously indicated shows that the

average levels of car ownership for a house with 5 habitable rooms (3 bedroom house) is

1.1 cars, they created a hypothetical development with such dwellings in order to show that

each group of 10 dwellings needs 11 parking spaces

4.5 Their research went on to show that if each dwelling is then allocated one space, which

cannot be used by any other property, then 19% of these allocated spaces will be unused

due to the household having no car (at 1996 car ownership levels).

4.6 There is also the other inefficiency of demand for additional parking by those households

with two or more cars. Young and Jones therefore developed a formula to calculate overall

demand for further unallocated parking per property, when one allocated parking space per

property is provided.



4.7 As stated earlier in this report, the research and methodology developed by Alan Young and

Phil Jones was given further weight as a means of responding to paragraph 51 of PPS3 with

its publication by the Department for Communities and Local Government under the title

“Residential Car Parking Research” May 2007.

4.8 The additional work undertaken by Young and Jones reaffirmed that the allocation of spaces

to individual dwellings can have an adverse impact upon the efficiency of parking provision.

The potential impact of allocating car parking spaces is best illustrated through a worked

example using the Young and Jones formula and the 2001 census profile of car ownership

for households in 5 room owner-occupied houses in England. This profile was:

16% had no car;

53% had one car;

26% had two cars;

4% had three cars; and

1% had four or more cars.

4.9 Assuming a one to one relationship between households and dwellings (as the Young and

Jones research does), this gives an overall demand of 1.2 car parking spaces per dwelling,

assuming that the car parking spaces are unallocated. However, if each dwelling was to be

allocated one car parking space (which could not be used by any other household), then

16% of the allocated spaces would be unused. Also there is the additional demand for

parking spaces from houses with two or more cars which equate to:

Additional demand = (1 x 0.26) + (2 x 0.04) + (3 x 0.01) = 0.37 cars per dwelling

Therefore the overall parking requirement per dwelling would be:

1 allocated space + 0.37 unallocated spaces = 1.37

4.10 If this approach is also applied to flats, the efficiency advantages of unallocated parking are

even greater.

Young and Jones Formula Additional Demand for Parking per Dwelling = 1 x (proportion of two car households) + 2 x (proportion of three car households) + 3 x (proportion of four car households)



4.11 The 2026 projected car ownership for Fareham is that 47.06% of 5 habitable room (3

bedrooms) dwellings will have two or more cars.

4.12 Based on the 2026 average car ownership for Fareham, which it is reasonable to assume

will equally apply to the SDA, Table 4.1 sets out how total demand for car parking spaces

varies depending on dwelling size and the extent to which parking spaces are allocated.

Table 4.1: 2026 Forecast parking demand for North Fareham SDA

Type: House Location: Suburban Tenure: Owner Occupied

Total Demand for Car parking Spaces (Allocated and Unallocated)

No of Allocated Spaces per Dwelling 0 1 2

3 Room House 0.65 1 2

4 Room House 1.1 1.6 2.3

5 Room House 1.6 1.9 2.3

6 Room House 1.6 1.9 2.3

7 Room House 1.9 2.1 2.4

8 Room House 2.2 2.2 2.6

4.13 As can be seen from Table 4.1 by providing less allocated parking the overall parking

provision within the SDA is reduced. For example, in the case of a five room house, where

there is no allocated parking the parking ratio would be 1.6 spaces per dwelling. However, if

the decision was to provide 2 allocated spaces, then the parking ratio for a five room house

would need to be 2.3 spaces per dwelling. The details of how the figures set out in Table 4.1

were calculated are set out in Appendix A of this report.

4.14 Typically the majority of current local authority standards and guidance on parking have very

little to say about the benefits of on-street parking. However, with increasing demand on

land resulting in rising densities, there is clearly a physical limit to the number of parking

spaces that can be provided on plot. Nevertheless the arguments about on plot parking

options have obscured the potential of the street as a location for parking.

4.15 On-street unallocated parking does make a valuable and flexible contribution to the overall

supply of residential parking and, with careful street design that keeps traffic speeds low and

provides adequate space for moving vehicles and pedestrians, need not be problematic.

4.16 The advantages of providing unallocated communal parking are:

That it only needs to provide for average levels of car ownership;



Allows for changes in car ownership between individual dwellings over time;

Provides for both residents’ and visitors’ needs;

Highly sustainable and flexible;

Can cater for parking demand from non-residential uses in mixed use areas;

Provides opportunity to develop high quality streetscape and public space in the

absence of on-plot parking and associated driveways; and

Adds activity to the street.

4.17 From Table 4.1 above it is clear that meeting the parking demand by the provision of only

unallocated parking is the most efficient in land use terms, but extreme. Equally, the

provision of just allocated parking is just as extreme and would result in inefficient land use

and a substantial amount of unused provision.



5.0 RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS

Context for the parking standards

5.1. The level of parking provision and its form and location has a key influence on the form and

quality of a development and is a major determinant of travel mode. As stated earlier in this

report, in relation to residential parking the Government’s policy is set out in Planning Policy

Statement 3: Housing, and in particular paragraph 51 of the document that states that:

“Local Planning Authorities should with stakeholders and communities, develop residential

parking polices for their area, taking account of expected levels of car ownership”.

5.2 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing also requires that:

… a design-led approach to the provision of car-parking space is taken, that is well

integrated with a high quality public realm and streets that are pedestrian, cycle and vehicle

friendly.

5.3 As discussed earlier in this report the level of average car ownership within Fareham is

projected to rise by 19% in 2026 from its current level of 1.4 to 1.66 per dwelling and there is

nothing to suggest that this level of car ownership is not likely to be achieved within the

North Fareham SDA. Therefore this should be the starting point to determine the level of

parking provision for the residential areas within the SDA.

5.4 In relation to dwelling size the average level of car ownership in 2026, taken from Table 3.1,

is likely to be as follows:

1 bed dwelling 0.65

2 bed dwelling 1.12

3 bed dwelling 1.62

4 plus bed dwelling 2.24

5.5 These predicted levels of car ownership have been taken into account when formulating the

parking standards options set out later in this chapter.

Interaction with the Smarter Choices Strategy

5.6 The next section of this chapter sets out a number of different parking standards that could

potentially be adopted for the SDA, along with their advantages and disadvantages.

However, this section aims to set out how parking standards might influence the travel

behaviour of future residents of the SDA and hence how strongly they support the Smarter

Choices Strategy in its aims.



5.7 It is considered, that given the aims of both the strategies (Smarter Choices and Parking),

any decision regarding parking standards should be informed by the information set out in

this section

5.8 The overriding aim of the Smarter Choices Strategy is: To ensure the long term sustainable

growth of Fareham, with the focus on the North Fareham SDA, through the delivery of an

area-wide package of ‘smarter choices’ measures which seek to maximise the use of the

sustainable transport infrastructure and services.

5.9 In order to achieve this aim, the strategy sets out a number of measures and initiatives

including travel planning and enhanced public transport to and from the site. However, an

important underlying assumption of the Smarter Choices Strategy is that parking standards

that would support and encourage the use of sustainable transport will be introduced at the

SDA. Without an effective parking management strategy for the SDA the true value and

extent of the smarter choices benefits will not be realised. Research into the effectiveness of

smarter choices indicates that without a reduction in parking provision smarter choices are

unlikely to bring about any significant modal shift away from the private car. This should be

considered when taking decisions on parking standards.

5.10 Parking management is particularly important in context of the transport strategy that has

been devised for South Hampshire by Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH), and

subsequently adopted for the SDA. This strategy has three main strands of Reduce,

Manage and Invest, with an emphasis being placed on reducing the need to travel and

managing the demand for car trips.

5.11 This TfSH transport strategy also indicates that the SDA is expected to achieve 40% level of

self-containment, meaning that 40% of trips of all purposes take place within the site and

hence do not impact on the wider road network. This is a challenging figure to reach, with

most new development not achieving even half of this. If the SDA is to achieve this high

level of self-containment, robust Smarter Choices policies and parking standards will be

required.

5.12 Figure 5.1 below, which has been reproduced from the Smarter Choices study,

demonstrates the likely modal shift outcome corresponding to varying levels of car parking

provision and investment in smarter choices. As can be seen, maximum investment in

smarter choices and minimum parking provision is likely to result in a 30% - 40% mode shift

towards sustainable modes; which would be on target to hit the goal set by TfSH.

Conversely, maximum car parking provision and minimum investment in smarter choices is

likely to result in only a 10% mode shift away from the car. Minimum car parking provision



and minimum investment in smarter choices is also likely to only deliver a 10% - 20% modal

shift towards sustainable modes.

5.13 The parking standards options set out in the following section has been assessed against

this figure, with the assumption that investment in smarter choices will be significant, as

outlined in the Smarter Choices Strategy.

Figure 5.1: Likely relationship and outcome between car parking availability and

investment in sustainable transport

Options

1. All parking is allocated (on plot)

5.14 This option is based on all residential parking being allocated to individual dwellings. This

may either take the form of garages and driveways within the demesne of the property or

allocated spaces within a shared area, such as court yard parking. It takes no account of

unallocated on-street parking, assuming that all residents and visitors will park their vehicles

off-road at all times.

5.15 This option has implications for visitor parking as this would also need to be provided off-

street, thereby creating an extra space requirement for parking. As is outlined in chapter 4

much of the visitor parking and some of the resident parking would be likely to be unused for

much of the time, hence this approach does not represent the most efficient use of land.



5.16 This approach would require the parking allocations outlined in Table 5.1 based on

projected 2026 average car ownership figures

Table 5.1: Possible Parking standard based on full allocated provision

Parking Spaces provided by Dwelling

On –Plot Allocated Parking Spaces

1 bedroom dwelling 1



4 or more bedroom dwelling 3

Average per dwelling 2

5.17 Advantages – This approach provides residents with high levels of parking provision

enabling them to park easily at their home. This approach is therefore favourable to future

residents for whom the car is the main method of transportation. Households with multiple

cars would benefit considerably by being able to store their vehicles.

5.18 Disadvantages - The main disadvantage to this approach is the fact that by providing

adequate parking it does not support the smarter choices strategy and hence is likely to

reduce the potential for modal shift away from car use. Figure 5.1 suggests that this

approach would be likely to achieve only a 5 -10% modal shift towards sustainable transport.

Adopting this approach would therefore prevent the SDA from reaching the target of 40%

self-containment.

2 – Use of the adopted 2009 Local Development Framework Residential parking Standards

5.19 These standards were adopted by Fareham in 2009 as part of the Local Development

Framework. Due to the close proximity of the SDA it may be reasonable to assume that they

could be applied to the new development. These standards allow for some unallocated

parking provision as well as some allocated spaces and are therefore more flexible than

option 1. Adopting this approach also reduces the issue with unused and therefore

inefficient provision by providing unallocated bays, which can be used by both residents and

visitors.

5.20 If these standards were adopted for the SDA the allocation outlined in Table 5.2 would be

required. Where a mixture of allocated and unallocated space is planned for an individual

dwelling, developers are required to provide the allocated parking spaces requirement in

order to avoid under-provision. This means that on average around two spaces are provided

per dwelling.



Table 5.2: November 2009 adopted Residential parking standards for Fareham

Parking Spaces provided per dwelling

On-plot/Allocated Parking Spaces

Shared/Unallocated Parking Spaces

1 Bed 1 0.75

2 Beds 2 1.25

3 Beds 2 1.75

4 Beds or more 3 2.25

Average per dwelling 2 1.43

5.21 Advantages – These standards have been successfully used elsewhere in the Borough and

evidence suggests that they provide adequate parking for residents and guests. |Again

these standards are relatively generous, allowing on average enough parking for all demand

to be supplied. They have the added advantage of being flexible regarding allocated and

unallocated spaces, creating a more efficient use-profile and reducing the amount of land

required to be given over to parking.

5.22 Disadvantages – The main disadvantage of this approach is the same as that of option 1 in

that it does not restrict parking and hence does not support the use of smarter choices.

Again, this approach would result in a 5 – 10% modal shift towards sustainable transport.

5.23 However, it should be noted that if the intended level of public transport that is currently

assumed as part of the Smarter Choices Strategy is not achieved, these standards may be

necessary in order to provide adequate accessibility levels.

Option 3 – Provide an average of 1.25 spaces per dwelling

5.24 This relies on the assumption that a high standard of public transport will be provided and

that the master planning process results in a development structure that encourages walking

and cycling. Also, there is an assumption that services such as schools, shops and leisure

facilities are provided within walking distance of all parts of the development, as are

employment opportunities.

5.25 This option is more restrictive than the previous options in order to support the Smarter

Choices Strategy and hence induce modal shift away from car use. Though there should be

no intention to restrict car ownership within the SDA, it must be noted that if high levels of

self-containment and modal shift are to be achieved some restriction on parking must be

considered.



5.26 This option therefore suggests an average provision of 1.25 parking spaces per residential

unit, compared with the average (in practice) of two provided under the 2009 adopted

standards outlined above. Taken across the development, this average is based on some

types of dwelling being allocated more spaces than others. For example, three and four

bedroom houses would be allocated more spaces than a one bedroom flat. This is due to

the fact that the census data set out earlier in this report suggests that a higher proportion of

occupants of one bedroom dwellings do not own a car compared to occupants of large

houses.

5.27 It is calculated based on the combined allocated and non-allocated provision set for

individual dwelling size. As can be seen in Table 5.3, the provision for a one bedroom

dwelling is 0.61 per unit, whereas for a four bedroom dwelling the provision would be 1.8

spaces. The overall SDA wide figure of 1.25 takes account of dwelling mix, including an

element of reduced car areas. here it has been assumed that 60% of the residential units

will be three of four bedroom dwellings. This option is based on a combination of allocated

and non-allocated spaces with a bias towards un-allocated, which results in a more efficient

use of land.

Table 5.3: Parking standards of 1.25 spaces per dwelling

Whilst adopting a residential parking standard for the North Fareham SDA in line with that set out in Table 5.1 meets the requirements of paragraph 51 of PPS3 and will accommodate the predicted 2026 average car ownership levels, it does not provide flexibility or arguably meet the design led requirements of PPS3.

5.28 Advantages – If this option was taken up it is more likely that the figure of 40% self-

containment could be achieved due to higher levels of modal shift. These standards would

support the Smarter Choices Strategy in its aims and according to Figure 5.1 would achieve

a 30-40% modal shift towards sustainable transport. It would also reduce the amount of un-

used parking provision, hence making more efficient use of land.

5.29 Disadvantages – This standard could be seen as low and may therefore be less popular

with developers, as houses may be more difficult to sell. It is also possible that parking

Dwelling Size

Parking Spaces Provided by Dwelling

Option 1 standards (for

comparison)

Option 3 - Combined

Allocated/Unallocated

spaces

1 Bedroom 1 0.61

2 Bedroom 2 1.2

3 Bedroom 2 1.4

4 Bedroom 3 1.8

Average per dwelling 2 1.25



provision will not have as strong an effect on car ownership as would be desirable and the

development will suffer from high levels of illegal or inconsiderate parking as residents seek

extra spaces. This could create enforcement problems and it is therefore suggested that if

this option is pursued some consideration is given to requesting that the developers fund an

enforcement officer for the SDA.

Garage Parking

5.30 As set out in Section 3 of this study, Research undertaken nationally and in Fareham shows

that a significant number of households that have a garage and own a car do not use the

garage to park their car. In Fareham, the 2009 parking survey found that only 45% of people

who own a garage use them to park their car overnight. Given the evidence that the major

use of a garage is for purposes other than parking the car, it is recommended that garages

are not generally counted towards the overall parking provision within the SDA.

5.31 In determining what counts towards parking it is recommended that the following is taken

into account:

Car ports and car barns are unlikely to be used for storage and therefore should be

counted towards parking provision;

On-plot spaces should be provided adjacent to the side or front of dwelling;

Where garages are to be considered as contributing towards the parking provision the

following should to be taken into consideration:

- The availability of other parking spaces, including unallocated on-street parking

- The availability of general storage and cycle parking

- The size of the garage; the garage must be large enough to accommodate a large

family car and also provide room for additional general storage and/or cycle

storage, and wide enough to allow ease of entry and exit from the vehicle.

Community Car Club

5.32 In accordance with the recommendations of the Smarter Choices Strategy, we would also

recommend that the parking standards adopted for the North Fareham SDA should require

the provision of a minimum of 15 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the Community Car

Club.

Disabled Parking

5.34 Criterion 1 of the Lifetime homes standards recommends that 10% of all parking should

have increased dimensions to accommodate disabled users, the preferred width being 3.6



metres where an additional 900mm width is not provided at the outset, Criterion 1 goes on

to state that there must be provision to allow for future enlarging, such provision could take

the form of a grass verge.

5.35 In the case of unallocated parking disabled parking bays should be clearly marked

5.36 Regardless of what parking standard is adopted for the North Fareham SDA we would make

the following recommendation in relation to disabled parking.



6.0 DESIGN GUIDANCE

6.1. There is no definitive or best solution for the design of new car-parking arrangements,

particularly when it comes to unallocated off-plot parking; nevertheless, the design quality of

the street is paramount.

6.2 This section of the study provides some design guidance on the parking provision both in

relation to on-plot allocated and off-plot parking provision.

Off Plot Parking

6.3 Off-plot parking can take the form of both allocated and unallocated parking that is provided

outside of the curtilage of a dwelling or dwellings. On street parking includes, echelon,

perpendicular and parallel parking, central squares and parking courts. Examples of various

layouts for on street parking are provided at Appendix B of this report.

6.4 In designing off-plot parking careful regard should be taken to Street layout and width, with

the street being wide enough to accommodate parking and allow servicing and the free

passage of vehicles. Table 6.1 below sets out the street parameters that should be adopted

for the various types of on-street parking.

Table 6.1: Minimum street widths for on street parking layouts

Parking Type Street Width in Metres Street Edge in Metres (based on 10 spaces)

Parallel on one side only 7.5m Marked bays - 66 Unmarked bays – 60.5

Parallel on both sides 9.5m Marked bays - 33 Unmarked bays – 30.25

Right angled one side only 11.m 27.5m

Right angled both sides 16.5m 13.25m

Angled one side only Varies according to angle Which should be between 45 and 60º

Falls between ranges above i.e. ˂66 but ˃ 27.5

Angled both sides Varies according to angle Which should be between 45 and 60º

Falls between range above i.e. ˂33 but ˃13.25

Assumptions 1. Parking bay dimensions

Parallel 5.5 x 2.0m unmarked bays 6.0 x 2.0m marked bays Right angled 5.5 x 2.5m

2. Need to add 10m free of parking spaces at approach to all junctions, so therefore add according to

How the parking edge is arranged into urban blocks. 3. Planting provided within footways. Alternatively an additional space can be provided, if parking

bays are to broken with tree planting.



7.0 NON RESIDENTIAL PARKING

7.1. In March 2001 the Government published Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport

(PPG13). This document provided guidance on parking provision and the relationship

between parking and other modes of transport. In relation to commercial and non-residential

development PPG13 recommends the adoption of maximum parking standards to promote

sustainability. Annex D of PPG13 sets out maximum standards for a range of non-residential

development categories above defined thresholds. Table 7.1 below reproduces the

Maximum Standards set out in Annex D of PPG13.

Table 7.1: Maximum Parking Standards set out in Annex D of PPG 13.

Use

National Maximum Parking Standard; 1 space per square metre (m²) of gross floorspace Unless otherwise stated

Threshold from and above which the standard applies (gross floorspace)

Food retail 1 space per 14m² 1000m²

Non-food retail 1 space per 20m² 1000m²

Cinemas and conference facilities

1 space per 5 seats 1000m²

D2 (other than cinemas, conference facilities and stadia)

1 space per 22m² 1000m²

B1 including offices 1 space per 30m² 2500m²

Higher and further education 1 space per 2 staff + 1 space Per 15 students

2500m²

Stadia 1 space per 15 seats 1500 seats

7.2 Local Authorities are encouraged to set more rigorous standards than those given in PPG13,

particularly in town centres and where there is good access to public transport. The SDA with

its planned public transport links and Bus Rapid Transport provision falls within this category.

7.3 Commercial development such as those covered by Use Class B1, B2 and B8 are in the main

trip ends, and as such provide a much greater opportunity to bring about modal transfer

through demand management and parking control.

7.4 As demonstrated in the smarter choices study, the introduction of smarter choices, including

comprehensive workplace travel plans can bring about significant reductions in employee car

use and parking provision. Table 7.2 below sets out the impact the successful implementation

of a workplace Travel Plan has had on parking provision for a number of major UK employers.



Table 7.2: Impact on car parking following the successful introduction of a

workplace travel plan and car sharing.

Car sharing and staff parking: changes in ratio of staff to parking spaces

Before After

7.2. Absolute difference in spaces

Staff Number

Car Park

Spaces

Spaces per

Staff

Staff Number

Car Park

Spaces

Spaces per

Staff

Barclaycard 2,300 2,000 0.87 3,000 1,900 0.63 -100

British Gas 1,923 2,000 1.04 1,923 386 0.20 -1,614

EDF Energy 780 378 0.48 1,000 378 0.38 0

GCHQ 4,500 3,400 0.76 4,500 1,800 0.40 -1,600

M&S Financial 1,400 922 0.66 2,000 922 0.46 0

MBNA 750 750 1.0 5,200 750 0.14 0

Met Office 1,200 770 0.64 1,200 770 0.64 0

Powergen 600 600 1.00 1,000 450 0.45 0

Scottish Courage

400 280 0.7 650 280 0.43 0

Average 0.79 0.42

7.5 It is clear from Table 7.2 that the introduction of a Travel Plan has a significant impact on

employee travel that in turn has allowed a significant reduction in parking provision. The

average reduction in staff parking achieved being 47%.

7.6 This was also the findings of research undertaken and presented in 2005 by Tom Rye of

Napier University5. The research highlighted the relationship between parking restraint (which

can be achieved through the application of maximum parking standards) and the success and

take up of Travel Plans.

5 Using Planning to Manage Parking – UK experiences, Tom Rye, Napier University 2005

The Key findings from the research are: i) Restricting parking numbers leads to a reduction in demand;

ii) Modelling has shown that parking is a more effective demand

management tool than public transport fare reductions; and iii) Travel Plans, linked with restrictive parking policy can achieve

significant modal shift



7.7 Further research undertaken in 2006 by Stephen Ison and Tom Rye6 found that:

“It has generally been found that parking policy measures are likely to be relatively more important than any other traffic management measures in influencing mode choice. More specifically, in the studies undertaken, the decision to use a car for the journey to work is greatly influenced by the availability and cost of parking.”

7.8 The Ison and Rye research also considered the inward investment implications of maximum

parking standards. In respect to this it makes reference to a report prepared by Faber

Maunsell for the Scottish Executive in 2002 which concludes:

“On the basis of currently available research, therefore it is difficult to sustain the argument

that restrictive parking standards deter inward investment, particularly at a national level.”

7.9 The research that formed the base of the Department for Transport report; ‘Making travel

Plans Work, Lessons from UK Case Studies, 2002, reviewed 20 different organisations and

concludes:

Travel plans can on average achieve a 14% decrease in drive alone journeys;

That 6 sites with parking charging averaged an 18% reduction;

“Parking restraint is a hallmark of high-achieving Travel Plans”;

Maximum parking standards drive travel Plan implementation.

7.10 Investigations into the commercial parking standards adopted by local authorities across the

country and in particular within the South East indicate that the vast majority have adopted

the maximum standards set out in Annex D of PPG13. In addition all of the South East

Authorities allow a reduction in parking provision at commercial premises for areas of high or

good accessibility. For example the Surrey County Council parking standards for non-

residential development adopts the maximum standards set out in Annex D of PPG 13,

However their approach requires a reduction in the standard for areas that are classified as

having High, Good or Moderate accessibility by public transport. The reductions required by

the Surrey Parking Standards being as shown in Table 7.3 below.

6 The Use and Impact of maximum Parking Standards in Scotland: Stephen Ison and Tom Rye 2006

The Key findings of the Ison and Rye research are:

i) Restrictive parking measures influence mode choice;

ii) There is a clear link between parking availability and car use; and

iii) Maximum parking standards do not deter inward investment.



Table 7.3: Reductions required by the Surrey County Council parking Standards

High Accessibility Good Accessibility Moderate Accessibility

0 – 25% of maximum 25 – 50% of maximum 50 – 75% of maximum

7.11 In the case of Hampshire County Council, their current Parking Standards allow for the

following reductions in parking provision for areas of high accessibility.

Land Use Maximum parking Reduce parking in areas of

Limit high accessibility __________________________________________________________________________ Employment (inc. non-residential Care staff) 100% 30% of maximum Retail 100% 75% of maximum

7.12 Business locating in the North Fareham SDA will be required to deliver a ‘Workplace Travel

Plan’ that is tailored to meet the specific needs of the site and its operations. This combined

with the good transport links and the introduction of Bus Rapid Transport will allow the parking

provision for the commercial/employment development within the SDA to be reduced from the

recommended maximum set out in Annex D of PPG13.

7.13 The North Fareham SDA will provide for a number of local retail centres and a District Centre

all of which will be required to have good pedestrian, cycle and public transport access. This

combined with the package of smarter choices initiatives will again allow for the parking

provision at these land uses to be reduced. However, this will need to be carefully balanced in

order to maintain the viability of the centres.

7.14 In order to bring about a modal shift away from the private car and to support the successful

implementation of smarter choices and achieve the 40% self-containment for the SDA we

would recommend the adoption of the following maximum parking standards for the

commercial development planned for the North Fareham SDA.

Use Class B1 Business

7.15 This Use Class includes office development (other than financial and professional services,

which are covered under Land use Class A2), research and development, and light industrial

uses.



Car Parking

Goods vehicle

Development

control (DC)

travel plan only,

minor reduction

in parking

standards from

PPG13

recommended

maximum

Option 1 plus full smarter choices strategy,

Option 2 full smarter choices strategy plus still further reduced parking standards

B1 office 1 space per

35m²

1 space per

60m²

1 space per

100m² See note 1

B1 (b) (c) high tech/Research and light Industrial

1 space per

55m²

1 space per

90m²

1 space per

180m²

1 space per

200m²

Notes

1. Adequate facilities should be provided to enable Delivery vehicles to park and manoeuvre clear of the public highway 2. For large developments the provision for goods vehicles only applies up to a maximum of 6 spaces.

Use Class B2: General Industry

7.16 Use Class B2 covers development of any size to accommodate industrial processes, which

do not meet the residential amenity test. PPG13 does not set a maximum standard for such a

development. However the current Hampshire County Council Standard does set a single

maximum value of 1 space per 45m² with a reduction of 30% of the maximum permitted

standard in areas of high accessibility.

7.17 In order to achieve the significant level of self-containment for the North Fareham SDA and

also impose a level of demand management, we recommend that the following parking

standard is adopted for the SDA.



Use Class B8: Storage and Distribution

7.18 Use Class B8 covers development for the storage and distribution of food and other products.

PPG13 does not set a standard for such development. However the current Hampshire

County Council Standard does set a single maximum value of 1 space per 90m² with a

reduction of 30% of the maximum permitted standard in areas of high accessibility.

7.19 The North Fareham SDA will be an area with high accessibility and a high level of self-

containment, therefore we recommend that the following parking standard be adopted for this

Use Class, which is in line with the current Hampshire County Council reduced standard.

Use Class A1: Retail

7.20 Use Class A1 covers development of retail premises for the sale, display or provision of

goods and services (except hot food) to visiting members of the public.

Car Parking

Goods vehicle

Development control (DC) travel plan only, minor reduction in parking standards from PPG13 recommended maximum

Option 1 full smarter choices strategy plus further reduced parking standards

Option 2 full smarter choices strategy plus still further reduced parking standards

B2 General industry 1 space per

55m²

1 space per

90m²

1 space per

180m²

1 space per

50m²

Notes 1. For large developments the provision for goods Vehicles only applies up to a maximum of 6 spaces

Car Parking Goods vehicle

B8 Storage and distribution 1 space per 300m² 1 space per 300m²

Notes 1. Parking space for the associated office space to be

determined using the standards set out under land Use Class B1.



7.21 The retail provision that is likely to be developed within the North Fareham SDA will consist of

a number of small local centres and a single District centre. The local centres will include

small retail premises and is likely to be un-covered. The District centre will most likely include

a larger supermarket as well as a number of smaller retail units.

7.22 Again it has been assumed that the local centres will be sited such that they are within easy

walking distance of the community that they will serve; and will cater for small convenience

shopping needs rather than the larger weekly shop. We therefore consider that with the good

transport links and infrastructure that will be provided within the SDA, the car parking

provision at the retail centres can again be reduced. It is therefore recommended that the

following parking standard is adopted for any retail development within the North Fareham

SDA.

Car Parking Goods Vehicle

Non-food and general retail 1 space per 60m² 1 space per 500m²

Food retail under 1,000m² 1 space per 30m² 1 space per 500m²

Food retail over 1,000m² 1 space per 28m² 1 space per 500m²

Notes 1. Car parking provision includes staff parking

2. For all retail establishments the provision for goods vehicles only applies up to a maximum of 6 spaces.

Measuring developments

7.23 The parking requirement for commercial development is based on floor area. The floor space

to be used in applying the recommended standards is the gross floor area, based on the

external measurement over each floor of the building with corridors, stairwells etc. included in

the measurement.



8.O CONCLUSIONS

8.1 This volume of the North Fareham SDA Smarter Choices and Parking Study considers the

parking strategy for the SDA and puts forward a number of Parking Standard options that

could be adopted.

8.2 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) and Planning Policy Guidance Note 13:

Transport (PPG13) has formed the basis of the study. In relation to residential parking in

accordance with the requirements of paragraph 51 of PPS3, the project average car

ownership for Fareham in 2026 have provided the base data for developing and

recommending the parking standard option.

8.3 Annex D of PPG13 has provided the starting point for the non-residential parking element of

this study.

8.4 In relation to residential development, the overall aim of the study is to ensure that parking

provision within the North Fareham SDA is designed to meet expected demand in such a way

as to ensure the most efficient use of space and the best urban design.

8.5 The implementation of the Smarter Choices Strategy together with demand management

through parking provision is key to achieving the high level of self-containment required of the

SDA. In relation to non-residential development the implementation of employer travel plans

and good transport provision and accessibility will allow the much reduced parking at

commercial and retail premises. The study therefore puts forward parking options that take

account of the various levels of transport and Travel Plan provision.



APPENDIX A: CALCULATION OF 2026 PARKING DEMAND

Step 1: The average 2026 car ownership values for owner occupier dwellings in Fareham have been taken from Table 4.1 in the text, which have been calculated from the 2001 Census date using Tempro growth predictions. Table A1: Average car ownership in Fareham per dwelling 2026

Rooms Average 2026 Car ownership per dwelling from

Table 4.1 (nearest 0.1)

3 Rooms 1.1

4 Rooms 1.2

5 Rooms 1.4

6 Rooms 1.6

7 Rooms 1.9

8 Rooms 2.2

Step 2: Using the average car ownership levels set out in Table A1, the additional demand for unallocated parking spaces arising as a consequence of up to 1 or 2 allocated spaces per dwelling Table A2: Additional demand for unallocated parking.

Additional Demand for unallocated parking

Rooms 1 Allocated space per dwelling 2 Allocated spaces per dwelling

3 0.3 0.0

4 0.4 0.1

5 0.5 0.1

6 0.7 0.1

7 0.9 0.2

8 1.2 0.4

Step 3: The figures from Tables A1 and A2 are combined to produce the total demand for residents parking. The values in the ‘1 Allocated and ‘2 Allocated’ columns in Table A3 are obtained by adding 1 and 2 to the values in the relevant column. Table A3: Total Demand for Residents’ parking

Rooms

Total Demand for Residents’ Parking

0 Allocated Parking Spaces per Dwelling



3 1.1 1.3 2.0

4 1.2 1.4 2.1

5 1.4 1.5 2.1

6 1.6 1.7 2.1

7 1.9 1.9 2.2

8 2.2 2.2 2.4



Step 4 The proportion of total demand for residents’ parking that is for additional unallocated parking is calculated. The percentages are calculated by dividing the additional demand for unallocated spaces (cells in Tables A1 and A2) by the total demand for residents’ parking (cells in Table A3) Table A4: Proportion of total Demand for Residents’ parking that is for Additional Unallocated Parking

Rooms

Proportion of Total Demand for Resident’s Parking that is for Additional Unallocated Parking


1 Allocated Parking Space per Dwelling

2 Allocated Parking Space per Dwelling

3 100% 9% 0%

4 100% 23% 0%

5 100% 41% 5%

6 100% 41% 5%

7 100% 47% 9%

8 100% 55% 17% Note – Shaded cells are where less than 50% of the total demand would be for additional unallocated parking

Step 5: Allow for 0.2 spaces per dwelling for visitors for the shaded cells to produce the final table Table A5: Total Demand for Residents’ Parking

Type: House Location: Suburban Tenure: Owner Occupied

Total Demand for Car parking Spaces (Allocated and Unallocated)

No of Allocated Spaces per Dwelling 0 1 2

3 Room House 0.65 1 2

4 Room House 1.1 1.6 2.3

5 Room House 1.6 1.9 2.3

6 Room House 1.6 1.9 2.3

7 Room House 1.9 2.1 2.4

8 Room House 2.2 2.2 2.6



APPENDIX B: ILLUSTRATIVE PARKING LAYOUTS

Parking study final draft

www.campbellreith.com Structural + Civil + Environmental + Geotechnical + Traffic and

Transportation

Artillery House

11-19 Artillery Row

Victoria

London

SW1P 1RT

Telephone: +44(0)20 7340

1700

Facsimile: +44(0)20 7340 1777

Email:

[email protected]

Somerset House

47-49 London Road

Redhill

Surrey

RH1 1LU

Telephone: +44(0)1737 784

500

Facsimile: +44(0)1737 784

501

Email:

[email protected]

The Lexicon

10-12 Mount Street

Manchester

M2 5NT

Telephone: +44(0)161 819 3060

Facsimile: +44(0)161 819 3090

Email:

[email protected]

Wessex House

Pixash Lane

Keynsham

Bristol

BS31 1TP

Telephone: +44(0)117 916

Chantry House

High Street

Coleshill

Birmingham

B46 3BP

Telephone: +44(0)1675 467 484

north fareham sda smarter choices and parking study ...€¦ · 110112-cpsrf2 f3 january 2012 final...

Documents