25.11.2014 Views

A1P (1) MAJOR HIGHWAY SCHEMES - A5225 ... - Wigan Council

A1P (1) MAJOR HIGHWAY SCHEMES - A5225 ... - Wigan Council

A1P (1) MAJOR HIGHWAY SCHEMES - A5225 ... - Wigan Council

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

at food stores, where car parks could be used by town and district centre shoppers,<br />

thereby facilitating linked trips.<br />

10.164 Under the terms of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,<br />

RPG13 has become the Interim Regional Spatial Strategy. It is, therefore, part of the<br />

development plan for each relevant LPA area and has the full weight of s38(6). For this<br />

reason, and because it is addressed more closely to local circumstances, it should be<br />

given more weight than the advice of PPG13. PPG13 itself (paragraph 53) advises that<br />

Regional Planning Bodies and LPAs may adopt more rigorous standards than those set<br />

out in PPG13 (annex D) where this is appropriate.<br />

10.165 PPG13 (paragraph 54) advises that, for individual developments, car<br />

parking provision above maximum standards may be permitted where the need for this<br />

has been demonstrated through a Transport Assessment. This is reflected in the second<br />

paragraph of the reasoned justification to policy A1S. An objector contends that the<br />

reasoned justification text is an over-generalised version of the advice of PPG13<br />

(paragraph 54) but, in my view, it is a fair representation of it. An objector argues that the<br />

UDP should provide guidance on how a Transport Assessment would demonstrate the<br />

requirement for extra parking and how this would be linked to Travel Plans and other<br />

initiatives to promote modal shift. In my view it is sufficient for the RDD to require that a<br />

Transport Assessment be used to demonstrate why parking in excess of the maximum<br />

standards is needed. The detailed measures to be employed in the assessment will vary<br />

from one scheme to another and are best determined at development control stage.<br />

The encouragement of reduced parking provision<br />

10.166 An objector argues that the UDP should encourage reduced parking<br />

provision in areas well served by public transport or existing parking spaces. It should<br />

consider the use of shared car parking in appropriate circumstances. The second element<br />

of policy A1S does this. It provides that the scope for providing car parking below the<br />

maximum standard will be considered against the factors of accessibility of the site by<br />

public transport and the availability of off-street and on-street parking spaces. These<br />

latter categories of car parking are of a type which would be likely to be shared.<br />

The relevance of maximum parking standards<br />

10.167 An objector notes the reference to maximum car parking standards in both<br />

policy A1S and Appendix 9. He argues that, as a general principle, these should be<br />

replaced with minimum standards. The references to maximum parking standards are,<br />

however, soundly based on the advice of PPG13 (paragraph 52) that policies in<br />

development plans should set maximum levels of parking for broad classes of<br />

development.<br />

433

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!