Mayor consulting on London Plan to relax limits on parking restrictions for new build developments

Consultation details

https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/london-plan/minor-alterations-to-the-london-plan-2015

On 11 May 2015 the Mayor of London published for six weeks public consultation two sets of Minor Alterations to the London Plan – on Housing Standards and on Parking Standards.
These minor alterations have been prepared to bring the London Plan in line with new national housing standards and car parking policy.
Both sets of minor alterations will be considered by an independent planning inspector at a joint public examination to be held later this year in City Hall, probably in October 2015.

wtf does this even mean?

The current London Plan specifies maximum parking provision for new-build households in London, based on access to public transport - the closer you are to central London, the less parking you get, as there's more access to trains, buses, and Tubes. They call this the Public Transport Access Level (PTAL). Currently the highest possible provision is two parking places per 4-bed house, and this is mostly in the suburban areas, with their poorer access to transport. You can see a handy map of PTAL across London here: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-with-webcat/webcat

The proposed MALP would like to make changes that increase the number of car parking spaces per household where PTAL is low, but the level of flexibility is so vague as to be meaningless. A Borough council could choose to have no limit on parking spaces at all, and it's also possible that developers could effectively bribe councils into allowing significantly higher parking densities than are currently permitted.

Additionally, the proposals are vague about when this "flexibility" kicks in. Ostensibly the "Worst" provision is PTAL-0, which in reality is mostly parks and reservoirs. This relaxation could extend to homes being built in PTAL-2 zones, of which there are pockets even in very central London.

As we know, more parking leads to more cars, leads to worse air quality, leads to more congestion, etc.

Shiiiiiiit what can we do?

If you'd like to comment on these proposals, then please do so before 5:00 pm on Monday 22 June 2015, either:

1. by email to mayor@london.gov.uk with ‘Housing Standards MALP’ or ‘Parking Standards MALP’ (as appropriate) in the title of the email
   

2. or by post (no stamp required) to:

   Boris Johnson, Mayor of London
   (Housing Standards MALP) or (Parking Standards MALP) (as appropriate)
   FREEPOST LON15799
   GLA City Hall, post point 18
   The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA

(further details in the link at the top of the post)

Bump. This is really important, as some of the proposed changes are very bad news.

Briefly, while PTALs can work where public transport accessibility levels are already high, unfortunately where they are low their application exacerbates the transport divide, i.e. where more car parking is allowed, future development of public transport will be inhibited.

Where PTALs are low, there should instead be a call for developer contributions to better development of public transport. (It's difficult to call for developer contributions to cycling, as the main issue in the areas affected is mostly distance, and cycling take-up is likely to remain low until more local/reachable destinations are created, which public transport can contribute to. Obviously, people should simply be getting on with creating said destinations first, but we rarely do things in the right order, so why start now?)

Might that not be a positive thing? Who's to say the boroughs wouldn't be more restrictive on parking provision rather than less? Especially as most boroughs are lefty controlled.

I tend to feel the more that can be decided locally on an individual case-by-case basis the better. You also stand much more of a chance of democratically influencing local decisions than London-wide ones.

it's also possible that developers could effectively bribe councils into allowing significantly higher parking densities than are currently permitted.

It's possible, but it's unlikely to happen because if you have a 15ft x 8ft bit of ground space it's much more valuable to a developer to build on it rather than stand a car on it. Developers want less parking, not more, as it's more profitable.

Might that not be a positive thing? Who's to say the boroughs wouldn't be more restrictive on parking provision rather than less? Especially as most boroughs are lefty controlled

Do you mean whether not having maximum car parking standards would be a good thing? No, absolutely not. Such standards are a key policy. Most Inner London boroughs have Labour majorities (not 'lefty-controlled'), but that doesn't guarantee good car parking policies--in some places, these are quite poor (e.g., Islington with its 'roamer' parking). As for development, even if some boroughs choose not to lift maximum standards, that other boroughs will undoubtedly do it (the vast majority of Outer London boroughs will), succumbing to pressure from local groups. The only way of keeping this in check is by regulation at a higher level.

Developers want more car parking where it doesn't affect the housing density at which they can feasibly build, as it increases unit prices. Despite the house price increases, there are still plenty of areas of London where that is the case, areas in which public transport should be increased, not more car traffic generated. Parking accommodation at origin and destination of trips is an absolutely key factor in mode choice.

K.

I guess it comes down to whether you think local planning officers and councillors will make the right decisions. It sounds like you're confident they won't.

Where I live, in Cambridge, the City council, which is lib-lab dominated, make largely sensible traffic-conscious decisions on parking provision without the need for specific policy from above. But I appreciate London is big and Hackney isn't the same as Croydon.

You actually have a perfect example in Cambs because of the differences between the City and County councils--very divergent transport strategies.

@Engineering101