GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL

INSPECTOR’S REPORT

INTO

OBJECTIONS

TO

THE WESTMINSTER UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW

PART II (CRITERIA-BASED POLICIES)

CHAPTER 4 : TRANSPORT

Inspector: J P MacBryde DA(Edin) DipTP(Lond) ARIBA MRTPI MCIT FRSA

Assistant Inspector: G E Roffey BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI

Dates of Inquiry: 15 October 2002 – 28 March 2003

PINS File Ref: X5990/429/3 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Chapter 4 : Transport City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES

UDP PART II (CRITERIA-BASED POLICIES)

CHAPTER 4 : TRANSPORT 321-475

TR00 GENERAL INTRODUCTION 321 TR01 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 339 TR02 ROAD SAFETY 343 TR03 PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT 345 TR04 BUS SERVICES 352 TR05 RAILWAYS AND TRAMWAYS 356 TR06 COACHES 365 TR07 SIGHTSEEING TOURS 371 TR08 TAXI SERVICES 374 TR09 PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESS 376 TR10 CYCLING 384 TR11 CYCLE PARKING 386 TR12 WATER TRANSPORT 393 TR13 HELICOPTERS 395 TR14 TRANSPORT ASSESSMENTS 398 TR15 TRAFFIC REDUCTION 407 TR16 ROAD HIERARCHY 413 TR17 FILLING STATIONS 417 TR18 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 420 TR19 DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE HIGHWAY 426 TR20 SERVICE VEHICLES 428 TR21 OFF-STREET PARKING: GENERAL 434 TR22 OFF-STREET PARKING: NON-RESIDENTIAL 438 TR23 OFF-STREET PARKING: RESIDENTIAL 443 TR24 OFF-STREET PARKING: MIXED DEVELOPMENT 458 TR25 OFF-STREET PARKING: PUBLIC PROVISION 461 TR26 FORECOURT PARKING 470 TR27 DISABLED ACCESS RAMPS 474

Chapter 4 : Transport City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Chapter 4 : Transport City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

CHAPTER 4: TRANSPORT

TR00: General Introduction

Objectors and Supporters

*1 Westminster Property Owners' Association 2 Greater London Authority *7 Westminster Transport Forum *28 London Tourist Board *73 London Underground Limited *74 Railtrack Properties 91 Philip Kingsbury *129 Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association 132 St Marylebone Society *321 SWETA (South Westminster Triangle Association) *375 Government Office for London *381 South East Bayswater Residents Association *403 Councillor Barbara Grahame *532 Urbium (formerly known as Chorion) 534 A.Allford 535 Carey Marks 540 Anvil Organisation Ltd 541 Alan Bexton 543 Danielle Ward 544 John Norman 545 Mark Davies 546 Peter Coleman 547 Sarah Huckvale 552 Haydn Croft 553 Kensington and Chelsea with Westminster Friends of the Earth (FoE) 554 Winifred Smith 556 Adrian Porter 557 Colette Hayter 558 Ben Lovejoy 559 Gareth Owen 560 Stewart Bowman 561 Leon Mannings 562 Motorcycle Industry Association 563 Martyn Perry 564 John Robinson 565 Stephen Johnson 566 Restaurant Association 567 Robert Irvine 568 Andrew Winterburn 569 Peter Hazell 570 Stephen Murphy 571 Edward Cooper 572 Victor Hawkes 573 Nicholas Davies 574 Denny De La Haye 575 Derrick Hill 576 Pascal Giraud 577 Glynis Freeth

Chapter 4 : Transport page 321 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

578 Simon Thody 579 Jonathan Denham 581 Harley Davidson Riders Club NI 582 Patrick Evans 583 Stephen Gill 584 Etchells - Skeat 585 Derwen Hinds 586 The MAG Stall 587 Chris Chapman 588 Ivor Benjamin 589 Paul Willis 590 Raymond Douglas 592 David Ford 593 Conchango PLC 594 Ian Woods 595 Matt Harding 596 Graham Doyle 597 Robin Hall 598 Archi Hipkins 599 Robin Bennett 600 George Churchill 601 Daniel Bavin 602 Nick Ajderian 603 Michael Reed 604 David Bevan 605 Susan Miller 606 Edward Wolstenholme 607 James Taylor 608 Ceri Mort 609 Piers Thompson 610 Ben Pochee 611 Malcolm Napier-Holford 612 Richard Taylor 613 Carlo Gatti 614 Geoff Campbell 615 Derek Telfer 616 Brian Laws 617 Andy Jeffrey 618 Jon Caseley 619 Paul Harrison 620 Graham Price 621 Alan Cooper 622 Robin Gammon 623 Davog O'Sullivan 624 Michael Pilch 625 Jonathan O'Hanlon 626 John Roche 627 Mike Lewis 628 Aine Fitzsimon 629 Andrew Suter 630 Cathy Pelikan 631 Paul Minton *632 Westminster Cycling Campaign 633 Michael Spencer 634 Si Lewis Chapter 4 : Transport page 322 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

635 Claire Pilkington 636 James Lothian 637 William Wright 638 Duncan Moore 639 Paul Williams 640 Andy Coshan 641 Kevin McLaughlin 642 Bob Pickett 643 David Hodgkinson 644 Carl Harker 645 Andrew Gellnick 646 Peter Williams 647 Christian Bozeat 648 Jon Shaw 649 Dave Csernovicz 650 David Brown 651 Simon King 652 Andrew Wegg 653 Andrew Burt 654 Nick Wilkinson 655 Jason Cole 656 Robin Carlisle 657 Timothy Rayner 658 Robert Kissaglis 659 Richard Staines 660 David Cotter 661 William Asprey 662 Rowena Hoseason 663 Martin Price 664 Arman Rotabi 665 Stephen Bowles 666 Wayne Smith 667 Peter Wright 669 Adrian Todd 670 David Maddison 671 Malcolm Freeman 672 Les Mitchell 673 Michael New 674 Brian Bentley 675 Philip Coe 676 Tony White 677 Clare Adams 678 Barbara Alam 682 Simon Carswell 683 Iain Robinson 684 Gary White 685 Andrew Owen 687 Mark lline 688 Catherine Phillpotts 690 Alan Gillard 696 Tony Carter *719 Charlotte Street Association 744 National Car Parks Ltd 760 Christopher M.Paine *772 Land Securities Properties Limited Chapter 4 : Transport page 323 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

791 Gerard Livett *807 London School of Economics and Political Science 814 St Martins Property Investments Limited *823 Sustrans

* All objections marked with an asterisk are not motorcyclist objections

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Object to Chapter 4 as a whole as it makes no mention of meeting the legitimate needs of motorcycle and scooter riders travelling to or through the borough. Motorcycles and scooters are part of the answer to transport problems. They avoid congestion, have lower emissions and energy consumption than other forms of motorised transport and therefore help the environment. A responsible transport policy should provide the facilities for motorcycles and scooters to be an effective part of the borough's transport infrastructure. Westminster already has a chronic shortage of on-street parking spaces for commuters and visitors to the borough with no sign of this changing apart for the worse, with less spaces and being made to pay for the privilege Chapter 4 should be amended to include a commitment to increase on-street parking spaces in line with demand, therefore reducing congestion and pollution and improving the efficiency of businesses in the borough and improving the quality of life [590]

(b) (i) Paragraph 4.17: object to the wording “The City Council has had significant success in addressing most of these problems…” Such claimed success has not been apparent in our neighbourhood. The City Council has refused to commit resources to undertaking a traffic study in the area which has acute congestion and pollution from traffic, nor has it co-operated with Camden Council in its declaration of the Camden half of Fitzrovia as a Clear Zone, thus severely undermining the benefits that the Clear Zone policy could bring to the whole of Fitzrovia. [129]

(c) (i) Paragraph 4.6 identifies the exceptionally high level of accessibility overall in Westminster to public transport services with the exception of the predominantly residential areas in the north and north west of the City.

(ii) This high level of accessibility, particularly of the Central Area, needs to be fully recognised throughout all levels of policy in respect of transport and the principle should be applied consistently.

(iii) A key area where the City Council is failing to promote an integrated strategy is the approach to residential car parking provision and the rejection of the concept of car free residential development and the requirement for minima parking standards. This policy stance is particularly inappropriate given the high level of accessibility.

(iv) Within the Central Area there should be no need to provide residential parking at all if the developer so proposes. There are repeated references elsewhere in the chapter to national policy and regional policy concerning the cutting of car use and the encouragement of use of other forms of transport, e.g.. Paragraph 4.14 and the adverse effect on sustainable development principles of the use of space for car parking, e.g. Paragraph 4.11.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 324 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(v) Paragraph 4.115 states that residents account for 6% of traffic through the day. This represents 35% equivalent of the numbers of drivers commuting to work by car. The requirement to provide car parking serves to reduce the numbers of residential units provided, which in turn reduces the chance of making the most of residential development opportunities to provide dwellings.

(vi) Paragraph 4.18 recognises that the use of cars for short journeys such as shopping and school journeys are particularly polluting. These are the journeys most likely to be made by residents. [1]

(d) (i) Delighted to see that Council has included a reference in the revised deposit to the need for further late night public transport services. However, continue to feel that this should be couched in stronger terms and be included as a specific aim of the UDP.

(ii) Note that the actual figures used in the section on a Traffic Impact Statement have been revised.

(iii) The requirement for A3 restaurants at 500 sq metres and D2 entertainment uses with a capacity of more than 200 has not been altered and is still significantly higher than the threshold for retail developments.

(iv) None of the policies contained within this chapter make any reference to providing public transport or additional legal mini-cabs or taxis at later hours than are currently available. Extending the hours during which public transport is available, particularly on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, and also increasing the number of legal taxis and mini-cabs at those times, would assist in reducing traffic, decreasing the number of people in the centre of London looking for transport and have a significant impact on the number of illegal cabs touting for business.

(v) A further option could be allowing black cabs to charge premium rates later in the evening, thus encouraging drivers to work during the night. This would help to alleviate problems with illegal mini-cabs who only have a place in the City because there is a demand for transport.

(vi) This chapter also includes details of the requirements for a Traffic Impact Statement. The requirement for A3 restaurants at 500 sq m or entertainment uses with a capacity of more than 200 to undertake a TIS is excessive when compared to, for example, retail uses of 2,000 sq m. [532]

(e) (i) The Council should adopt a more positive policy to congestion charging. It is likely to be one of the most effective means of reducing traffic volumes in London and will help fund public transport improvements. [719]

(ii) Object to Chapter 4 in its entirety, as it fails to address the legitimate needs of motorcyclists (and scooter riders) who travel through or to the borough of Westminster.

(iii) Motorcycles have significant benefits over the motorcar for commuters, consuming less energy; less congestion; and less emission per passenger.kilometre, yet continue to be ignored.

(iv) Westminster has a shortage of motorcycle parking facilities as it is, especially for daytime visitors to the borough, and there is no sign of this being alleviated. Chapter 4 : Transport page 325 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(v) Propose that chapter 4 should be amended to include a commitment to increasing on street motorcycle parking in line with increasing demand. Thereby reducing congestion and pollution, and improving the efficiency of business, and the quality of life in the borough. [579]

(f) (i) Pleased to see that the UDP clearly states the need to reduce car use. Suggest that to support this statement more reasons should be given than those listed in the document. These include:

S To improve conditions for more sustainable forms of transport S To reduce deaths and injuries on the road S To reduce the economic costs of congestion S To reduce damage to the global environment

(ii) Though we do not agree with the City Council objecting to congestion charging, we note that the UDP is defective, in that it fails to propose an effective alternative strategy for reducing traffic, if congestion charging is not introduced. At the same time, the UDP does not show how the City Council proposes to manage the road system if congestion charging is introduced. [823]

(g) (i) Paragraph 4.19 - One of the bullet points in this paragraph of the Plan states that “there is no evidence there will be reduction in congestion” due to road charging. This is not entirely true. As Westminster was represented on some of the ROCOL committees, last year’s report contained modelling that predicted a cut in congestion using a basis very similar to that proposed by the Mayor. [375]

(h) (i) Several references are made in the plan to the need to improve the reliability, efficiency, capacity and relief of congestion on the public railway network. This section should be more positive and pro-active in advocating improvements and should be providing a willingness to work with all other agencies to improve transportation in Central London thus seeking to achieve the other objectives set out in the plan. [73]

(i) (i) The alterations made to the wording of this policy and paragraphs do not overcome original objections

(ii) The whole policy area of car parking provision needs some flexibility in the light of the availability of transport in Westminster generally. If there is transport locally, there should be less need for car parking facilities and the policy should make this clear. [772]

(j) (i) Object to the deletion of the (unfulfilled) undertaking in former POLICY TRANS 2 (C) to conduct local area traffic studies. [129]

(k) (i) Object to the City Council's opposition to congestion charging. [129]

(l) (i) Policies will need to take into account the Mayor's strategies and evolving strategies of the other London Boroughs if we are to have the sustainable integrated transport strategy that London needs, and to which Westminster as the central London borough holds the key. Parking policy, in particular, will need reviewing. [403]

(m) (i) Map 4.7 No key for Westminster Council Boundary

Chapter 4 : Transport page 326 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Map 4.6 No key for Westminster Council Boundary Map 4.4 Royal Parks have an experimental cycle route scheme operating now in Kensington Gardens. Should know soon if it is to be scrapped or made permanent. [381]

(n) (i) With regard to existing off-street parking for residents, there is not full consistency between encouraging the loss of spaces in excess of standard (TRANS 21 (A)) and resisting the permanent loss of existing residential off-street car parking spaces (the addition at the end of Policy TRANS 23 (A)). If they are in excess of the new maximum standard, the first policy encourages loss and the second resists it. [381]

(o) (i) third sentence. Changed wording (link to Heathrow) : supported with reservation ie proposal (4.64) At the start of the new passage at the end, read “will seek”, in place of “may seek”. [381]

(p) (i) Object to the sentence: “The City Council will therefore encourage developers to include [car] parking up to the maximum standard in residential developments.” This policy is at variance with PPG13, which states that local authorities should “not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish, other than in exceptional circumstances which might include for example where there are significant implications for road safety which cannot be resolved through the introduction or enforcement of on-street parking controls”. [632]

(q) (i) Although generally support the new policy to encourage the use of towpaths as part of the transport network, object to the words “consider the possibility of” in the clause “[the City Council] will consider the possibility of extending use to cyclists, where shared use is practical or where re-development offers the opportunity to improve the path.”

(ii) The City Council should extend use to cyclists subject to the stated conditions rather than simply consider the possibility of doing so. [632]

(r) (i) Generally support the statement that visitors unfamiliar with London often make short journeys by Underground which could more easily be made on foot and that pedestrian signs and other forms of information can help change this.

(ii) Object to the statement that the very great density of attractions means that only the most important destinations can be signed if clutter and confusion are to be avoided. Although this is true of signposts, it would surely be feasible to put up more local maps to facilitate journeys on foot. [632]

(s) (i) Whilst support the deletion of the clause “while ensuring an adequate provision to support and enhance local economic activity” from the aims of the car-parking strategy, we object to the inclusion of residents in the list of “essential and priority users”.

(ii) As 4.5 states, “Many of their [i.e. residents’] journeys are short and can be made on foot or by bicycle... For longer journeys, public transport is usually convenient...”

(iii) There is no reason why residents should have any priority in the allocation of car- parking space unless they also belong to one of the other priority groups identified (doctors, the disabled and those that genuinely need to use a car as part of their daily business). [632] Chapter 4 : Transport page 327 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(t) (i) Whilst Railtrack support the Council’s aim to support plans to improve the operation and capacity of the rail networks, Railtrack’s support for such plans will be subject to proposals being commercially, technically and operationally viable and acceptable and having the support of relevant Train Operating Companies.

(ii) Recommend that para 4.62 is amended to reflect the comment made. [74]

(u) (i) The safeguarding line identified in Map 4.3 affects operational railway land.

(ii) Railtrack recommend that the UDP makes provision to ensure that the highway improvements and delineation of the safeguarding line should not impact upon the operational requirements of the railway or prevent any necessary works being undertaken to the railway lines in the future.

(iii) In addition, the safeguarding line should be amended to include all land to achieve long term vehicle access (LTVA) including air rights over track. It should be amended in accordance with the contract scheme for LTVA to include land along southern edge of Bishops Bridge Road.

(v) (i) Additional text recommended has been added with exception of reference to SDS (London Plan).

(ii) Recommendation that reference should be made to the SDS (London Plan)

(iii) An additional bullet point should be added which refers to DETR Local Air Quality Management Guidance Notes: Air Quality and Transport.

(iv) A reference to the Transport White Paper's ‘daughter’ documents is also required.

(v) The paragraph also needs a reference to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, as well as the SDS.

(vi) Add a further bullet point which refers to Local Air Quality Management Guidance Notes: Air Quality and Transport

(vii) Add a reference to the Transport White Paper's ‘daughter’ documents to the third bullet point.

(viii) Add a reference to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and the Spatial Development Strategy in paragraph 4.13. [2]

(w) (i) The paragraph should be amended to make clear that the City Council will work positively with other public bodies to remedy night-time shortage of transport and encourage the running of the Underground for a longer period. [1]

(x) (i) Sustain objection. The amended wording does not sufficiently resolve the objection.

(ii) It is not considered that residents can be classed as essential and priority users. Exceptions to this may include those residents with disabilities. Treating residents as essential users could cause a presumption in the provision of one car parking space per resident in all residential developments.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 328 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) It is unclear where the Council’s transport strategy is located, and what it actually is.

(iv) Paragraph 4.21 states that the transport strategy is in Part 1.

(v) If the Council is referring to the sentence in Part 1 of the UDP (Paragraph 1.9 (5)) as the Council’s Integrated Transport Strategy - this is insufficient.

(vi) Despite the comments of paragraph 4.21, the title of paragraph 4.15 is called ‘The Council’s Strategy.’

(vii) In the bullet points of 4.15, there is a need to define exactly what are ‘essential and priority users’ in order to avoid uncertainty.

(viii) In the same bullet point, there is a presumption that economic activity is invariably increased where parking is provided. This is not always the case.

(ix) Clarify confusion in relation to the location and content of the Council’s Transport Strategy.

(x) Demonstrate the links between the UDP and Local Implementation Plans, taking into account the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.

(xi) Define the term ‘essential and priority users’.

(xii) Delete ‘whilst ensuring an adequate provision to support and enhance local economic activity.’ [2]

(y) (i) Delete or amend:

'it will damage the quality of life of residents and local business'

(ii) This statement lacks balance. It is impossible to maintain that the scheme that promises significant reductions in traffic within inner London is not of benefit to residents and local businesses; not withstanding there may also be disbenefits.

(iii) The resultant reduced congestion within central London will undeniably enable local businesses to access their suppliers and customers more easily and efficiently. TfL estimate this will produce savings running into tens of millions for commercial vehicles.

(iv) Residents as pedestrians will also benefit from the reduced traffic on the streets by their journey being easier and safer.

(v) The transport chapter should make a note that 58% of Westminster households do not have access to a car. [321]

(z) (i) Delete from paragraph 4.19

'there is no evidence that there will be a reduction in congestion'

(ii) The traffic modelling undertaken under the comprehensive Government for London ROCOL study into congestion charging indicated a motor vehicular reduction 10-15% reduction in traffic within the congestion charging zone and a

Chapter 4 : Transport page 329 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

related reduction in traffic congestion. Further modelling by TfL for the current proposed schemes confirms this range of reduction. [321]

(aa) (I) Conditional withdrawal. Text opposing congestion charging deleted. Additional text added stating that the Council will work with the Mayor and transport for London.

(ii) Sustain objection with further comment - TfL has engaged with Westminster City Council on numerous occasions to attempt to address the detailed elements of the proposed Congestion Charging Scheme. The UDP is a document outlining the strategic direction for development over the next 10-15 year period. TfL considers that the better approach to address Westminster's particular concerns is through further discussions with TfL outside the UDP process; TfL again invites Westminster City Council to submit proposals for complementary measures that have so far not been forthcoming.

(iii) In the Draft Transport Strategy, the Mayor states that one of his ten key priorities is reducing traffic congestion particularly in central London. The Draft Strategy proposes a congestion charging scheme in central London to secure reduced congestion in and around central London. The current text of the draft Westminster UDP does not accord with this proposal.

(iv) Many of the detailed points about the congestion charging scheme at paragraph 4.19 of the Westminster UDP have already been addressed by the Mayor in his Draft Transport Strategy or in his response to the Greater London Assembly Congestion Charging Scrutiny Report. In addition, a number of meetings have been held with Westminster officers on the details of the operation of the proposals. Points already addressed include:

S a commitment to complementary public transport measures to make public transport cheaper, faster and more reliable - in particular noticeable improvements to bus services, prior to the introduction of congestion charging; S the hypothecation of the net revenues for transport expenditure; S the congestion reduction effects; S measures to ameliorate any potential adverse effects on the Inner Ring Road and at the charging area boundary; and S a 100% discount for London borough operational vehicles.

(v) Whilst the Mayor encourages Westminster to put forward views on his proposed congestion charging scheme in its response to the Draft Strategy, the UDP is not considered to be an appropriate forum for such comments. It is a land use planning document intended to cover a 10 - 15 year period. In a few months, and certainly before the final version of the UDP is published, paragraph 4.19 will be significantly out of date. The current consultation on the Draft Transport Strategy and the anticipated consultation later this year on further details via the Scheme Order provide the proper opportunity for comments on the proposed scheme.

(vi) By the end of 2001 both the principle and detail of the congestion charging scheme will have been subject to extensive consultation processes. If a congestion charging scheme is proposed, this will be incompatible with paragraphs 4.19 and 4.20 of the UDP.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 330 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(vii) The UDP should have regard to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and the Mayor shall not approve a London Borough’s local implementation plan unless he considers that it is consistent with his Transport Strategy. A ‘holding objection’ that these paragraphs should be deleted is therefore made.

(viii) Delete paragraphs 4.19 and 4.20. Further discussions are welcomed [2]

(ab) (i) Object: the requirement for green travel plans in certain planning applications is too vague. [807]

(ac) (i) The UDP is defective in that:

S it fails to propose an effective alternative strategy for reducing traffic if congestion charging is not introduced. S it fails to propose how the road system is to be managed if congestion charging is introduced.

(ii) See also objection to 4.111. [632]

(ad) (i) It is an exaggeration to say that the City Council has had significant success in addressing most of these problems. Despite the restraint-based parking policy and investment in traffic and environmental improvement schemes, there has been no discernible reduction in the overall volume of traffic. [632]

(ae) (i) Support the new mention of the health benefits of walking [632]

(af) (i) Comments on Transport Chapter:

S TRANS 2 Supported S TRANS 12 Supported, in particular changes to (A) and (B) S TRANS 13 Supported S TRANS 19 Supported S TRANS 27 Supported [381]

(ag) (i) On the whole, support the policies as balanced and appropriate, given the diversity of interests of those who use the transport facilities in Westminster. [132]

(ah) (i) Changed wording, e.g. in relation to PSPA: supported [381]

(ai) (i) Support Westminster City Council's approach in this matter. [807]

(aj) (i) Note the contents of the above paragraph, including the Council’s reference to the fact that improvements to rail infrastructure and services are urgently needed to provide additional capacity. It is anticipated that these will result in a range of enhancements including improvements to the attractiveness of the railways and the environment.

(ii) Will continue to welcome and work with appropriate organisations, developers and Train Operating Companies to improve transport provision. These improvements must, however, be commercially, technically and operationally viable and acceptable. [74]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 331 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ak) (i) Support the new policy that major road widening schemes will be pursued simply to increase activity.

(ii) A SACTRA report confirmed the widely held belief that increasing road capacity inevitably causes an increase in traffic and is therefore counter-productive. [632]

(al) (i) Support the inclusion in the list of Government and other guidance documents of The White Paper on Transport ‘A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone’ and associated “daughter” documents. We believe these include the DETR’s document Encouraging Walking: advice to local authorities.

(ii) Support the inclusion of the following documents in the list:-

S The London Lord Mayor’s Strategy S DTLR Local Air Quality Management Guidance Notes: Air Quality and Transport S The City Council’s Air Quality Strategy and Action Plan. [632]

(am) (i) Objection changed to statement of support at second deposit

(an) (i) Support the new policy to require green travel plans in certain planning applications and legal agreements. Believe this will help the city in its aim of reducing traffic. [632]

(ao) (i) Generally welcome the stance taken in this chapter as indicated by the contents of paragraph 4.15 of the policies TRANS1-12, 14-18, 20-22, 24-25, in particular policies TRANS1-12 and 15 and paragraph 4.71. [28]

(ap) (i) Objection changed to statement of support at second deposit.

(ii) Agree that short car journeys are particularly polluting but dispute the assertion that the City Council has little control over the use of cars for short journeys.

(iii) As the local education authority, the City Council does have some control over the use of cars for school journeys.

(iv) As the planning authority, the City Council can limit car parking associated with retail developments.

(v) As the highway authority, the City Council can limit car parking near shops and schools.

(vi) The City Council owns a number of off-street car parks. These could be redeveloped for other uses when the current operating agreements expire. [632]

(aq) (i) Having now perused the proposed new UDP, it is obvious that considerable effort has been expended on re-writing the Transport Chapter. Many of the recommendations of the Westminster Transport Forum have been incorporated, notably the acceptance of the need for traffic reduction.

(ii) There are now several useful new policies that support. Objections are likely to concentrate on exactly how the City Council intends to reduce traffic - especially given its opposition to congestion charging - and how it intends to manage the road network. [7]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 332 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ar) (i) Support the addition to the paragraph dealing with coach emissions to the additional wording “(including by stationary vehicles with engines running) and safety concerns caused by left-hand drive vehicles picking up and dropping off passengers on the off-side of the vehicles).”

(ii) These are both problems for cyclists. [632]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) The issue of motorcycle (including all powered two-wheelers) policy has been the subject of much recent discussion, with the on-going trials of charges for motorcycle parking, including the provision of security measures, and the high level of objections to the transport chapter of the UDP from motorcyclists. A motorcycle policy has now been written into the Second Deposit version of the UDP which is intended to be a balanced policy recognising that motorcycles take up less roadspace than cars, but also the environmental implications of motorcycle use, the safety problems they cause and various uses they are put to e.g. commuting, couriers, business use, residents, etc. The policy (TRANS 11a) includes charging for on-street parking, at a level which has yet to be decided, but will be at most proportionately less than the charges for car parking, with or without limitations on the length of stay to encourage commuters to park off- street where possible. It reads:

"The City Council will seek to maintain an adequate supply of parking facilities for motorcyclists and will consider motorcyclists needs in the design of any traffic calming and management schemes. In recognising the safety and environmental problems caused by motorcycles relative to other modes, it will be necessary to apply a level of restraint through parking policies."

(ii) The reasoned justification for this policy is outlined in paragraphs 4.97a - 4.97g.

(iii) See also response provided in proof of evidence submitted in appearance at the public inquiry. [590] [601] [600] [etc., etc. all the motorcyclists]

(b) (i) The City Council is working with Camden on the Clear Zones package. Whilst it accepts that some residents will argue that more could be done in certain areas it is still correct to claim "significant success". [129]

(c) (i) Policy on residential parking standards was changed to a maximum at Second Deposit, so the City Council is surprised that this objection has been maintained

(d) (i) It is not within the scope of what is essentially a land use document to affect the provision of underground services, buses, taxis or mini-cabs at night. Nevertheless the City Council welcomes the Mayor's initiative to allow taxi drivers to charge higher fares at night to encourage more drivers to work at night. It has also long-campaigned for the licensing of mini-cabs in London and welcomes this initiative. Reference has been added to the need for further late-night public transport services.

(ii) The actual figures used in the section on TISs have been reviewed and are considered to be realistic. They are broadly in line with figures being used elsewhere in central London, which have been through the Public Inquiry process. The inherent flexibility of the Plan also means there is scope for

Chapter 4 : Transport page 333 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

developers to discuss the Council's requirements with Council officers on a case by case basis. [532]

(e) (i) The City Council is against the proposals for congestion charging for a variety of reasons which are outlined in the Plan. Whilst it should help to reduce traffic it might create a range of other problems. [719]

(f) (i) Agree that the items listed are reasons why traffic needs to be reduced and have amended text accordingly, but considered this amendment would be better in paragraph 4.6 than in 4.19.

(ii) The Plan outlines the City Council's transport policies which are aimed at reducing traffic and encouraging the use of alternative modes, whether or not congestion charging is introduced.

(iii) As primarily a land use Plan it cannot be expected to set out details of how the City Council might react if the Mayor was to introduce congestion charging, which is essentially a traffic management scheme. [823]

(g) (i) Whilst the modelling shows that it is likely that traffic levels will be reduced, these are only forecasts. There is no evidence from similar schemes in similar areas that the charging system will reduce traffic levels, and even if it does the question still remains over whether congestion will be reduced. Roadspace will have to be devoted to bus priority measures etc. to ensure that those who are dissuaded from using cars have another option. It is therefore possible that those that choose to or have to remain in their cars (or other vehicles) will still suffer congestion and slow speeds similar to today's. [375]

(h) (i) There is a limit to how proactive the City Council can be given that the rail networks are largely outside the City Council's control. Have added the suggested clause to paragraph 4.18, but without the deletion of the existing words. [73]

(i) (i) It is considered that there is already sufficient flexibility within the Plan as is outlined in paragraph 1.8 of the Introduction, which refers to Section 54A of the 1990 Act. [772]

(j) (i) There are several reasons why the policy has been deleted.

S It is not really related to land use so it could be argued that it has never had a place in the Plan at all.

S It referred to local distributors at a time when there were no such roads defined within the Plan.

S Paragraph 4.119 makes it clear that it is the City Council's intention that Local Roads should carry only local traffic and provide access. [129]

(k) (i) The City Council is against the proposals for congestion charging for a variety of reasons which are outlined in the Plan. [129]

(l) (i) It is considered that the policies are broadly in line with the Mayor's Transport Strategy. [403]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 334 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(m) (i) Have amended as necessary. [381]

(n) (i) The situation with regard to the need to provide off-street parking for residents differs from that regarding commuters and others. Have altered text to outline the reasons for this “inconsistency”. [381]

(o) (i) Support welcomed. However there is no "may seek" in paragraph 4.64, though there is in para. 4.62 which has been amended as suggested. [381]

(p) (i) The City Council believes that the situation on its streets, where there are only some 80 Respark bays available per 100 permits on issue represents “exceptional circumstances”. In reality, a proportion of new residents will want to own cars, both now and in the future, and if off-street facilities are not provided for them this will increase the pressure on on-street facilities, which many existing residents already find difficult. [632]

(q) (i) Agree, but towpaths are not generally under the City Council’s control. Have altered to be more positive, but need to recognise this. [632]

(r) (i) Agree. Have amended accordingly. [632]

(s) (i) Have deleted “essential” as far as residents are concerned. But feel that residents should have a priority for parking spaces. Not because they necessarily need to use the car as part of their daily business, but because, even if they do not, they should be able to keep their cars relatively close to their homes. [632]

(t) (i) Agree in part. The City Council is not concerned whether or not such proposals are “commercially viable”, rather it wants to see facilities and services for passengers improved. Have amended to refer to technical and operational viability. [74]

(u) (i) Agree and have amended Map 4.3 accordingly. [74]

(v) (i) Agree. Have added appropriate reference to the London Plan, but need to bear in mind that it is still in draft form.

(ii) Have amended as suggested. [2]

(w) (i) Agree. Have amended accordingly. [1]

(x) (i) Agree in part. Have deleted “essential” as far as residents are concerned.

(ii) The Council's strategy is set out in paragraphs 4.15 to 4.21. Paragraph 4.21 has been deleted, but a cross reference has been added to the Council's Integrated Transport Strategy at the end of paragraph 4.20 which appears elsewhere and will be updated more regularly than the Plan.

(iii) Have amended text to define essential and priority users and suggest deletion of "whilst ensuring…". [2]

(y-z) (i) Whilst the modelling shows that it is likely that traffic levels will be reduced, these are only forecasts. There is no evidence from similar schemes in similar areas that the charging system will reduce traffic levels, and even if it does the question still remains over whether congestion will be reduced. Road space will Chapter 4 : Transport page 335 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

have to be devoted to bus priority measures etc. to ensure that those who are dissuaded from using cars have another option. It is therefore possible that those that choose to or have to remain in their cars (or other vehicles) will still suffer congestion and slow speeds similar to today's. [321]

(aa) (i) Do not agree. The City Council has not submitted proposals for complementary measures because it feels this would undermine its opposition to congestion charging, but also because it does not feel TfL’s modelling has been detailed enough for the City Council to be able to judge where such measures will be necessary.

(ii) Agree that congestion charging is essentially a traffic management scheme. Could leave all references to the scheme out of the Plan, but the details of the City Council's objections were originally included at Members' request.

(iii) Do not agree that the detailed points have been addressed. Whilst the Mayor is carrying out a lot of work into the effects of the scheme, we will not know whether these issues have been adequately addressed until the scheme is up and running. [2]

(ab) (i) Do not agree. It would not be appropriate to set out details in the Plan, rather these should be negotiated at the time of any application. [807]

(ac) (i) The Plan outlines the City Council's transport policies which are aimed at reducing traffic and encouraging the use of alternative modes, whether or not congestion charging is introduced.

(ii) As primarily a land use Plan it cannot be expected to set out details of how the City Council might react if the Mayor was to introduce congestion charging, which is essentially a traffic management scheme. [632]

(ad) (i) Whilst the City Council accepts that some will argue that more could be done in certain areas it is still correct to claim "significant success". Whilst there has been no significant reduction in traffic levels, neither has there been any increase for several years at a time when traffic levels elsewhere have increased dramatically. 632

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.0.1 Many of the above objections have been accommodated by changes to the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP. The principal changes to the UDP’s content are as follows:

(1) the introduction of Policy TRANS 11a covering motorcycling as a transport mode;

(2) the inclusion of new tramway (LRT) construction under Policy TRANS 5;

(3) deletion of paragraph 4.19a and most references to the Central London Congestion Charging Scheme introduced by the Greater London Authority and Transport for London (TfL).

4.0.2 These alterations are endorsed for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the evidence suggests that motorcycling (or the use of powered two-wheel vehicles (PTWs as they are now known)) is significantly on the increase both nationally and locally. It is therefore right to include reference to it as a discrete mode, to the extent that it affects land use planning decisions.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 336 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Secondly, the very probable re-introduction of street tramways in Westminster is most appropriately included in Policy TRANS 5. They first appeared (briefly) in Central London in 1861 between Marble Arch and Shepherds Bush although it is fair to comment that their immediate future impact on Westminster will be marginal and largely confined to the former LCC Kingsway Tram Subway, on present proposals at least. Reference to the Congestion Charge has been deleted; very reasonably in view of its limited immediate relevance to land use planning decisions. On present evidence, it appears to be successful as far as its operations are concerned. Its effect on traffic restraint (an important aspect of Policy TRANS 15) is less certain but its clear operability appears to have made more sophisticated methods of road-pricing likely to be implemented nationwide within the currency of the Review UDP.

4.0.3 Many of the objections, ostensibly to the Chapter 4 Introduction, are more specifically directed at component policies. Apart from Policy TRANS 11A (Motorcycles) these are more conveniently dealt with under these component policies as follows:

TRANS 1 (Environment) [129] TRANS 3 (Pedestrians) [632] TRANS 4 (Bus Services) [532] TRANS 5 (Railways and Tramways) [73][74] TRANS 8 (Taxis and Mini-Cabs) [532] TRANS 10 (Cycling) [381][632] TRANS 14 (Transport Impact Statements) [532][719] TRANS 15 (Traffic Reduction) [129][321][375][823][719] TRANS 16 (Road Hierarchy) [7][632] TRANS 23 (Residential Parking) [1][2][381]

4.04 Policy TRANS 11A was introduced by the LPA in order to meet the many objections voiced by the Motorcycle Action Group (MAG) (et al). To a large extent, the objections have been met by the additional policy which, in essence, recognises the growing importance of PTW (powered two-wheeled) vehicles as a mode of travel. The policy commits the LPA to maintaining adequate parking facilities and to bear in mind the needs of such vehicles in traffic management. The MAG appeared at the inquiry and put their views as to additional policy content, including a commitment to their authorised use of bus lanes, increased numbers of (free) on-street parking spaces and more generous (paying) space within off- street car parks and also enhanced provision within future development. The LPA pointed out that their ability to deliver these facilities is limited, since they relate mainly to moving traffic or parking regulatory powers, which are shared with other bodies such as Transport for London (TfL). Moreover, I detect a slight ambivalence in the LPA’s attitude to increased PTW use since it has misgivings relative to such vehicles’ safety record and noise levels. These aspects of ridership and use might tend, in the LPA’s view at least, to hinder the implementation of Policies TRANS 1-3 and TRANS 15.

4.05 I very largely share the concerns of the LPA with regard to road safety, increased noise levels and the perceptible dangers of a significant modal shift away from walking, cycling and the use of public transport in favour of increased PTW use. I accept the LPA’s evidence regarding levels of pollution and consider that the key comparison is not between private cars and PTWs but between the latter and buses. Increased bus use by present or potential riders of PTWs would halve the rate of carbon dioxide emissions and reduce by five-sixths the rate of carbon monoxide emissions (per person km). The only areas in which PTWs are now superior are in nitrogen and sulphur oxides and particulate emissions. These are characteristics that can be avoided by the use of alternative fuel sources which, by and large, are not available to PTWs. Given WCC’s worthy corporate policies regarding air purity and, especially, noise and road accident reduction, I believe that its apprehension over modal shift from low levels or nil polluting forms of movement, attributable to increased PTW Chapter 4 : Transport page 337 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

use, is well founded. The use of PTWs has undoubtedly been facilitated by freedom from congestion charging and the fact that it does not at present attract on-street parking fees.

4.06 In any event, the degree to which the LPA, as planning authority, can facilitate PTW use is strictly limited. The main area of influence is in the field of off-street parking provision within new development. Here, the relevant Policies TRANS 21-25 generally are restrictive in that they seek an overall reduction in parking provision, consistent with Policy TRANS 15. It is always open to landowners, once they have made the relevant (now maximum) parking provision, to re-allocate spaces in favour of PTWs on a ratio of 5:1, if they feel it might be in their commercial or operational interests to do so. The only way in which the LPA can restrict off-street parking provision by condition is by requiring that such spaces be reserved for use of vehicles and not devoted to another land use. In my view, it would not be an enforceable condition to require their use exclusively for either motor cars or any other specific vehicle type. To that extent, the distinction between PTW and car use is academic. The way in which WCC allocates (or charges for) parking spaces in its own car parks (or on- street within CPZs for that matter) is a matter for corporate decision, influenced no doubt by residential or commercial as well as land use planning considerations.

Recommendations

S R4.0.1 Modify the Introduction to Chapter 10 in accordance with the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP.

S R4.0.2 Modify paragraph 4.15 of the UDP by the insertion of references (a-m) in place of bullet points.

S R4.0.3 Modify the UDP by the inclusion of Policy TRANS 11a and its supporting text in accordance with the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP.

TR01 Protecting the Environment from the Effects of Transport Activities

Objectors and Supporters

2 Greater London Authority 129 Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association 131 Marylebone Association 139 Westminster Society 143 Environment Agency 161 London Transport Users' Committee 321 SWETA (South Westminster Triangle Association) 375 Government Office for London 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 403 Councillor Barbara Grahame 553 Kensington and Chelsea with Westminster Friends of the Earth (FoE) 632 Westminster Cycling Campaign 719 Charlotte Street Association 759 The Thorney Island Society 807 London School of Economics and Political Science 823 Sustrans

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

Chapter 4 : Transport page 338 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(a) (i) Policies will need to take into account the Mayor's strategies and evolving strategies of the other London Boroughs if we are to have the sustainable integrated transport strategy that London needs, and to which Westminster as the central London borough holds the key. Parking policy in particular will need reviewing [403]

(b) (i) Supports these policies. However, believe that it is essential to adopt the LPAC target for Westminster and the restraint measures necessary to achieve it. This policy is more of the same.

(ii) Therefore add policy (D) “The city will adopt the LPAC traffic reduction target and implement restraint policies such as are required to meet this target.” [161] [321]

(c) (i) Policy TRANS1 should include a commitment to a specific reduction in the overall level of traffic (not just commuters) that is to be planned for. This would be in line with both the Road Traffic Reduction Act and the City Council's recognition that Westminster has unacceptably high levels of traffic and congestion. [139]

(d) (i) The current restriction of vehicle length has failed to prevent the use of excessively large vehicles by Tesco, McDonalds and certain other businesses, largely because there is an exemption for vehicles requiring access.

(ii) The length restriction should be modified:

S to allow access by long vehicles only with special permission rather than for routine deliveries; S to include all streets other than GLA roads and London distributor roads.

The City Council should actively participate in the Sustainable Distribution Forum for London with a view to finding new solutions such as:

S consolidation of loads and numbers of deliveries; S deliveries to intermediate points between supplier and recipient; S changes to delivery hours; S use of vehicles better suited to operation in dense urban environments. [632]

(e) (i) We would like to see added D “The City will seek to improve the quality of road- surfaces provided.” [131]

(f) (i) The City Council should adopt the 35% traffic reduction target by 2010 on City Council roads as recommended by LPAC and in line with the Road and Traffic Reduction Act.

(ii) The legal requirement to declare a city wide air Quality Management Zone because of a predicted failure to meet minimum legal air quality standards by 2005 underlines the necessity to reduce traffic dramatically. Excess traffic in Westminster is producing an unacceptable deterioration in people's quality of life as well as proving an expensive additional financial burden on businesses located in Westminster.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 339 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) Further to this matter in relation to the policy application the following needs to be added “In order to strive to meet the LPAC target the city council will be required to adopt a far stronger set of land based road traffic reduction measures than are currently proposed including:

S support to a policy of extending the mileage if bus lanes in the city S support to the principle of congestion charging S support for the implementation of World Squares for all Scheme S lobbying of the Mayor to urge him to impose a hefty levy on work place parking spaces (PNR's).”

(iv) This last measure listed would prove the easiest and most single effect policy instrument against rush hour commuting into Westminster and inner London more generally (if it imposed at the appropriate rate). [321]

(g) (i) The UDP gives no reasons why it considers the target of 30% traffic reduction, as proposed by LPAC, to be unachievable. And whilst strongly support the aims of traffic reduction, the proposed measures in the UDP are unlikely to achieve them. The City Council's current policies are based largely on parking controls and up till now, have not been effective in reducing traffic levels. Though continue to support this policy, more details and attention need to be given to 'other appropriate methods'. These should include the reallocation of road space to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, closure of streets to motor-vehicular through traffic, charging for workplace parking, etc. [823]

(h) (i) Generally support policy to protect the environment from the effects of transport activities. [553]

(i) (i) Agree that many roads in Westminster carry more traffic than they should and welcome measures to reduce it. [632]

(j) (i) Support. [807] [381]

(k) (i) Pleased to note that the Council is considering introducing a Low Emission Zone where only low emission vehicles would be allowed (para 4.30). Urge the Council to introduce such a zone as soon as possible. [759]

(l) (i) Support this policy as it attempts to reduced the environmental impact of transport activities through the planning system. This is a good general policy aimed at reduction or restraint of traffic and improving provision for alternative modes other than the private car are particularly welcomed. It therefore has the potential to contribute to sustainable development. [143]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) It is considered that the policies are broadly in line with the Mayor's Transport Strategy. [403]

(b) (i) First deposit - The City Council does not feel the LPAC target is achievable. Also, this policy is specifically about protecting the environment and paragraphs 4.30 and 4.33 explain why a Low Emission Zone coupled with a 10% traffic reduction would be more effective than just a traffic reduction of 30%.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 340 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) Furthermore, central government has failed to set any traffic reduction target and the Mayor clearly feels the LPAC target is unrealistic too as he has set a target of 10 - 15% reduction for central London. [161]

(c) (i) The City Council's traffic reduction policy is not aimed just at commuters. This would be clearer if a comma were to be included between "non-essential" and "through" in paragraph 4.23.

(ii) It is, however, difficult to come up with a specific figure for traffic reduction. The City Council feels that the LPAC figure of 30 - 35% is unrealistically high. Furthermore, central government has failed to set any traffic reduction target and the Mayor clearly feels the LPAC target is unrealistic too as he has set a target of 10 - 15% reduction for central London. [139]

(d) (i) The 12-metre ban is aimed at diverting through traffic around the central area, not at preventing long vehicles from making deliveries within the area. It currently includes all streets within a central area. To introduce a ban that required special permission to enter would require undue administration when there are already local loading bans as well as the night-time and weekend lorry ban in place, whether it included or excluded GLA Roads and London Distributor Roads.

(ii) Agree that the City Council should participate in the Sustainable Distribution Forum when Transport for London has set it up, but do not consider the text of the Plan needs to be amended. [632]

(e) (i) This is not a matter for the Plan. [131]

(f) (i) First deposit - The City Council does not feel the LPAC target is achievable. Also, TRANS 1 is specifically about protecting the environment and paragraphs 4.30 and 4.33 explains why a Low Emission Zone coupled with a 10% traffic reduction would be more effective than just a traffic reduction of 30% (not 35%).

(ii) Furthermore, central government has failed to set any traffic reduction target and the Mayor clearly feels the LPAC target is unrealistic too as he has set a target of 10 - 15% reduction for central London. [321]

(g) (i) Have added the reasons so that the relevant section of paragraph 4.30 now reads "…. the 30% reduction in traffic levels in central London suggested by LPAC to meet air quality targets is unlikely to be achievable given the short timescale and that so much of central London’s traffic is made up of buses, taxis, delivery vehicles and the number of drivers of other vehicles that would be willing to pay any congestion or workplace parking charges."

(j) This policy states how the City Council will use traffic management and calming to reduce traffic, but do not consider it necessary to list all the various techniques that the City Council might use. There is also a further policy (TRANS 15) on traffic reduction and other policies which outline how the City Council will seek to encourage other modes. [823]

(h)-(k) (i) Support welcomed. [553] [632] [807] [381] [759] [143]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

Chapter 4 : Transport page 341 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

4.1.1 The GLA is now the strategic planning authority for transport planning in Greater London; it is accordingly not necessary for the UDP to contain a specific commitment to the integration of such planning across borough boundaries. The GLA’s strategy is contained in “The Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2001” (CD 5or7). As far as traffic reduction is concerned, a key quotation from this document is: "(4A.6(a)) Traffic congestion is undermining the economic efficiency of the city, reducing the quality of life, impeding the movement of goods and damaging the environment. Reducing traffic congestion will therefore directly contribute to increasing economic prosperity, (to) making London liveable, (to) increasing London’s accessibility and (to) reducing environmental degradation. Congestion is particularly severe in Central London and is also growing in Inner and Outer London. It is impossible, either financially (or environmentally), to develop transport in Central London primarily on the basis of the private car. Congestion will be reduced by a combination of improvements in public and social transport, the proposed introduction of a congestion charging scheme to deter unnecessary car journeys in Central London, better enforcement of traffic and parking regulations, better management of the network and (the) further encouragement of walking and cycling”.

4.1.2 The question of restricting or excluding heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) from Central London is only partly a problem that can be addressed by land use planning policies. The effect of banning through vehicles over 18 tonnes and in excess of 12 metres has clearly not been their total exclusion. Land use planning policies cannot determine the size and weight of delivery vehicles as far as public highways are concerned. What they may do (and this is a subject covered by TRANS 16 and the subject of objection) is to authorise development likely to attract HGVs or other over-sized vehicles, only in relation to major distributor routes (cf Policy TRANS 2(G) of the adopted UDP). The 1963 Buchanan Report (Traffic in Towns) referred to this technique as “traffic architecture”, by which the traffic generation of specific land uses could (and should) be related to the form and function of the urban road network which supported them. It should be noted that the City Council has in mind the future establishment of a Low Emission Zone (LEZ) which combined with vehicle reduction of the order of 10%, might allow its air quality targets to be met. Such a measure might equally serve to inhibit the use of HGVs for delivery and the LEZ extent would undoubtedly be a material consideration in determining planning applications

4.1.3 There is little doubt that the quality of life is badly affected by traffic conditions in Central London, as witness the excerpt from the GLA publication just referred to. It is quite clear that the overall policies of the London Plan will succeed in making improvements in many directions and it is clearly the intention of the LPA to further these aims, to the extent that land use policies can do so. However, the call for “land based (sic) traffic reduction measures” [321] is perhaps a little misplaced. The following measures are, for example, not directly related to the development or use of land, however worthy or effective they might be in the spheres of traffic reduction, wider mobility or environmental enhancement:

(a) the extension of bus lanes and priorities (see also TRANS 4(A)); (b) the operation of the Central London Congestion Charging Scheme; (c) the pedestrianisation of major public spaces such as Trafalgar Square; (d) the imposition of a levy on public non-residential (PNR) parking space.

Recommendation

S R4.1.1 Modify Policy TRANS 1 and supporting text in accordance with the pre- inquiry version of the Review UDP.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 342 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

TR02: Road Safety

Objectors and Supporters

London Transport Users' Committee South East Bayswater Residents Association 553 Kensington and Chelsea with Westminster Friends of the Earth 632 Westminster Cycling Campaign 807 London School of Economics and Political Science

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) The committee believes slower speed initiatives will contribute to casualty reduction, however this may conflict with encouraging bus use when humps are installed.

(ii) Therefore add:

'The City Council will promote slower speed initiatives whilst recognising that on bus routes every effort need to be taken to accommodate buses by using bus friendly speed restraint' [161]

(b) (i) Support the aim to reduce the number, severity and risk of traffic accidents and to improve safety for all users of the transport system. [553]

(c) (i) Support the aim to reduce the number, severity and risk of traffic accidents and to improve safety for all users of the transport system. [632]

(d) (i) Support. [807, 381]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) The City Council has already implemented a number of traffic calming schemes, including cushions on bus routes, which allow buses to pass unhindered. Do not however feel that the policy needs to be amended to state this, particularly as TRANS 1 already refers to traffic calming. [161]

(b)-(d) (i) Support welcome. [553 [632] [807] [381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.2.1 The road safety aspects of development proposals can be critical in reducing or preventing conflicts of movement between various categories of traffic, principally vehicle, cycle and pedestrian traffic. The subject is well covered in the DETR 1998 publication: “Places, Streets and Movement”, intended as a guide to Design Bulletin 32 (1992). It may therefore be assumed that most developers will be tolerably familiar with this advice and, in particular, the need physically to control vehicle speeds within predominantly residential and shopping streets. However, the relevant objection [161] has a point in that the principal aim of traffic calming is to inhibit vehicle speeds generally whilst allowing the easy passage of certain categories of vehicles, such as emergency and public service vehicles. Since the object of development plan policies is to make development control criteria as explicit as possible, it may be wise to expand Policy TRANS 2 slightly in the way suggested, especially as the DETR advice is to consider matters of road layout at the earliest stage in layout design and the planning application process.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 343 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Recommendations

S R4.2.1 Modify Policy Application of TRANS 2 in accordance with the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP.

S R4.2.2 Modify Policy TRANS 2 to read as follows:

"TRANS 2: ROAD SAFETY

The City Council will scrutinise all development proposals, as regards their traffic and highway arrangements, to ensure that they adequately complement the relevant slower speed initiatives that are being taken in the interests of road safety and accident reduction, whilst allowing the easy passage of emergency and public service vehicles."

TR03: Pedestrians

Objectors and Supporters

28 London Tourist Board 82 Consignia plc 90 Portman Estates 113 Ramblers Association 132 St. Marylebone Society 161 London Transport Users' Committee 321 SWETA (South Westminster Triangle Association) 376 London First 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 485 House Builders Federation 491 Mercers Company 553 Kensington and Chelsea with Westminster Friends of the 555 Glen Suarez 632 Westminster Cycling Campaign 680 The Crown Estate 759 The Thorney Island Society 807 London School of Economics and Political Science 823 Sustrans

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Generally support but in part (B) the City Council should also have regard (when considering pedestrian priority and pedestrianisation schemes) to the predominant land use in the immediate area and the need for large numbers of pedestrians to cross a public highway on many occasions during a normal day. [807]

(b) (i) It is considered that the UDP should be more proactive and identify where proposals for possible pedestrianisation would be encouraged.

(ii) The following areas within the Estate or close by are suitable for consideration for partial or full pedestrianisation schemes:

Chapter 4 : Transport page 344 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

1. Marble Arch 2. New Quebec Street Local Centre 3. Seymour Place Local Centre [90]

(c) (i) Support the sentiments in 4.45 in replacing existing subways, unless linked to other underground features (Tube stationor car parks etc.) Why is this not specifically stated in Section B of the "Policy". [132]

(d) (i) Where a road is heavily trafficked by both pedestrians and motorists then any conflict should be resolved in favour of the pedestrian.

(ii) Wish to see a commitment to reducing motorised traffic on roads heavily used by pedestrians. [161]

(e) (i) Add wording to specify that all signalised junctions will have a pedestrian phase.

(ii) Add wording to specify that where there is to be shared use by cyclists and pedestrians the sharing arrangement is clearly marked out. [161]

(f) (i) New development should make a positive contribution to the pedestrian environment. This para should be strengthened by removal of 'where possible' [161]

(g) (i) Under policy TRANS3, mention could be made of the benefits of personal health through encouraging people to walk. [28]

(h) (i) There should be a greater presumption in favour of the pedestrians. Delete first 2 lines of (b) and replace with

'The City Council will operate a strong presumption in favour of pedestrian priority whilst having regard to……..' [161]

(i) (i) Strongly support the objective of improving the environment for pedestrians. However the policy appears to be framed in relation to provision for pedestrians where new developments are proposed. There are no positive proposals for the City Council to put forward pedestrian schemes in areas where appropriate, nor is there any reference to the World Squares proposals. [376]

(j) (i) It should be mentioned in the reasons that any planning agreement with developers must be in accordance with Circular 1or97. [485]

(k) (i) Whilst support the stated aims of the pedestrian policy and the introduction of pedestrian priority schemes, object to the omission of additional measures that would improve conditions for walking, such as: S reducing waiting times for pedestrians at traffic signals and giving them priority in the allocation of time at junctions, giving less able-bodied people ample time to cross; S introducing traffic-calming measures near major destinations such as stations, visitor attractions, schools and hospitals S replacing subways with surface crossings; S replacing staggered crossings with straight-across ones; S making walking routes easier to follow; S creating 'home zones' where pedestrians have absolute priority over vehicles;

Chapter 4 : Transport page 345 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

S ensuring a high standard of maintenance and cleanliness of footways and footpaths; S improving pedestrian access to public transport interchanges S improving pedestrian access to parks.

(ii) The majority of these measures are recommended in the DETR’s document 'Encouraging Walking: advice to local authorities'. [632]

(l) (i) The policy needs to recognise that pedestriansiation in the vicinity of concentrations of A3 uses leads to the spread of those activities into the street including drinking in the street and crowds and the associated problems.

(ii) Furthermore there needs to be a recognition that where streets are pedestrianised there is a tendency for A3 establishments to congregate and this can also lead to problems identified above [555]

(m) (i) The Crown Estate wishes to maintain the objections raised during the first deposit stage of the UDP review. Planning agreements are mentioned in section A of the proposed policy, but there is no guidance as to what these may be, the policy should therefore be elaborated to provide guidance. The council states that "an effective way of ensuring better conditions for pedestrians, especially shoppers, is by closing streets to motor vehicles". The Crown Estate has put forward proposals for improvements to the shoppers and pedestrians in Regent Street which are in line with this policy of the Council but they have yet to obtain the approval of the Council. The Council needs to demonstrate that it intends to implement its policy.

(ii) Planning agreements are mentioned in section A of the proposed policy, but there is no guidance as to what these may be - the policy should therefore be elaborated to provide guidance.

(iii) The council states that “an effective way of ensuring better conditions for pedestrians, especially shoppers, is by closing streets to motor vehicles”. The Crown Estate has put forward proposals for improvements to the shoppers and pedestrians in Regent Street which are in line with this policy of the Council. [680]

(n) (i) But please amend typo errors:- Decapitalise “traffic calming measures”

And expression by altering in our reason .”...gained more through piecemeal new build.....” to . ...by way of piecemeal new build...” After 'improve the environment for pedestrians with special attention to their safety, ease and directness of movement, and convenience' Add ''directly by way of Traffic Calming measures, Pedestrian Priority Zones, 20 mileorh Speed Limit Zones and" before 'through [more direct] negotiations with developers…." otherwise POLICY TRANS 3 leaves the suggestion the City Council believes improvements to pedestrian safety can be gained more through piece meal new

Chapter 4 : Transport page 346 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

build developments than through modifications to the management of the highways themselves, which is evidently not the case. [321]

(o) (i) Strongly support the aims of the pedestrian policy, but that there are several major omissions from the list of measures to improve conditions for walking. These include: S Reducing waiting times for pedestrians at traffic signals and giving them priority in the allocation of times at junctions S Introducing traffic-calming measures near major destinations such as stations, visitor attractions, schools, hospitals etc. S Creating 'home zones' where pedestrians have absolute priority over vehicles S Ensuring a high standard of maintenance and cleanliness of footways S Improving pedestrian access to public transport interchanges [823]

(p) (i) Support this approach, but would wish to see a 20 mileorh limit during hours when traffic is allowed as pedestrians may become complacent as to the dangers during these hours. [161]

(q) (i) Support in principle the provision of additional signage for pedestrians [680]

(r) (i) Policy TRANS3 and reasoned justification at paragraph 4.43 relates to the improvement of the pedestrian environment. Consignia plc welcomes the principle of the policy and support the reasoned justification which makes clear reference to the need to have full regard for the access and servicing needs of traders, frontagers, the emergency services and for refuse collection and cleansing. Consignia plc considers that its operational access and egress requirements would reasonably fall within this policy safeguard. [82]

(s) (i) Support policy, particularly in respect of its Covent Garden Estate.

(ii) In particular, the supporting statement by the City Council is strongly supported where it states that “an effective way of ensuring better conditions for pedestrians, especially shoppers, is by closing streets to motor vehicles, if only for part of the day. It is a solution which can benefit both pedestrians and business…” [491]

(t) (i) Supported. [113]

(u) (i) Supported. [381]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) Agree, but feel this point is already adequately covered in the twelfth bullet point of the revised para. 4.43. [807]

(b) (i) Do not agree that it would be appropriate to try to list all the locations in Westminster where it might be possible to give priority to pedestrians over the life of the Plan. [90]

(c) (i) Support welcomed. Section B of the policy is about pedestrian priority and pedestrianisation schemes and it would not be appropriate to include a reference to subways here. Feel the point is already adequately covered. [132]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 347 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(d) (i) Do not believe that such a policy is practical. Different roads have different characteristics. For example Park Lane carries very many pedestrians, but the footways are adequately wide and can cope with the flows. It also carries a lot of traffic, but the City Council would not want to divert such traffic away from Park Lane to other streets that would be less suitable as through routes on the basis that there are many pedestrians in Park Lane.

(ii) Several factors need to be taken into account and the City Council feels that the current policies on pedestrians, the road hierarchy, traffic reduction, etc. achieve the right balance. [161]

(e) (i) Traffic signals are now under the control of Transport for London through its Traffic Technology Services section, so it is not appropriate for the City Council to say that they will all have a pedestrian phase.

(ii) With regard to shared use of crossings with cyclists, feel LTUC's point is adequately covered in paragraph 4.91.

(f) (i) Do not believe that it will be possible to improve the pedestrian environment with every new development - many of which are so small that they could not be expected to contribute. Believe that the policy as drafted sets out adequately the priority that the City Council wishes to give to pedestrians. [161]

(g) (i) Have included a reference to health in paragraph 4.46 so that the first two sentences now read "Walking is the method of travel that has the least damaging effect on the environment. It also has health benefits…". [28]

(h) (i) Feel that it is already clear from (A) and from the reasoned justification that there is a need to give priority to pedestrians, but that (B) is necessary to illustrate that other matters need to be considered. [161]

(i) (i) The UDP's main function is a as Land Use Plan which guides developers as to what the City Council may and may not find acceptable. It is therefore correct that it is mainly concerned with new developments, but this in no way restricts the ability of the Council to put forward any other pedestrian related schemes and should not be seen as indicating that the Council has no wish to implement such schemes. [376]

(j) (i) Rather than repeat such a statement wherever in the Plan we refer to agreements with developers, feel this point is already adequately covered in policy STRA 6. [485]

(k) (i) Agree that these are all measures that the City Council might use within the life of the Plan, but do not feel it is necessary to try to list all the techniques the Council might use. [632]

(l) (i) Feel that this issue is already covered by the policy and in particular by the last bullet point of the revised para. 4.43. [555]

(m) (i) Feel that this point is adequately covered under policy STRA 6. [680]

(n) (i) Agree that these are all measures that the City Council might use within the life of the Plan, but do not feel it is necessary to try to list all the techniques the Council might use, particularly since the UDP is primarily a land use plan. Traffic management and calming measures that are not specifically mentioned within Chapter 4 : Transport page 348 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

the Plan can still be implemented as part of the City Council's Integrated Transport Strategy andoror its Local Implementation Plan. [321]

(o) (i) Agree that these are all measures that the City Council might use within the life of the Plan, but do not feel it is necessary to try to list all the techniques the Council might use. [823]

(p) (i) Do not necessarily agree that a 20 mph limit would be of use. While many of the areas will always be used predominantly by pedestrians, vehicles will be allowed in at certain times, e.g. to make deliveries. At such times it would still be completely inappropriate to even travel at 20 mph in most places, e.g. Carnaby Street. [161]

(q)-(n) (i) Support welcomed. [82] [491] [113] [3]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.3.1 It is correct to say, as is mentioned in the objection by the Westminster Cycling Campaign [632] that there has been much official encouragement of walking (and cycling) as witness the March 2000 publication “Encouraging Walking” (DETR). Moreover, the Department for Transport (DfT) has recently (July 2004) issued a Discussion Paper entitled “On the move: by foot”. It is accordingly timely and appropriate for the UDP to contain policies that seek to encourage walking, to the extent that the development and use of land can actively assist in this regard. This is an important caveat since a good deal of improvement in the pedestrian realm is within the control of local highway authorities and is governed by traffic orders and traffic regulation. For example, the following aspects of pedestrian safety and movement, no doubt worthy in their own right, cannot in general be directly influenced by the authorisation of development or by legal conditions imposed by planning permissions or by agreements or undertakings secured in relation to such permission:

(1) pedestrian phasing of traffic signals; (2) replacement of underground pedestrian crossings; (3) design of pedestrian guard rails and crossings; (4) creation of home zones and imposition of local speed limits; (5) demarcation of combined footways and cycleways.

4.3.2 However, the general layout and detailed design of new development can most certainly assist in the significant upgrading of the pedestrian environment, perhaps to a much greater degree than most developers have been prepared to accept in the past. Any such necessary improvements should be signalled well in advance, preferably in the form of an explicit development plan policy, and obtained either by negotiation or by the imposition of conditions and the conclusion of planning agreements; it is certainly not necessary to stress that these should be in accordance with C1 or 97 (or indeed any successor) advice. The LPA have helpfully set out a number of ways in which conditions for pedestrian (and disabled) movement may be improved in the course of development. These are consistent with the government advice already referred to and indeed with the Final Report of the Urban Task Force (chapter 3 (p87)) and the DETR response (CD1 or 8: chapter 4 (p68)).

4.3.3 The 1999 Urban Task Force Report usefully summarised the ways in which urban development can positively assist in the enhancement of the pedestrian environment and thus contribute to a modal shift in favour of movement on foot:

Chapter 4 : Transport page 349 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

To reclaim the potential of the street to meet many different community needs as opposed to simply providing a conduit for motor vehicles; To increase investment in walking, cycling and public transport and not just rely on the private sector to provide those extra resources; To reduce the distances we travel by consolidating development within a compact urban form, close to existing and new travel interchanges; and, To reduce the amount of land we give over to the motor car, particularly by reducing the amount of space within our towns that we use as surface level car parking.

4.3.4 It is probably fair to comment that the UDP implicitly addresses all or most of these concerns by policies other than Policy TRANS 3. For example, objectives (3) and (4) above will be furthered by policies relating to mixed development and the imposition of maximum controls on levels of off-street parking provision. What TRANS 3 appears to be aimed at is combined private and public sector investment in development and in traffic management. In view of the probable contribution of the former, it may be as well to be fairly explicit about the specific types of enhancement that are sought. In view of the many objections to its wording and provisions, it might be better to express TRANS 3 rather more positively and at the same time to include the criteria for future pedestrian schemes in the body of the policy rather than (somewhat confusingly) to relegate them to the supporting text. A modified form of the policy and its relevant criteria are set out below and recommended for adoption.

4.3.5 The LPA rightly resists the suggestion that specific pedestrian proposals or possible schemes be listed in the UDP. This view is supported, firstly because such schemes will necessarily be localised and hence of limited impact city-wide, however welcome they may be individually or significant they may be cumulatively. Secondly, they will be controversial in their design and detail; consultations on their implementation are best done outside the development plan process. Thirdly, unless and until they are firmly programmed and budgeted, it would be wrong to raise false hopes and influence property investment decisions so far in advance of achievement; the lengthy gestation of the Trafalgar Square enhancement (only now being implemented) is a salutary example of this. In my view, it is enough to set out the parameters or criteria for the LPA’s future appraisal of such schemes.

Recommendations

S R4.3.1 Modify Policy TRANS 3 to read as follows:

"TRANS 3: PEDESTRIANS

(1) The City Council, in considering development proposals, will aim to secure an improved environment for pedestrians, with particular regard to their safety, ease, convenience and directness of movement, in the course of negotiations or securing planning agreements, including the provision of appropriate facilities, such as footway widening, connecting walkways, footbridge location and covered arcading.

(2) In its consideration of proposals for the future creation of pedestrian-only areas or areas of pedestrian priority, the City Council will aim to achieve a high standard of urban design and also to have regard to the following physical features:

(a) the safety of pedestrian, cyclist and other forms of traffic;

(b) the need for personal safety and the prevention of crime;

Chapter 4 : Transport page 350 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(c) the consequential displacement of moving or parked vehicles to or within surrounding areas, especially residential areas;

(d) the daytime and night-time impact of increased pedestrian traffic or congregation upon the amenity of surrounding areas;

(e) the access and mobility needs of disabled, elderly and handicapped people;

(f) the need for access and passage of regular bus services;

(g) the need for cyclist movement and segregation from other traffic;

(h) the accessibility needs of licensed taxi and mini-cabs;

(i) the likely impact of vehicular restrictions on patterns of retail trade;

(j) the access and servicing needs of traders and frontagers and facilities for refuse collection and street cleansing.

(k) the need for convenient 24-hour access for emergency services.”

S R4.3.2 Modify the Policy Application of TRANS 3 by the deletion of the last sentence of paragraph 4.43 and the succeeding 11 bullet points.

S R4.2.1 Modify the rest of the Policy Application of TRANS 3 in accordance with the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP.

TR04: Bus Services and Bus Priority

Objectors and Supporters

2 Greater London Authority 113 Ramblers Association 131 Marylebone Association 161 London Transport Users' Committee 321 SWETA (South Westminster Triangle Association) 375 Government Office for London 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 532 Urbium (formerly known as Chorion) 553 Kensington and Chelsea with Westminster Friends of the Earth 632 Westminster Cycling Campaign 745 Westminster Action Network on Disability 807 London School of Economics and Political Science 823 Sustrans

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Partial Conditional Withdrawal. Cross reference to policy SS12 has been included, but the wording seek contributions has not been changed to require contributions...

Chapter 4 : Transport page 351 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) Although alterations to the policy have gone some way to addressing concerns there is still no reference within the policy that makes it clear that out of centre developments not well served by public transport will be refused planning permission due to them being contrary to PPG6, PPG 13 and the Mayor's Transport Strategy.

(iii) In addition policy TRANS 4 should require and not just seek contributions to public transport from major developments located in places not already well served by public transport.

(iv) This policy requires clarification.

(v) This policy gives the impression that public transport improvements will be sought on proposals such as major developments or large retail schemes in locations that are not well served by public transport, without having first assessed the acceptability of the location of the site in principle. This could be interpreted as meaning that as long as improvements to public transport are made, remote locations for development may be acceptable, and that the need for a sequential test is not required. This is contrary to PPG 6, Policy TRANS 14 (C) of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and draft PPG 13. Whilst it is acknowledged that much of Westminster is generally well served by public transport, individual areas may not be, and this policy should not be used to justify developments which are unsustainable or located in areas too far away from town centres and public transport, where car use becomes the dominant mode of travel.

(vi) The policy should be reworded to make it clear that out of centre developments which generate large numbers of vehicle moments will not be acceptable, in line with PPG 6 and draft PPG 13.

(vii) Delete ‘In appropriate cases, such as major developments or large retail schemes in locations that are not served by public transport,’.

(viii) Begin new sentence with ‘The City Council will seek….’ etc.

(ix) Add a reference to the policy which makes it clear that out of centre developments not well served by public transport will be refused planning permission due to them being contrary to PPG 6 and Draft PPG 13. [2]

(b) (i) The policy maintains its commitment to encourage further public transport. There is however no mention of encouraging additional services later at night and extending the night bus provision despite the fact that 4.52a confirms that there is a shortage of public transport at night.

(ii) A commitment to encouraging an extension to the operating hours of the surface and underground railways would be of substantial benefit to visitors and workers in Westminster. Such extensions in operating would be particularly on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights and would assist in reducing the number of people waiting for mini-cabs and taxis. It would also assist in the aims of Trans 15: Transport Traffic Reduction.

(c) (i) There should be a presumption in favour of buses on bus routes and a clear statement to this effect as the major bus policy. Delete all and replace with:

Chapter 4 : Transport page 352 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

The City Council will support bus services and improvements by operating a presumption in favour of buses on all bus routes. Wherever and whenever congestion impedes the movement of buses bus priority will be installed in the form of bus lanes (actual or virtual), bus priority at signals, bus only roads and other methods of restraining general traffic.

(ii) All bus stops will be designated 'at any time' bus stop clearways.

(iii) The Policy mentions major developments or large retail schemes at locations not well served by public transport. This part of the policy would be better located in a part of the plan relating to the appropriateness of sites for types of activity. Such sites would seem to have failed any sequential test. [161]

(d) (i) While services are improving for disabled travellers, particularly with the increase of low floor buses, problems for the disabled people who have limited walking or standing are increasing. Bus stops without seats are prohibitive for people who can only stand for very brief periods without increasing pain. Railtrack's policy of removing seats from London Main Line station precincts has created no-go areas for mobility impaired travellers, including mothers carrying small children or luggage as well.

(ii) With the increasing population of elderly people, the numbers of mobility impaired are also increasing. Disability still tends to be seen as a wheelchair or white stick. It must be recognised that a great many disabled people simply have a very limited ability to walk or stand. All planning bodies need to be aware of this. [745]

(e) (i) Fully support the overall aim to improve the quality, reliability and accessibility of public transport of all modes to make it more attractive than the private car, as well as the new policies to seek improvement in the environmental performance of taxis and minicabs. [823]

(f) (i) Support the overall aim to improve the quality, reliability and accessibility of all modes to make it more attractive than the private car. [553]

(g) (i) Strongly support. believe that the City Council should provide the most cost- efficient means of enforcing bus lanes - which is vital to any improvement of existing routes. [131]

(h) (i) Support the overall aim to improve the quality, reliability and accessibility of public transport of all modes to make it more attractive than the private car. [632]

(i - k) (i) Support. [807] [161] [113]

(l) (i) Paragraph 4.55 reads oddly, because the first (and only) mention of bus lanes is about allowing other traffic (cyclists, etc.) in them.

(ii) Supported. [381]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) Have agreed appropriate wording with GLA and have amended accordingly

Chapter 4 : Transport page 353 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) TRANS 4 (A) has been amended to read "…. Major developments or large retail schemes will normally be located where public transport access is good, but in exceptional cases, in locations that are not well served by public transport …." [2]

(b) (i) Agree. Have amended accordingly.

(c) (i) The City Council's policies seek to achieve a balance between the needs of all road users. Under TRANS 3 LTUC has said that the City Council should operate a strong presumption in favour of pedestrian priority, but the City Council cannot operate a strong presumption in favour of a wide range of users, it needs to achieve a balance which it is felt the current policies do.

(ii) The issue of bus stop clearways is not really one for the Plan which is predominantly to do with land use. Nevertheless, the City Council does not feel it is appropriate to have 24-hour clearways at all bus stops, when demand for use of the kerbside is often high and when buses do not often run late into the evening or at night.

(iii) The sequential test etc. is already referred to under policy SS 12. [161]

(d) (i) Agree, but do not feel that the policy needs to be amended. [745]

(e-l) Support welcomed.[823] [553] [131] [632] [807], [161], [113], [381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.4.1 In considering the objections to Policy TRANS 4, it is as well to remember that land use planning has a significant overlap with highways and transport planning but that the ways in which the former can directly enable the provision of bus services and bus priorities are limited. For example, individual development proposals may make physical provision ranging from simple bus stop embayment and sheltering, through the creation of bus-only links within redevelopment areas, to the incorporation of complex bus-rail-underground interchange facilities, such as those envisaged at Paddington Station. There is also clear scope for developers’ financial contribution to the capital cost or revenue support of improved public transport services and accessibility, especially where development can only properly be authorised as and when the available level of future service by public transport is significantly and reliably enhanced. This matter is dealt with in Policy TRANS 9 but may usefully be referred to in Policy TRANS 4.

4.4.2 For these reasons, I am disinclined to recommend that a large number of objectors’ concerns be reflected in the wording of Policy TRANS 4 (or indeed in any other Chapter 4 Policies). The ways in which bus priorities and their assisted movement and stopping arrangements may be facilitated are all for the local highway authorities, the bus operators and Transport for London to consider and resolve. No doubt the LPA will continue to be consulted on these matters and may well wish to bear them in mind as material planning considerations in individual development control decisions (e.g. in determining change of use applications within frontage property affected by kerbside waiting and loading restrictions or prohibitions). That is not to say that it is at all necessary to have detailed policies regarding bus stop design or the provision of passenger seating at bus stops since these facilities do not require planning permission and hence do not call for explicit development plan policies.

4.4.3 The GLA objections appear largely to have been met by alterations to the wording of Policy TRANS 4. However, I detect a degree of confusion here since the policy is not

Chapter 4 : Transport page 354 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

directed at the preferred location of major development or large retail schemes (this being covered by Policies SS1-12). It is rather aimed at the situation where major proposals can only be authorised by the securing of financial contributions from an intending developer (also the subject of Policy TRANS 9). Such situations, as the Policy clearly states, are likely to be wholly exceptional and hence decisions based on the UDP are not likely to run counter to the general advice of PPGs 6 and 13 as regards the sequential testing of retail or similar proposals. Perhaps Policy TRANS 4(A) should be modified to emphasise this intention. The provision of regular all-night bus services does not need policy endorsement through the UDP, not least because such services were actually being introduced during the course of the UDP Inquiry.

Recommendations

S R4.4.1 Modify Policy TRANS 4 to read as follows:

"TRANS 4: BUS SERVICE PROVISION AND IMPROVEMENT

(A) The City Council will seek the maintenance and improvement of bus services, through the implementation of the London Bus Priority Network and the London Bus Initiative and the promotion of all other bus priority schemes and traffic management measures, including such schemes and management measures as may be reliably secured by the development or redevelopment of land and buildings.

(B) Major development proposals, such as large retail schemes, should be located where public transport network coverage is good or is capable of improvement (see also policy SS12) and, exceptionally in the latter case, the City Council will require such improvement by concluding agreements with developers and public transport operators (see also policy TRANS 9).

(C) In considering detailed schemes to aid bus movements and priorities, the City Council will have regard to:

(1) the safety, ease of movement and security of public transport users, pedestrians and cyclists; (2) the need to protect surrounding, particularly residential, areas from any increases in vehicle traffic; (3) the possibility of introducing traffic calming or associated environmental management measures to reduce such intrusive impact; (4) the access and servicing needs of frontagers and frontage land uses and for emergency service vehicles; (5) the need to provide improved and convenient access for disabled, elderly and partially mobile people; and,

in all cases, will have equal regard to the existence or future likelihood of bus priority measures in determining individual applications for planning permission.

(D) The City Council will seek to ensure that existing bus facilities such as bus stations and bus garages are retained upon redevelopment."

TR05: Surface, Underground Railways and Tramways

Chapter 4 : Transport page 355 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Objectors and Supporters

1 Westminster Property Owners' Association 73 London Underground Limited 74 Railtrack Properties 131 Marylebone Association 132 St Marylebone Society 134 Residents' Association of Mayfair 161 London Transport Users' Committee 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 532 Urbium (formerly known as Chorion) 632 Westminster Cycling Campaign 680 The Crown Estate 745 Westminster Action Network on Disability 807 London School of Economics and Political Science 820 SRA - Strategic Rail Authority 823 Sustrans

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) The Council should follow Central Government guidance. The additional wording at the end of the paragraph is too restrictive. [807]

(b) (i) Despite safeguarding the CrossRail and Chelsea-Hackney routes on the Proposals Map, no reference to their safeguarding is made in policy (as in the adopted UDP). This creates confusion and uncertainty. CrossRail and Chelsea- Hackney are key transport links and should be noted in policy, particularly as they are central to the emerging Transport Strategy being prepared by the GLA. These routes are discussed in the supporting statement of the proposed UDP (paragraphs 4.64 and 4.66). It is noted that the Council strongly supports CrossRail and that both CrossRail and Chelsea-Hackney were issued with safeguarding directions in 1991. As such, it is recommended that the safeguarding of these routes form part of policy, supporting the aims of the plan to encourage use of public transport. These routes are regarded as important for Westminster to maintain its position as a World City. As part of the policy, the council may seek improvements to surface and underground railway facilities through negotiations and agreements with the developer. There is no reasoned justification as to why this has been proposed, developers should not be required to fund improvements to existing deficiencies. The policy should either be removed or greater clarity provided as to what is required of developers.

(ii) Some of the most congested railway and underground stations in London are located within the council's boundary. We support the policy that the council should encourage and support improvements to the surface and underground stations. The extent of the contribution of the council to the improvements of the stations is not clearly demonstrated in the UDP and the council should not seek contribution from property owners and developers for the current deficiencies. There should also be clear guidelines how the developers are expected to take account of the CrossRail and Chelsea-Hackney lines, in line of the uncertainties about their future.

(c) (i) The policy encourages further public transport. But no mention of encouraging an extension to the operating hours of the surface and underground railways which would benefit visitors to and workers in Westminster. Such extensions in

Chapter 4 : Transport page 356 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

operating hours would be particularly useful on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights and would assist in reducing the number of people waiting for mini-cabs and taxis. This would also help to achieve the aims of TRANS 15: Traffic reduction. [532]

(d) (i) The policy introduces the suggestion that the City Council may seek improvements to service and underground railway facilities through negotiations or legal agreements with developers. There is no explanation of policy application nor reasoned justification as to the circumstances in which this will be proposed. It would be inappropriate to be seeking contributions from developers in order to make up existing deficiencies and would be contrary to Government guidance in respect of planning obligations. [1]

(e) (i) This policy must recognise that the provision of new or improved rail infrastructure will involve working during unsocial hours and often requires removal of spoil by road. Add “where possible” between Council will seek and to protect the environment. [73]

(f) (i) This policy should distinguish between temporary and permanent closures. The former may be necessary in the event of a major reconstruction or congestion relief scheme. Add “permanent” between oppose and the closure [73]

(g) (i) This policy is welcomed and fully supported but needs to be consistent with STRA policies 19, 20, 21 [73]

(h) (i) Object to the route of CrossRail as recommended in the Central London Rail Study published in 1989 and as mentioned in TRANS 5 para 4.64 and para 4.66, First Deposit of the Westminster City Council Unitary Development Plan dated 26th September 2000 and as shown on the accompanying Proposals Map.

(ii) After a 34 day Hearing this route was rejected by an all party House of Commons Opposed Bills Committee in 1994.

(iii) CrossRail came before Westminster City Council's Planning and Transportation Committee on Tuesday 25 January 2000. Although given the 'go ahead' at this meeting no discussion nor debate took place on this most important topic and our severe reservations on this matter were recorded in our letter to the Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee on the 9th February 2000.

(iv) Submitted an alternative Northern CrossRail route dated October 2000 to the Chairman of Westminster City Council's Planning and Licensing Committee under cover of its letter dated the 13th November 2000 Many of our grounds of objection and representations are contained therein. Other grounds of objection are as follows:

The present route for CrossRail supported by Westminster City Council would have a devastating effect on the Mayfair Conservation Area.

Large areas of Central London would be seriously disrupted during the 5-10 year construction period.

Many historic buildings in Mayfair could be put at risk.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 357 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

There is a viable and less environmentally damaging alternative in the northern CrossRail Route. We enclose our professionally prepared alternative Northern CrossRail route dated October 2000 to form part of our submission.

As a priority, money should be spent on improving and updating the existing underground system.

(v) In addition:

It would have the most damaging effect on the Mayfair Conservation Area and is probably the largest construction scheme ever envisaged for central London. There is the possibility of structural damage to the many listed buildings on the CrossRail route and the probable destruction of Hanover Square. Much environmental damage would also be caused to Soho (media and recording industry), Bayswater, early Georgian Spitalfields, the beautiful garden at Finsbury Square etc., etc.

No mention was made in the body of the report that the CrossRail project was referred to the Opposed Bills Committee of the House of Commons in 1994. After a 34 day Hearing in which extensive evidence was heard the CrossRail project was rejected by this all party Committee.

Sir Michael Clapham, a former President of the Association, has already pointed out to one of the other Westminster City Councillors that the attached Appendix 1 to the Committee Report produced by the City Corporation was very misleading. For example, it stated inter alia that "The scheme was… deferred following the rejection of the CrossRail Bill by a House of Commons all-party Committee. The background to that decision was the recession of the early 1990's". According to Sir Michael who attended practically all the Opposed Bill Committee Meetings, that statement is deliberately misleading. The Scheme was not deferred, it was rejected by the Committee, there was no mention of recession, nor of the economics of the scheme: it was simply rejected as unsatisfactory. Obviously these facts should have been brought to the attention of Westminster City Council before supporting a project which as Sir Michael stated has failed to win support from an unbiased Committee of the House of Commons after exhaustive examination.

There was no discussion of the alternative route put forward by this association and which even the CrossRail project team have said is practical and which is far less damaging to the environment.

In the body of the report there is no mention whatsoever of the cost and the poor cost benefit ratio of CrossRail. It was originally estimated to cost approximately £2.5BN and CrossRail have not altered this figure. The up-to-date estimate, we are advised by our consultants is £6BN and the 'Sunday Times' in a recent report went as far as £8BN!

No mention was made in the Report of the enormous disruption that would be caused to central London over many years (estimated at 10 years).

Again, no mention was made of the desperate need to modernise the existing underground system, as a major priority. We should also point out that it was unfortunate that the Mayfair City Council representative Councillor Glenys Roberts who is a member of your Committee was not present and her substitute (Councillor Mrs A Barnes) was unaware of our concerns. Chapter 4 : Transport page 358 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(vi) Westminster City Council has let down the people who live and work in Mayfair. The Residents Association of Mayfair sent written comments on this proposal to your Committee which were not referred to nor included in the Background Papers.

(vii) Third Objection - Report CrossRail, the case for a northern route - see enclosed consultants report on the case for a northern route. [134]

(i) (i) Railtrack welcome the Plan’s acknowledgement that disruption will be caused by the construction of new transport facilities.

(ii) It is necessary for the UDP to highlight the practical nature of progressing and managing transport improvement schemes and to clarify that transport related schemes will involve some form of disruption either to services, passengers or the environment. Whilst every effort will be made to ensure that the environment of the surrounding area can be protected from the adverse impact of construction, the Council must recognise that some form of disruption is inevitable. The Council states in para 4.16 that transport improvements are urgently needed and this should be reflected in the wording of Policy TRANS 5.

(iii) Railtrack recommend that the text of sub para (E) be amended as follows:

(iv) (E) The City Council will support urgently needed works and improvements to railway lines and stations and recognises that the construction of new facilities and the achievement of associated community benefits will cause some disruption. The City Council will seek to work with operators to minimise any adverse impact of construction on the environment of the surrounding area including construction traffic and potential impacts on listed and other valued building.

(v) Railtrack object to the fact that the Council did not acknowledge and address the practical nature of progressing and managing transport improvements schemes, the overall community benefits achieved through such improvements and the need to have a constructive balance between transport and heritage needs. The criteria take a pessimistic and unrealistic view on the practical nature of transport related improvements works and requirements.

(vi) The Council should recognise, and clarify through policy, that transport-related schemes (including improvements to the railway) will involve:

S works on railway possessions, including the buildings, where necessary and appropriate S improvement and construction works being carried out during unsociable hours.

(vii) This will prevent unnecessary and additional disruption to passengers and the existing services, especially during working hours

(viii) While every effort will be made to ensure that the environment of the surrounding area can be protected from adverse impact of construction, the Council must also recognise that some form of disruption is also inevitable. No transport improvements can be carried out without an element of disruption,

Chapter 4 : Transport page 359 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

either to services or the environment. Such disruptions would however be minimised.

(ix) This statement does not realistically support the Council’s statement in paragraph 4.16, whereby Council highlighted transport improvements as being “urgently needed”. It is unlikely that these “urgently required works” can be implemented without affecting the environment, the construction traffic and heritage buildings. However, any transport improvements will result in benefits for residents and businesses, and these community benefits are equally important considerations.

(x) Railtrack therefore recommend that the Council take a more balanced, realistic approach and a constructive view towards transport related schemes. Railtrack recommend that the above comments be reflected in criteria (e) of Policy TRANS 5. [74]

(j) (i) There is a growing problem of access to Main Line Stations in London (and especially in Westminster) for disabled people, due to the removal of seats from Main Line Station precincts. Charing Cross now has no seats, even in buffet areas. Seats at Euston are greatly reduced. People who have very limited walking or standing are effectively excluded from these stations, as are carers carrying small children and baggage. This section could include: (after 'convenient access') 'and adequate seating' (for people with mobility difficulties. [745]

(k) (i) Support the development of CrossRail on the original route being greatly concerned at the safety at Bond Street and Oxford Circus stations because of over-crowding. Also support the extension of this to Paddington as recently proposed by the Mayor. [131]

(l) (i) Support the overall aim to improve the quality, reliability and accessibility of public transport of all modes to make it more attractive than the private car. [632]

(m) (i) Support. [807]

(n) (i) Support [161]

(o) (i) The Council has a commendable record for promoting CrossRail. [132]

(p) (i) Policy TRANS 5: Surface and Underground Railways. The SRA note policy TRANS 5 and the support it gives to railway schemes. The SRA welcomes the recognition that achieving modal shift may result in increased vehicle journeys to and from stations, and that this development needs to be accommodated. The SRA also welcomes the statement that in appropriate cases the City Council will seek improvements via negotiation or legal agreement with developers. [820]

(q) (i) Fully support the overall aim to improve the quality, reliability and accessibility of public transport of all modes to make it more attractive than the private car, as well as the new policies to seek improvement in the environmental performance of taxi's and minicabs. [823]

(r) (i) Reservation relates to Policy 5 (C) and is connected with proposal at First Deposit stage (not accepted) to add to the text of Policy PSPA 5 (Re. 381orOor1539PSPAor5.14). Maintain this proposal, for the reasons stated in present comments on this Policy, but if this is still not accepted, the part which Chapter 4 : Transport page 360 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

concerns disruption during construction of under- ground railways could be as fully covered as suggested by adding the words -

“and diverted”, after “construction” in the final sentence of Policy TRANS 5 (C).

(ii) As already stated at First Deposit stage, the protection needed is not only from the impact on residential amenity of construction vehicles, but also from the impact of other traffic, in particular buses, which it may be proposed to divert during construction.

(iii) Strongly support CrossRail on the existing proposals for its route (subject to maximum protection from the adverse effects of construction).

(iv) Believe that CrossRail trains should run directly to Heathrow Airport and suggest that this feature should be added to the text in para 4.64. [381]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) Do not agree. The wording is only referring to cases where problems can be specifically attributed to a particular development. The City Council does not believe it is unduly restrictive to expect a developer to contribute to solving such problems. [807]

(b) (i) Since the City Council is obliged by the direction of the Secretary of State to safeguard these potential new lines it does not consider that it needs a policy to do so.

(ii) Have added a statement to the last sentence of paragraph 4.62 regarding financial contributions, to read "It will welcome and co-operate with any studies undertaken with a view to improving such facilities and may seek to undertake such studies through legal agreements with developers or may seek financial contributions from developers to fund any measures that might be required as a result of potential problems caused by the implementation of their developments." [680]

(c) (i) Have amended accordingly and a new paragraph, 4.52a has been added which reads "However, there is a shortage of public transport at night when the Underground stops running. Despite a large increase in night-bus services over recent years the system still cannot cope with late night demand in central London". [532]

(d) (i) Have added a statement to the last sentence of paragraph 4.62 regarding financial contributions, to read "It will welcome and co-operate with any studies undertaken with a view to improving such facilities and may seek to undertake such studies through legal agreements with developers or may seek financial contributions from developers to fund any measures that might be required as a result of potential problems caused by the implementation of their developments." [1]

(e) (i) Feel that the inclusion of "seek to" is sufficient to make it clear that the City Council recognises that it will not always be possible to provide 100% protection. [73]

(f) (i) Have added as suggested. [73]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 361 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(g) (i) Support welcomed. Do not consider the policy is out of line with the STRA policies. [73]

(h) (i) A report on rail schemes in Westminster was considered by the Transportation & Highways Committee on 19 June 2001 which considered the residents' views on CrossRail in some detail. The City Council still favours the original route, the advantages of which are set out in that report.

(ii) See also the City Council's Proof of Evidence on this issue, which was discussed at the Inquiry. [134]

(i) (i) Agree in part. Have amended largely as suggested

(ii) Feel that the inclusion of "seek to" is sufficient to make it clear that the City Council recognises that it will not always be possible to provide 100% protection. The City Council recognises that there is likely to be some disruption during construction, but is simply saying that it will seek to protect the local environment from such disruption. Nevertheless for clarification have added "and recognises that the construction of new facilities may cause some disruption" between "stations" and "but" in line 2 of TRANS 5 (E). [74]

(j) (i) Agree with the point, but this is not a matter for the Plan and not a matter over which the City Council has any control. [745]

(k)-(q) (i) Support welcomed. [131, 632, 807, 161, 132, 820, 823]

(r) (i) Agree. Have amended accordingly.

(ii) Support welcomed and have added reference to the need to link CrossRail into Heathrow to paragraph 4.64, to read "However, the City Council is concerned that, at the time of writing, there has been little progress on several schemes that were recommended in the Central London Rail Study that was published in 1989, particularly the CrossRail scheme on the route currently envisaged via Bond Street and Tottenham Court Road (but with the inclusion of a link to Heathrow), and also the Hackney South West Line." [381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.5.1 As with the development of road-based public transport, land use planning has a considerable relevance to the planning of rail-based systems and, conversely, transport planning offers considerable scope for redevelopment opportunities. These opportunities are particularly to be found in Central London since this area contains the main terminal railway stations and hence the points of highest accessibility from the whole of Greater London and also the locations of the heaviest interchange both between modes and between mainline and underground services. The situation is likely to be complicated, during the currency of the UDP, as a result of probable major infrastructure improvements, such as Crossrail 1 and Crossrail 2, Thameslink and the Cross River Transit (LRT). All these schemes, due for probable completion between 2008-2016, are likely to be of direct or significant impact on development proposals and individual sites’ development potential within Westminster.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 362 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

4.5.2 The many objections to policy TRANS 5 fall into several distinct categories, some of which have been successfully countered by detailed alterations to both the policy and its supporting text. The distinct grouping of objections is as follows:

(1) Continued safeguarding of Crossrail Lines 1 and 2. (2) Requirement for financial contributions to infrastructure projects. (3) Exaggeration of the effects of infrastructure development. (4) Possible loss of or damage to historic buildings or the historic environment.

Crossrail 1 and 2 Safeguarding

4.5.3 The continued safeguarding of Crossrail is the subject of objection by the Residents Association of Mayfair (RAM) [134] who also appeared at the public inquiry. From my questioning of their witness and the witness for the LPA, I am satisfied that the necessary safeguarding of Crossrail construction through Central London is accurately shown on the UDP Proposals Map and that it is not necessary to support this with a specific UDP policy. The safeguarding arises as a result of the Secretary of State’s Safeguarding Directive of 10 October 1991 and is intended to prevent the construction of buildings whose foundations might complicate or prevent the boring of mainline section tunnels linking Paddington and Liverpool Street stations and also Victoria and Kings Cross. This safeguarding has been in force for over a decade and is also the subject of policy TRANS 9 of the adopted UDP.

4.5.4 The RAM objection, as I understand it, is that they favour an alternative route, the so- called Northern Terminals Route, as being cheaper, more cost-effective and less damaging to the historic environment, notably the Mayfair Conservation Area. Evidently they have been unsuccessful in persuading the City Council to their point of view and would wish the safeguarding (with its allegedly blighting effect) to be abandoned. This in the hope that either parliamentary approval or approval under the Transport and Works Act (whichever means of authorisation is eventually chosen) will be given to their preferred alternative. As I explained to the RAM representative at the inquiry, I cannot support this objection because it appears to me that the LPA have no discretion in the matter of safeguarding the Crossrail routes as currently defined in the relevant Direction. Consequently, I have no discretion in the matter, not least because there is no detailed evidence before me or in support of a possible alternative safeguarding line to insert in the Proposals Map.

Financial Contributions by Developers

4.5.5 Policy TRANS 5 seeks co-operation between the SRA, Network Rail, Transport for London, London Underground (and others) in connection with “studies undertaken with a view to improving such facilities (i.e. stations and interchanges)….through agreements with developers”. This aspect of the Policy is the subject of objection because of a perceived imposition of unreasonable and indeterminate financial obligations on developers of land and buildings affected by new rail construction. These objections cannot be supported because it seems to me most likely that new rail construction is going to release considerable development potential and create significant development land values along the lines of new construction. The Policy therefore appears to be a statement of the obvious; that new development in such favoured locations is at once going to benefit from such enhanced land values and thus might reasonably be expected to at least partly finance the transport improvements that would create them. Such calculations of developer contribution will of course be governed by whatever future policy guidance or compensation and betterment provisions that may be in force.

4.5.5 The effects of heavy underground rail construction do not seem to be the subject of undue dramatisation or exaggeration in the wording of Policy TRANS 5(C) or (E), despite the various objections to this effect. The LPA has a public duty, as far as lies within its power, to Chapter 4 : Transport page 363 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

lessen or mitigate the adverse effects of construction and construction traffic. If such construction works indeed require express planning permission (as distinct from TAWA authorisation which may incidentally grant deemed planning permission by the Secretary of State) it is open to the LPA (or the Secretary of State) to impose conditions controlling hours of working or to secure agreements regarding the routes to be followed by construction traffic. It is equally open to land use planning control to restrict the temporary use of sites for storage and other installations unless these be separately authorised by the terms of special powers obtained for the execution of construction works.

Damage to the Historic Environment

4.5.6 Policy TRANS 5 (E) merely reiterates the wish of the City Council to reduce the necessarily disruptive effects of railway construction whilst recognising the considerable community benefits that flow from such improvements in communications. No doubt the Council is only too conscious of the disturbance and disruption caused in Central London during the first phase of underground railway construction (and the introduction of street tramways) in the 1860s. However, the protection of the historic environment is now the subject of statutory safeguards, in the form of the restriction of demolition under the Planning Acts, and also the authorisation of such listed building consent by the Secretary of State under the specific powers conferred by the Transport and Works Act. In connection with the latter statute, the LPA will no doubt be fully consulted before such authorisation is issued for either underground railway or street tramway construction.

Recommendation

S R4.5.1 Modify policy TRANS 5 and its supporting text in accordance with the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP.

TR06: Coaches

Objectors and Supporters

2 Greater London Authority 108 Society of London Theatre 161 London Transport Users' Committee 253 Insignia Richard Ellis 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 553 Kensington and Chelsea with Westminster Friends of the Earth Westminster Cycling Campaign 724 Grosvenor Limited 823 Sustrans

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) The Mayor's Transport Strategy commits TfL to work with boroughs and industry to review coach facilities. The Mayor would like to use this opportunity to discuss issues relating to coach parking facilities.

(ii) Object but reserve position. Further discussions are welcomed on these issues. [2]

(b) (i) Though the wording regarding the development of a single hub coach terminal has been deleted from the policy, it has been introduced in para 4.73.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 364 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) It is inappropriate for Westminster City Council to rule out the location of any future coach station in the Borough in the UDP.

(iii) The first sentence is not acceptable because it pre-judges any future single hub coach terminal. The criteria given in point (C) (where the size and location of terminals will minimise the traffic and environmental impact of coaches, and where provision reflects the differing operating requirements of the various sectors of the coach industry) should be included in point (D), rather than point (C) so that planning applications can be judged on their merits.

(iv) Delete Point (C).

(v) Include the criteria listed in point (C) within point (D). [2]

(c) (i) Support Westminster City Council’s opposition to any development of a single hub coach terminal as a replacement for Victoria Station within Westminster.

(ii) Please clarify what type of action is envisaged by the City Council to ensure that environmental damage is being minimised by requesting that coach drivers turn off their vehicles engines when stationary.

(iii) At meetings of the Bayswater Environment Network, the head of the Council stated that in the absence of statutory powers, the Council did not have the power to demand coach drivers to turn off their engines when stationary. Please elaborate on the type of action being taken by the Council to deal with the problem.

(iv) In the interests of making Westminster a Low Emission Zone, we would like to see all coaches meet the strictest vehicle emission standards. There is no mention of this in the policy. Please clarify. [553]

(d) (i) The reference to theatre visitors in paragraph 4.71 is welcomed. However, the policy justification would be of more comfort is it included the phrase “…theatre visitors and people with mobility difficulties, and in these cases, is to be encouraged.” The proposed alterations do not fully address the previous objection.

(ii) Coaches are vital to the efficient functioning of London's Theatres. This is not recognised sufficiently in the policy or paragraph 4.71. The policy should make clear that the Council will not undertake measures to control coaches which are detrimental to the functioning of theatres and other arts and cultural users.

(iii) Policies should seek to maintain the servicing of theatres by coaches by ensuring as far as possible within the City Council's powers, that coaches remain able to pick up and set down passengers in proximity to theatres. This is a management issue that is best addressed by the City Council. [108]

(e) (i) The needs to service modern hotel facilities is inadequately recognised by policy, given the importance of tourism to central London and the national economy and the qualitative and quantitative problems associated with public transport in central London. [253]

(f) (i) The committee supports a single hub coach station for reasons of integration and promoting the use of public transport.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 365 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) Delete (C) [161]

(g) (i) Policy TRANS 6 (B) seeks the improvement in coach facilities and, in principle, Grosvenor support this proposal. However the seeking, where appropriate, of such measures through negotiations or legal agreements with developers need to be subject to the tests of Central Government Policy in respect of planning obligations.

(ii) Policy TRANS 6 (C) opposes any development of a single hub coach terminal as a replacement of Victoria Coach Station. Grosvenor objects to this policy on the grounds that a review is being carried out by the Mayor in preparing the Transport Strategy for London.

(iii) The reasoned justification proposes alternative arrangements with dispersed terminal facilities across London.

(iv) Grosvenor considers that no alternative proposals have come forward in recent years and there is no evidence at present that a realistic alternative location to Victoria exists. There is substantial scope to seek to improve coach facilities in Victoria.

(v) Recent trends in passenger numbers suggest that there is less likely to be a justifiable case for pursuing a strategy of dispersed facilities.

(vi) The Unitary Development Plan should contemplate the option of consolidating coach facilities at Victoria and perhaps integrating these with other public transport facilities. There is an opportunity to achieve better public transport facilities overall and to create substantial environmental, townscape, traffic and other improvements. This should be an objective to be achieved over the Plan period, i.e. over the next 10-15 years.

(vii) The policy shall identify the area of opportunity, which the Victoria Coach Station and its environs represents, in order to achieve a substantial improvement in the design and operation of the coach station and the immediate locality as a whole. [724]

(h) (i) Support the overall aim to improve the quality, reliability and accessibility of public transport of all modes to make it more attractive than the private car. [632]

(i) (i) Fully support the overall aim to improve the quality, reliability and accessibility of public transport of all modes to make it more attractive than the private car, as well as the new policies to seek improvement in the environmental performance of taxi's and minicabs. [823]

(j) (i) Paragraph 4.72, last sentence. Changed wording (stationary vehicles, etc.) supported.

(ii) Underline our agreement with para 4.73 [381]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) Welcome withdrawal of objection subject to further study. [2]

(b) (i) Have amended following meeting with GLAorTfL to try to overcome objections.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 366 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) The City Council has considered the issues surrounding the hub versus dispersed coach terminal strategy in some detail in studies of its own and in conjunction with London Transport. Its view is clear, that there is no suitable site in London for a single hub terminal, and it wishes to continue to say this in policy. [2]

(c) (i) Welcome the support for the City Council's stance on Victoria Coach Station.

(ii) The other matters are not items for the Plan which is predominantly a land use plan. [553]

(d) (i) Welcome part withdrawal of objection. Have amended text as suggested.

(ii) Have added reference to the needs of theatres to paragraph 4.71, but the issue of whether coaches can still pick uporset down near existing theatres is a traffic management rather than a land use issue and therefore not really one for the Plan. [108]

(e) (i) Believe this issue is adequately covered in TRANS 22 (B). [253]

(f) (i) The City Council has considered the issues surrounding the hub versus dispersed coach terminal strategy in some detail in studies of its own and in conjunction with London Transport. Its view is clear, that there is no suitable site in London for a single hub terminal. [161]

(g) (i) The issue raised in TRANS 6 (B) is adequately dealt with in policy STRA 6.

(ii) The City Council has considered the issues surrounding the hub versus dispersed coach terminal strategy in some detail in studies of its own and in conjunction with London Transport. Its view is clear, that there is no suitable site in London for a single hub terminal. [724]

(h)-(j) (i) Support welcome. [632, 823, 381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.6.1 The wording of policy TRANS 6 and its supporting text is somewhat ambivalent, indeed slightly contradictory. The LPA’s opposition to a single hub coach terminal is now proposed to be deleted from TRANS 6(C) but is nevertheless retained in paragraph 4.73, at least as far as the replacement of the existing Coach Station at Victoria is concerned. The Victoria Coach Station is listed in Schedule 2 as an Opportunity Site (OP20) for preferred “transport and other [unspecified] uses”, is within the ownership of the Grosvenor Estate and is located in the Victoria Station Planning Brief Area (as well as the CAZ and the Belgravia Conservation Area. The only logical conclusion from a reading of this Chapter 4 Policy is that the City Council would support the future redevelopment of the existing coach station on its present site but would resist its replacement by a single coach terminal elsewhere in Central London.

4.6.2 TRANS 6 does not therefore appear to be in direct conflict with GLA advice or policies, to the extent that these cover the same ground. London Plan policy 3C.20 is in accord with UDP Policy TRANS 22(B) as regards off-street parking provision for coaches. The former policy is certainly capable of being read as a UDP injunction to identify off-street coach station sites (as distinct from siting criteria) but the draft London Plan and the GLA Transport

Chapter 4 : Transport page 367 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Strategy (CD 5/7) are otherwise largely silent on this aspect of public transport development and enhancement. This is surprising in view of the London Transport Users’ Committee’s (LTUC)[161] quite understandable concern to see all such forms of transport very much better integrated. The problem appears to be that coach travel in Central London performs three quite separate functions. One is to convey patrons to entertainment and tourist attractions and facilities, another is as an international, inter-city or other long distance mode of travel and a third is to convey sightseers on circular tours.

4.6.3 As far as tourist travel is concerned, this appears to be largely a question of traffic management. That is to say, the extent to which the use of on-street parking provision, bus lanes and so forth are made available for use by licensed coach operators. The main function of land use planning in this context appears to me to be restricted to the control of the siting of major coach traffic generators in relation to the distributor road network (see policy TRANS 16) and the provision of off-street parking facilities (see Policy TRANS 22). With respect to the widespread use of coaches for long-distance (and indeed international) travel, it is perhaps surprising that no more positive provision is proposed to be made for coach-rail-underground-bus interchange. Within Central London, the key rail terminals of Kings Cross, Paddington and Victoria would appear to be favoured and highly accessible locations for such development, especially given their nodal positions on future Crossrail routes, in the interests of integrated and hence increased public transport use.

4.6.4 As with so many other aspects of London-wide transport planning, the gradual growth of coach travel over the past 60-70 years has been regarded as being capable of accommodation by the most expedient, readily available and least costly course (to operators) of ad hoc on-street provision. As the UDP recognises, without offering any site- specific solutions or allocations, tourist coach movements and parking pose significant environmental and mobility problems for neighbouring land uses and patterns of access. The problem is wider that that of a single authority, as the UDP comments (paragraph 4.69), the solution will probably have to be found by London Borough joint working. It is possible that this may lead to the siting of terminal and parking and interchange facilities in a variety of opportunistic locations within the totality of Inner and Central London. The nature of the problem is touched on in the draft London Plan (3C.11): “Neighbouring land owners and occupiers engaged in higher value activities may object to the use of land for some transport purposes, for example.…coach parking”.

4.6.5 This clear conflict of interest is reflected in the nature of the objections to TRANS 6. Grosvenor Limited [724] seemingly favour the redevelopment of the present Victoria Coach Station whilst FoE [553] Sustrans [823] and LTUC [161] would like to see rather better coach terminal and interchange facilities in the interests of wider use of public transport and less dependence on private transport. What is slightly odd is that the evidently buoyant use of coach travel as a mode (see Table 20b: CD11/2) has not resulted in the burgeoning of retail and other ancillary land uses as it has for rail and air travel. In other words, the concentration of attractive “footfall” attributable to this mode has not resulted in much widespread recognition of development potential and the consequential commercial acceptance of coach terminal and interchange facilities, problematic though their siting may be. Certainly, the provisions of emergent policy 3C.3 of the London Plan would suggest that the UDP should “ensure the provision of sufficient land and appropriately located sites for the development of an expanded transport function” (e.g. such as coach-rail-bus interchange).

4.6.6 The key opportunity sites in Westminster would appear to be Paddington and Victoria (OP 18 and OP 26). The former is listed in the London Plan as within an Opportunity Area (Table 2B.1) and the latter as within an Area for Intensification (Table 2B.2). It is doubtful whether the existing coach station at Victoria could very easily be integrated with the important rail and bus and underground interchange facilities. The present, significantly upgraded, coach station is some 400-500m away from the main concourse and LT bus Chapter 4 : Transport page 368 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

terminal at Victoria Railway Station. Recent redevelopment of the intervening street blocks, mainly for retail purposes, has resulted in there being welcome, if partial, undercover pedestrian access from coach station to rail station. There has also been an attempt at integrating modes at Bulleid Way Green Line Coach Station. This offers mainly undercover interchange between scheduled local and international coach services with National Rail. No attempt has been made to exploit airspace development over the railway. It is significant that the earlier Victoria retail redevelopment provides road access to a cab rank, car hire facilities and parking, all directly adjacent to the station concourse.

4.6.7 The conclusion must be that some opportunities exist of better integrating long distance coach and rail services at Victoria Station. The layout of the Bulleid Way Green Line station suggests that much more might have been done there if priority had not been given to retail provision. It is hard to support the allocation of the pre-war (1932) coach station site for such future interchange development. It is not only remote from most other coach, bus and rail services but pedestrian interchange, although mainly under cover, is awkward. Foot passengers have to cross both a local distributor (A3124) and part of the GLA primary distributor network (A3213) at grade (unlike the more secure liaison for private car users and taxi passengers). Since the whole matter is clearly still under review, I am content to leave the future of coach station planning to be determined within the context of (a modified) policy TRANS 6 (nb: this is substantially the same as policy TRANS 10(A-C) of the adopted UDP).

4.6.8 However, in response to all the objections, I am inclined to recommend that policy TRANS 6 and its supporting text be strengthened with regard to locational criteria for coach terminal facilities. This would seem in line with RPG3 advice (CD 4/5) at paragraph 6.18(d): “(to) prepare policies and proposals, complemented with traffic management plans, which can accommodate well-integrated bus and coach stop and terminal facilities, with ready access to rail stations where possible, liaising with operators on their requirements as necessary”. The LPA will no doubt also wish to bear in mind and examine the various developmental opportunities which will arise and exploit the interchange opportunities which are presented by the future development of Paddington and Victoria Stations, especially since the Crossrail 1 and 2 routes are now likely to be authorised. It does not seem necessary to modify TRANS 6(B) in view of its apparent congruence with emergent policy 5.4 of the London Plan.

Recommendations

S R4.6.1 Modify Policy TRANS 6 to read as follows:

"POLICY TRANS 6: COACHES

(1) The City Council will introduce measures to control the routes followed by coaches and the places used for their stopping, standing, parking, setting down and picking up, in order to reduce congestion and to minimise air and noise pollution, environmental intrusion and the nuisance caused to residential property and to other road users.

(2) The City Council will seek improvements in coach facilities, such as off-street parking and layover areas, in collaboration with other local authorities and with the coach and tourism industries and, where appropriate, will seek such facilities through negotiations or legal agreements with developers of suitable sites.

(3) The City Council will favour new coach terminal provision where their size and siting would assist in multi-modal interchange and minimise adverse traffic and

Chapter 4 : Transport page 369 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

environmental impact and where such provision reflects and accords with the differing requirements of coach operators.

(4) Any future application for such new coach terminal facilities in Westminster will be assessed against the following criteria:

(a) the degree of successful integration with local and national public transport networks and interchange facilities, existing and proposed; (b) the ease and immediacy of access to the major distributor routes as defined by policy TRANS 16; (c) the convenience and free movement of passengers arriving or departing by other modes; (d) the environmental impact upon the immediate environment, especially residential property; (e) the degree of conformity with the aims of other UDP policies, especially policy TRANS 9."

S R4.6.2 Modify the Policy Application and Reasoned Justification of policy TRANS 6 in accordance with the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP.

TR07: Round London Sightseeing Tours

Objectors and Supporters

131 Marylebone Association 139 Westminster Society 321 SWETA (South Westminster Triangle Association) 375 Government Office for London 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 632 Westminster Cycling Campaign 680 The Crown Estate 823 Sustrans

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) The paragraph fails to balance the greater inconvenience brought by Victoria Coach Station to a relatively small number of local residents with the advantage gained to the population of Westminster at large through having a central hub coach station in the heart of the city. The coach station is brought within easy accessibility of all Westminster's residents through the excellent City-wide links gained via the Victoria Bus and underground station.

(ii) The existing paragraph also fails to note and should address the significant opportunity to lessen the local residential inconvenience to Belgravia following the re-introduction of 2-way traffic on Buckingham Palace Road. [321]

(b) (i) Clarification should be provided on the proposals map as to the controlled zone for tours as mentioned in the written statement.

(ii) We accept that the sightseeing tour buses are a feature of London. There is however concern about the control of these buses as they are currently licensed by Hackney Carriage Authorities. Their future bus stop locations must come

Chapter 4 : Transport page 370 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

under the planning authority’s control in order to provide a coherent planning of these buses in central London. [680]

(c) (i) This objection was to the Council’s inclusion as a policy of its approach to buses used for Round London Tours. Policy TRANS7, whilst helpful advice, did not relate to policy for the use of land use and was thus contrary to the advice in PPG12.

(ii) Note that the policy and the Reasoned Justification remain largely unchanged from the 1st deposit version of the Plan. Therefore, the objection is maintained.

(iii) This policy provides advice on the Council’s approach to buses used for Round London Tours. Its content is helpful advice, but is not policy for the use of land use. Object to the policy in that it is contrary to PPG12 (paragraph 3.5).

(iv) The objection would be met by the deletion of the policy or its inclusion as part of the Reasoned Justification. [375]

(d) (i) Support the inclusion of the controlled zone on a plan (Map 4.6). However, the map should be cross-referenced to the policy and supporting text. [680]

(e) (i) Support the overall aim to improve the quality, reliability and accessibility of public transport of all modes to make it more attractive than the private car. [632]

(f) (i) Strongly support moves to regulate the RLST. In particular, object to their pavement activities which should be strongly discouraged. [131]

(g) (i) Policy TRANS7 (on Round London Sightseeing Tours) is welcomed and the Society will maintain a close interest in the application of the policy. [139]

(h) (i) Support the overall aim to improve the quality, reliability and accessibility of public transport of all modes to make it more attractive than the private car, as well as the new policies to seek improvement in the environmental performance of taxi's and minicabs. [823]

(i) (i) Wish to stress all the adverse effects set out in para 4.79 [381]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) The City Council has considered the issues surrounding the hub versus dispersed coach terminal strategy in some detail in studies of its own and in conjunction with London Transport. Its view is clear that there is no suitable site in London for a single hub terminal. This is not just because Victoria Coach Station causes problems to Belgravia residents but because of the overall difficulties the travelling public has in getting to Victoria if they need to catch a coach.

(ii) Buckingham Palace Road has been made two-way specifically to reduce traffic levels in Ebury Street and to ensure that Eccleston Street or Eaton Square or Hobart Place was never included in the GLA Road Network. It is not necessary in the Plan to comment on traffic management schemes that the City Council has recently implemented. [321]

(b) (i) Agree that the controlled zone should be illustrated on a separate plan.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 371 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) RLSTs are under the control of Transport for London. [681]

(c) (i) Westminster is one of very few authorities in which RLSTs cause significant problems. Whilst the policy is not strictly land use related, anything that effects how the streets are used is inextricably linked to how the City Council can provide facilities for buses, regulate parking etc. and the Plan is seeking to integrate these transport issues with land use issues.

(ii) Paragraph 5.15 of PPG12 states that development plans should include any transport policies that are directly or indirectly related to land use. [375]

(d) (i) Support welcomed. Have added a cross-reference to the Map in the text. [680]

(e)-(i) (i) Support welcome. [632] [131] [139] [823] [381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.7.1 The objection by GOL [375] appears to me to be entirely justified; Policy TRANS 7 has a very tenuous connection with land use planning and the control of development and its retention in the UDP thus runs counter to the advice of PPG12. RLST activity is par excellence an activity confined to the public highway (noticeably including the footway) and accordingly does not directly impinge on the use and development of land. It might be better it did, in the sense that the apparently objectionable pavement (footway) activity associated with tour operations might be very much better accommodated inside frontage buildings. At present, for fairly obvious reasons of operator economies, it does not. Accordingly, I readily accept the GOL suggestion that the supporting text be integrated with that of TRANS 6. There would seem to be no objection to the continued inclusion of Map 4.4 since the relevant development plan regulations support the insertion of a variety of illustrative maps and diagrams in Part II of UDPs.

Recommendations

S R4.7.1 Delete Policy TRANS 7.

S R4.7.2 Insert the Policy Application and Reasoned Justification of deleted policy TRANS 7, modified in accordance with the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP, following paragraph 4.74 of the UDP.

TR08: Taxis and Mini-Cabs

Objectors and Supporters

131 Marylebone Association South East Bayswater Residents Association 532 Urbium (formerly known as Chorion) 553 Kensington and Chelsea with Westminster Friends of the Earth 632 Westminster Cycling Campaign 680 The Crown Estate 730 White Star Line Restaurants 823 Sustrans 828 Objector Not Known

Chapter 4 : Transport page 372 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) The Crown Estate wishes to maintain the objections raised during the first deposit stage of the UDP review until a study can be carried out to assess the safetyorsecurity issues and take up at the scheme at Paddington Station. The proposed policy should note that the sharing of taxis and minicabs will be difficult to enforce through the planning system. There are doubts over the possibility of implementing a shared taxi and mini-cab regime in central London due to personal safety of passengers. The council needs to acknowledge this in considering any proposals for shared use taxis.

(b) (i) This policy makes no mention of increasing the availability of taxis during evening and night-time hours. An amendment to the tariff for black cabs, allowing increased charges after certain hours could help alleviate problems with illegal mini-cabs by actively encouraging legal drivers to work later hours. [532]

(c) (i) Support the overall aim to improve the quality, reliability and accessibility of public transport of all modes to make it more attractive than the private car. [632]

(d) (i) Support new policies (B) and (C) to seek improvements in the environmental performance of taxis and mini-cabs and to encourage the shared use of taxis. [553]

(e) (i) Want stronger regulation and enforcement of mini-cab activities. [131]

(f) (i) Support new policies (B) and (C) to seek improvement in the environmental performance of taxis and mini-cabs and to encourage the shared use of taxis. [632]

(g) (i) Support the overall aim to improve the quality, reliability and accessibility of public transport of all modes to make it more attractive than the private car, as well as the new policies to seek improvement in the environmental performance of taxi's and minicabs. [823]

(h) (i) Supported. [381]

(i) (i) Endorse recognition of role of taxis and minicabs. They agree with making provision for this form of public transport and encouraging shared use. [730]

(j) (i) Endorse recognition of role of taxis and minicabs. They agree with making provision for this form of public transport and encouraging shared use. [828]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) The City Council does not intend to "enforce" shared use of taxis, but provide the opportunity for it. There is a shared taxi scheme in place at Paddington, which has not given rise to any safety or security issues. [680]

(b) (i) It is not within the scope of what is essentially a land use document to affect the provision of underground services, buses, taxis or mini-cabs at night. Nevertheless the City Council welcomes the Mayor's initiative to allow taxi drivers to charge higher fares at night to encourage more drivers to work at night. It has also long-campaigned for the licensing of mini-cabs in London and welcomes

Chapter 4 : Transport page 373 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

this initiative. In addition, a new paragraph, 4.52a has been added which reads "However, there is a shortage of public transport at night when the Underground stops running. Despite a large increase in night-bus services over recent years the system still cannot cope with late night demand in central London". [532]

(c)+(d) (i) Nothing to add. [632] [553]

(e) (i) Agree that stronger regulation is needed, but this is not a matter for the Plan. Transport for London is in the process of introducing such regulation, which the City Council has been lobbying for, for many years. Enforcement, apart from the parking regulation, will be largely a Police matter. [131]

(f)-(j) (i) Support welcomed. [632[ [823] [553] [131] [632] [823] [381] [730] [828]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.8.1 It is difficult to see how the regulation and environmental impact of taxis and min- cabs, especially with regard to very detailed matters such as passenger sharing, can reasonably be considered to be a land use planning matter. On the other hand, it is perfectly proper for the UDP to seek adequate access and provision for such vehicles, which are effectively public transport services, when considering development proposals. In much the same way as scheduled bus services should enjoy priority or privileged access to and through development sites, it is right to secure such physical measures for taxis (see my earlier recommendations for policy TRANS 4 (A) and (C)). By analogy, it is right for the LPA to examine traffic management schemes to see how they serve to accommodate access and passage for forms of traffic such as pedestrians, cyclists, public service vehicles and taxis. I therefore intend to recommend the adoption of policy TRANS 8(A)(1-5) but the deletion of TRANS 8(B-C).

Recommendation

S R4.8.1 Delete Policy TRANS 8 (B) and (C).

TR09: Financial Assistance to Public Transport

Objectors and Supporters

1 Westminster Property Owners' Association 2 Greater London Authority 73 London Underground Limited 92 GVA Grimley 113 Ramblers Association 161 London Transport Users' Committee NHS Executive London 253 Insignia Richard Ellis 269 St James Homes 375 Government Office for London 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 485 House Builders Federation 553 Kensington and Chelsea with Westminster Friends of the Earth 632 Westminster Cycling Campaign 680 The Crown Estate 695 Ropemaker Properties Ltd 1

Chapter 4 : Transport page 374 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

748 British Land Company PLC 789 St George Plc 790 The Berkeley Group 795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited) 803 Standard Life Assurance Company 807 London School of Economics and Political Science 814 St Martins Property Investments Limited 820 SRA - Strategic Rail Authority 823 Sustrans

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Object to this policy for the following reasons:

(ii) The policy requires further clarification and needs to reflect the provisions of Circular 1or97, specifically all of those tests in respect of which planning agreements may be sought. This may be best achieved by an extension of the policy which states that should legal agreements be required in the delivery of the specific improvements for public transport facilities, that they must be:

(i) necessary; (ii) relevant to planning; (iii) directly related to the proposed development (iv) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; (v) reasonable in all other aspects.

(iii) The policy also needs to clarify that as stated in paragraph B12 of Annex B of Circular 1or97, that developers should not be expected to pay for facilities which are needed solely in order to resolve existing deficiencies.

(iv) Policy TRANS 9 should be reworded to include additional paragraph stating that where a legal agreement is required, that these will be sought subject to the tests set out in paragraph 7 and paragraph B12 (Annex B) of Circular 1or97. [269]

(b) (i) This requires developers to enter into agreements with the Council to provide improvements to public transport, there is no criteria for when and how such agreements should be entered into. This policy needs clarification. [748]

(c) (i) The objection to this policy was because it was principally concerned with financial rather than land use matters. Note policy change. However, the new wording is still not ideal. Policy on S106 agreements would have avoided the need to retain any financial matters within this transport policy. It is thus in conflict with the advice in Circular 1or97 (para. B17) that policies should address land use rather than funding or financial matters. Therefore, the objection must be maintained.

(ii) The objection to Policy TRANS9 was on the basis that the policy was wholly concerned with the financial arrangements in relation to development. As such it was not a land use based policy and was potentially contrary to PPG12 (paragraph 3.5).

Chapter 4 : Transport page 375 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) Note that policy remains largely unchanged, although the Council has sought to justify the retention of the policy on the basis of the advice in PPG12 (para. 6.17), which states that, where a Council expects developers to enter into planning obligations on a regular basis, it should set out its policy in the Plan. Accept this point and the fact that the policy is largely an explanation of its approach, but consider that the advice in paragraph 6.17 of PPG12 relates to the contributions sought from developers through S106 agreements and not the funding of such facilities by the local authority itself. Policy should be deleted. If reference to this matter kept in policy, it should be included within a more general policy on the use of Section 106 agreements.

(iv) The objection would be met by deletion of the policy or its inclusion as within the Reasoned Justification. [375]

(d) (i) New capital facilities may be appropriate as may revenue for new services.

Add to para. 4.86 “and underwrite the provision of new and innovative services.” [161]

(e) (i) The policy fails to identify the framework for the source of funding for financial assistance, or the criteria for funding contributions from developers or investors in the City. This will lead to protracted and potentially unhelpful delays in the planning process.

(ii) Paragraph 4.87, does not provide clear guidance as to how the City Council will determine projects for assistance. The nature of public transport modes or facilities requiring assistance should be clearly identifiable and not nominated on ad hoc basis by the Authority, as suggested by the supporting text to the policy. [803] [795]

(f) (i) Whilst the amended paragraph is noted. The method by which S106 agreements are considered should have specific guidance i.e. the City Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance Toolkit, which should be produced for consultation ahead of the UDP Inquiry to prevent inconsistencies in S106 agreements across the Borough.

(ii) Whilst the amendment to paragraph 4.87 is noted this requirement must be qualified in order that the 106 agreement is considered objectively.

(iii) This general policy creates an unexplained linkage between the City Council contributions towards public transport and contributions from developers and relevant public transport operators.

(iv) There is no explanation or definition of criteria as to when such contributions will be sought and on what basis. It is necessary for policy to avoid creating general requirements for contributions, otherwise the policy will appear to be some form of levy on development. Such an approach does not create a proper basis for planning policy. [814]

(g) (i) The policy requires further clarification and needs to reflect the provisions of Circular 1or97, specifically all of those tests in respect of which planning agreements may be sought. This may be best achieved by an extension of the policy which states that should legal agreements be required in the delivery of the specific improvements for public transport facilities, that they must be:

Chapter 4 : Transport page 376 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(i) necessary; (ii) relevant to planning; (iii) directly related to the proposed development; (iv) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; (v) reasonable in all other aspects.

(ii) The policy also needs to clarify that as stated in paragraph B12 of Annex B of Circular 1or97, that developers should not be expected to pay for facilities which are needed solely in order to resolve existing deficiencies.

(iii) The Unitary Development Plan should be amended as follows:

Policy TRANS 9 should be reworded to include additional paragraph stating that where a legal agreement is required, that these will be sought subject to the tests set out in paragraph 7 and paragraph B12 (Annex B) of Circular 1or97. [790]

(h) (i) It is considered that reference to the use of planning agreements with developers to secure funding for the improvement of public transport facilities or services should only be applied where there is a specific requirement attributable to the development and that the Plan should provide a formula for calculating an appropriate amount.

(ii) To accord with Ministerial advice set out in ‘Circular 1or 97: Planning Obligations’ and the general thrust of Government guidance set out in ‘PPG13: Transport’. In those cases where a contribution is made to the improvement of public transport facilities or services, it will be necessary to take this payment into account when calculating other development costs, such as would be applicable in the case of affordable housing provision. [92]

(i) (i) The Council's suggested changes fundamentally change the thrust of this Policy, and the Council is now saying it will seek financial assistance, through Section 106 Agreements, for specific improvements to transport facilities or services.

(ii) Object. Too restrictive. [807]

(j) (i) This general policy creates an unexplained linkage between the City Council contributions towards public transport and contributions from developers and relevant public transport operators.

(ii) There is no explanation or definition of criteria as to when such contributions will be sought and on what basis. It is necessary for policy to avoid creating general requirements for contributions. Otherwise the policy will appear to be some form of levy on development. Such an approach does not create a proper basis for planning policy. [1]

(k) (i) The Crown Estate wishes to maintain the objections raised during the first deposit stage of the UDP review.

(ii) The proposing of such a policy requires developers to enter into agreements with the Council to provide improvements to Public Transport. The wording of the policy can effectively require agreements for all types of development. As the proposed policy stands, there is no basis or criteria for when such agreements should be entered into. Chapter 4 : Transport page 377 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) PPG13, Public Consultation Draft, October 1999, states that:

“The development plan should indicate the likely nature and scope of contributions which will be sought towards transport improvements as part of development in particular areas or on key sites. This will give greater clarity to developers as to what will be expected as part of development proposals and also provide a firmer basis for investment decisions in the plan area”.

(iv) It is suggested that the proposed policy be reworded, and greater clarity provided as to when agreements are required. The proposed policy may be interpreted as representing a tax on new development. Policy should be linked to Circular Guidance.

(v) The majority of the redevelopment proposals in central London have a minimal net additional impact on the network in terms of the newly generated trips by the new development. The council should not use this policy to demand contributions to public transport which should have been provided in the first instance. It is not clear as how the council intends to implement this policy as it has no control over the provision of public transport services, which is being controlled by transport for London.

(vi) The proposing of such a policy requires developers to enter into agreements with the Council to provide improvements to Public Transport. The wording of the policy can effectively require agreements for all types of development. As the proposed policy stands, there is no basis or criteria for when such agreements should be entered into.

(vii) PPG13, Public Consultation Draft, October 1999, states that;

‘The development plan should indicate the likely nature and scope of contributions which will be sought towards transport improvements as part of development in particular areas or on key sites. This will give greater clarity to developers as to what will be expected as part of development proposals and also provide a firmer basis for investment decisions in the plan area’.

(viii) It is suggested that the proposed policy be reworded and greater clarity provided as to when agreements are required. The proposed policy may be interpreted as representing a tax on new development. Policy should be linked to Circular Guidance.

(ix) The majority of the redevelopment proposals in central London have a minimal net additional impact on the network in terms of the newly generated trips by the new development. The council should not use this policy to demand contributions to public transport which should have been provided in the first instance. It is not clear as how the Council intends to implement this policy as it has no control over the provision of public transport services, which is being controlled by Transport for London. [680] [695]

(l) (i) Conditional withdrawal. Reference to bus lay-bys has been deleted.

(ii) Bus lay-bys restrict the ability of buses to rejoin traffic flow, and increase journey times. Reference to this should be removed. Instead, the City Council should encourage measures which keep buses within the main flow of traffic.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 378 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) Delete “bus and” from the first sentence. [2]

(m) (i) Welcome the amendments to the written justification to this policy which clarifies the application of the policy to those developments where it can be demonstrated that problems on the existing public transport networks would be created or exacerbated.

(ii) However, for the purposes of certainty, statement should be incorporated within the wording of the policy itself. Accordingly, object to the revised wording of this policy.

(iii) It is considered that reference to the use of planning agreements with developers to secure funding for the improvement of public transport facilities or services should only be applied where there is a specific requirement attributable to the development and that the Plan should provide a formula for calculating an appropriate amount.

(iv) To accord with Ministerial advice set out in ‘Circular 1or 97: Planning Obligations’ and the general thrust of Government guidance set out in ‘PPG13: Transport’. In those cases where a contribution is made to the improvement of public transport facilities or services, it will be necessary to take this payment into account when calculating other development costs, such as would be applicable in the case of affordable housing provision. [789]

(n) (i) Policy should recognise that contributions for such improvements are directly related, proportionate to the nature and scale of proposed development. [253]

(o) (i) Support the overall aim to improve the quality, reliability and accessibility of public transport of all modes to make it more attractive than the private car. [632]

(p) (i) Support the new policy to provide financial assistance to public transport. [553] [632]

(s) (i) Support the overall aim to improve the quality, reliability and accessibility of public transport of all modes to make it more attractive than the private car, as well as the new policies to seek improvement in the environmental performance of taxi's and minicabs. [823]

(t) (i) Supported. [113] [73]

(u) (i) Especially the revised paragraph 4.87 on developers’ contributions to improved transport facilities.

(ii) Supported. [381]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) Second deposit - Agree that the policy needed clarification. Have amended as necessary, but it is not possible to provide detailed formulae for working out how much financial assistance might be expected, given the wide range of developments and the different needs of different locations within Westminster.

(ii) First deposit - There is some clarification in policy STRA 6 and associated text, but have added further clarification to paragraph 4.87 to read "The City Council

Chapter 4 : Transport page 379 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

might consider spending money on, for example, small scale off-street terminal facilities, bus and coach lay-bys or bus stands, off-street parking or stopping arrangements, improved interchange arrangements or augmenting bus services. Where the implementation of a development will cause or exacerbate problems on the existing public transport networks, the City Council will seek provision of improved facilities through negotiations or legal agreements with developers, such as through Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, and relevant public transport operators. This section should be read in conjunction with Policy STRA 6 and the justification for it and further details which are set out in paragraphs 1.28 - 1.32." [269]

(b) (i) Agree that the policy needed clarification. Have amended as necessary, but it is not possible to provide detailed formulae for working out how much financial assistance might be expected, given the wide range of developments and the different needs of different locations within Westminster.

(ii) There is some clarification in policy STRA 6 and associated text, but have added further clarification to paragraph 4.87 to read "The City Council might consider spending money on, for example, small scale off-street terminal facilities, bus and coach lay-bys or bus stands, off-street parking or stopping arrangements, improved interchange arrangements or augmenting bus services. Where the implementation of a development will cause or exacerbate problems on the existing public transport networks, the City Council will seek provision of improved facilities through negotiations or legal agreements with developers, such as through Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, and relevant public transport operators. This section should be read in conjunction with Policy STRA 6 and the justification for it and further details which are set out in paragraphs 1.28 - 1.32." [748]

(c) (i) Agree in part. Have amended as necessary.

(ii) Do not wish to delete.

Paragraph 6.17 of PPG 12 states that "Where a planning authority expect developers to enter into planning obligations on a regular basis, in relation to similar types of development, they should set out their policy in their local plan." [375]

(d) (i) Do not feel the change is necessary. It is already clear that TRANS 9 is referring to possible subsidy of services as well as to investment in physical improvements. [161]

(e) (i) Agree that the policy needed clarification. Have amended as necessary, but it is not possible to provide detailed formulae for working out how much financial assistance might be expected, given the wide range of developments and the different needs of different locations within Westminster.

(ii) There is some clarification in policy STRA 6 and associated text, but have added further clarification to paragraph 4.87 to read "The City Council might consider spending money on, for example, small scale off-street terminal facilities, bus and coach lay-bys or bus stands, off-street parking or stopping arrangements, improved interchange arrangements or augmenting bus services. Where the implementation of a development will cause or exacerbate problems on the existing public transport networks, the City Council will seek provision of improved facilities through negotiations or legal agreements with developers, Chapter 4 : Transport page 380 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

such as through Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, and relevant public transport operators. This section should be read in conjunction with Policy STRA 6 and the justification for it and further details which are set out in paragraphs 1.28 - 1.32." [814]

(f) (i) See page 45 of the City Council's response to the written representations from the LSE on this matter. [807]

(g) (i) Agree. Have amended.

(ii) Do not agree that there are no cases where bus operators would find the provision of a lay-by helpful, e.g. for use as a stand. In any case no such work would be undertaken without consulting Transport for London and or or the bus operators. [2]

(h)-(v) (i) Support welcomed. [632]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.9.1 Policy TRANS 9 has been proposed for substantial alteration in the light of the many objections to the First Deposit version of the UDP. Nevertheless, many objectors seem to be overly concerned with the financial, as distinct from the physical, implications of the Policy and its future application. This is partly attributable to the title of the Policy, “Financial Assistance to Public Transport”. It might be better expressed as “Improved Public Transport Facilities (or Access)” since a reading of the supporting text clearly indicates a more pragmatic approach to development control and the use of planning agreements. What the LPA appear to have in mind is the opportunistic physical improvement of public transport access to, through and within development sites. This might require either a loss of some development potential or a developer’s contribution to the capital cost of such works or the revenue support of new or more frequent bus services or the diversion of hypothecated funding (e.g. congestion charging proceeds) or, quite simply, the alteration of the detailed physical design of development (possibly against the inclination or preferences of an applicant for planning permission) or a combination of all these.

4.9.2 To take a completely hypothetical future example, Policy TRANS 9 might be applied to comprehensive retail development where enhanced public transport access is deemed necessary to comply with Policy TRANS 4 (see TR.04). In such an illustrative case, it might well be a planning requirement to provide (e.g.) bus priority access or embayment facilities, covered waiting or pedestrian circulation areas, the curtailment of car parking space, the revenue support for increased bus services, the provision of segregated pedestrian crossing facilities or the implementation (or alteration) of CPZ or area-wide traffic-calming schemes (see TR.02). All or any of these measures may be needed for legitimate planning purposes. These might include the proper planning of the area, the protection of the residential hinterland or the influencing of the modal split of traffic to and from the development site. In other words, the policy application may very well be as much physical as financial and to this extent the GOL objection (375) seems to me misconceived, although it is probably necessary to make the likely purpose of the Policy somewhat more explicit and clearer in its title.

4.9.3 From the above reasoning, it is clear that the financial implications of the policy may differ widely from case to case and as between applicant and authority. The requirement for developer involvement may vary as between a marginal loss of development potential to an outright cash contribution for the necessary capital or revenue support for public transport facilities. Equally, it may be necessary for the LPA itself to devote hypothecated funding to

Chapter 4 : Transport page 381 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

facilities that developers may consider unnecessary or indeed regard as positively unwelcome. In such cases, it would be essential to have development plan policy backing to justify LPA decision-making or to support it in the case of subsequent appeals or called-in applications. There is no need, in my view, to try to summarise or paraphrase the provisions of C1/97. Firstly, this might serve to distort such policy advice and, secondly, such extant advice may be replaced during the currency of the UDP. Finally, Policy TRANS 9 will clearly be subject to the relevant application of Part I Policy STRA 6 to which the LPA correctly refer.

4.9.4 The various proposed alterations to the supporting text appear to me to be necessary, either as cross-references to other Policies of the UDP or as justification for the Policy itself, entirely consistent with the advice of PPGs 12 and 13. It is quite fruitless, in my view, to try to set out precise criteria for the Policy’s application. It essentially deals with the interface between land use and transport planning whose integration is constantly urged but is conspicuously difficult to express in precise policy statements. Much will depend on case by case applications of the Policy. It would be wrong to imply any degree of coercion upon individual developers or development schemes. Despite the many assertions to this effect, it is difficult to detect any such implications in the Policy’s suggested wording although I believe it capable of improvement for the other reasons I have just given. It is implicit that any planning conditions or agreements will be imposed or secured having close regard to C1/97 or analogous successor policy advice; much will clearly depend on improved transport facilities being both relevant and proportionate to proposed development.

Recommendations

S R4.9.1 Modify the supporting text to Policy TRANS 9 in accordance with the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP.

S R4.0.2 Modify Policy TRANS 9 to read as follows:

"POLICY TRANS 9: IMPROVED PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESS

(A) The City Council may require financial assistance or physical provision for specific local improvements to public transport access or levels of service, through the imposition of planning conditions or by securing agreements with developers, in the following situations:

(1) where there might be benefit to the local community; such as an improvement in the functioning or coverage of the public transport system; (2) where financial assistance might help to achieve other planning aims and policies such as comprehensive redevelopment or the better layout of development or its proper integration with the local transport infrastructure; (3) where they may secure the provision or improvement of a local service, necessary to enhance access by public transport or influence the overall modal split in its favour; (4) where it is possible to improve physical conditions or general ease of multi- modal access, particularly for people with disabilities or lack of full mobility; (5) where such improvements would complement wider aims of traffic reduction and the mitigation of the adverse environmental impact of traffic on the local community."

Chapter 4 : Transport page 382 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

TR10: Cycling

Objectors and Supporters

2 Greater London Authority 91 Tesco Stores 132 St Marylebone Society 161 London Transport Users' Committee 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 632 Westminster Cycling Campaign 807 London School of Economics and Political Science 823 Sustrans

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) The revised policy seeks to encourage the provision of showers, changing room facilities and lockers for cyclists at all new workplaces and places of education. Providing such facilities will not always be appropriate or practical, owing to space constraints particularly in central London locations such as Westminster.

(ii) The aim of the policy is to make cycling a more attractive mode of transport as an alternative to the use of the private car. As a large percentage of employees already use means of transport other than the private car the provision of such facilities is unlikely to result in significant reduction in the use of the private car.

(iii) Amend policy so that, where appropriate and practical, and in locations where cycling could be promoted as an alternative to the private car, the City Council will encourage the provision of suitable facilities for cyclists. [91]

(b) (i) Encouraged and fully support the aims of the cycling policy, particularly in increasing the number of places where cycle manoeuvres are allowed where motor vehicles are banned, as part of a traffic management scheme. Would like to see an additional point showing the councils commitment to considering the needs of cyclists in all future road works, and traffic management systems. UDP should more explicitly state the City Councils continued support for improving and extending the London Cycle Network, the Thames Cycle Route and other strategic routes. Mention could be made of the Seven Stations Link and the proposed 'north-west' National Cycle Network Route, particularly with regards to the Paddington Basin area. [823]

(i) Generally support the cycling policy, but this paragraph fails to mention that additional measures are required to protect cyclists where routes run along roads with high traffic volumes or speeds.

(ii) This paragraph also fails to say that, where necessary, car-parking spaces will be removed to create space for cycle routes. [632]

(d) (i) Support 4.91 on pedestrian safety and query why it is not stated in "Policy". [132]

(e) (i) Support. [807] [161] [381]

Summary of Council’s Response

Chapter 4 : Transport page 383 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(a) (i) It is desirable to encourage people to cycle, and the lack of such facilities is one reason why many people do not. [91]

(b) (i) Agree and have amended fourth bullet point accordingly to read "consider, when undertaking all traffic management schemes and other road works, the particular needs of and the vulnerability of cyclists in order to provide a safe and direct route for cyclists".

(ii) But regarding the final point, it is felt that the current reference to "other strategic cycle networks" is adequate. [823]

(c) (i) Feel that the policy already emphasises the need to improve safety and there is no need to say more.

(ii) Reasons why parking bays might be removed, which included the provision of a cycle lane, were removed from the Plan as these were not considered a land use issue. [632]

(d) (i) Support welcome, but do not consider this statement need to be considered in policy. [132]

(e) (i) Support welcome. [807] [161] [381]

(i) (i) Second deposit - Nothing to add.

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.10.1 Policy TRANS 10 aims to improve physical facilities for cyclists and cycling by means of both on-site and on-street provision. In the former case, it is a matter of encouragement rather than compulsion; in the latter it is a matter of scrutinising traffic management and related proposals of the highway authority to see that the objectives of the Policy are being met. Another possible area of intervention by the LPA may be in the development of local or strategic cycle routes, including the London Cycle Network (LCN) and the National Cycle Network (NCN). None of these initiatives have a particularly significant land use planning component so that it is as well to restrict TRANS 10 to physical provision which may realistically be delivered, possibly by invoking both Policies TRANS 9 and 10. It is in my view not necessary to include exhortatory statements as certain objectors (623, 823) seem to wish since these add nothing to development plan policies in the sense of achieving tangible facilities.

4.10.2 The objection by Tesco (91) cannot be supported simply because it is the intention of the Policy to “encourage” rather than “require” the on-site provision of amenities for cyclists. It may well be that in some cases such facilities simply cannot be made available. The object of the Policy is primarily to draw developers’ early attention to the desirability of making such provision and subsequently to support or justify the LPA’s decision to withhold consent if such provision is unreasonably not made. The objector’s (823) reference to the absence of reference or notation on Map 4.5 to the LCN or NCN in Paddington Basin, I find a little puzzling. The reason is that my site inspections in this area showed that not only was the canal towpath in safe and satisfactory dual use by many cyclists and pedestrians but that there were BWB notices to the effect that cycling was permitted. I therefore intend to recommend that the relevant map be modified to reflect the de facto position as I found it.

Recommendations

Chapter 4 : Transport page 384 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

S R4.10.1 Modify Policy TRANS 10 and its supporting text in accordance with the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP.

S R4.10.2 Modify Map 4.5 by the inclusion of the Grand Union Canal towpath as part of the LCN or NCN (as appropriate).

TR11: Cycle Parking Standards

Objectors and Supporters

2 Greater London Authority 91 Tesco Stores 161 London Transport Users' Committee 321 SWETA (South Westminster Triangle Association) 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 491 Mercers Company Kensington and Chelsea with Westminster Friends of the Earth 632 Westminster Cycling Campaign 680 The Crown Estate 686 MOD Defence Estates 716 The Cooper Group 724 Grosvenor Limited 759 The Thorney Island Society 779 London Business School 780 Selfridges & Co 791 Gerard Livett 807 London School of Economics and Political Science 823 Sustrans

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Cycle parking standards are welcomed in principle but do not conform with LPAC advice and best practice, which require more vigorous standards. Discussions about the appropriate level of standards are welcomed.

(ii) Make the cycle parking standards stronger. [2]

(b) (i) Support policy but would add:

Do not agree with first sentence of TRANS 11 (A) "when car parking is provided". All developments should as a matter of course provide cycle parking.

(ii) Also what is position on providing motorcycling parking facilities on all developments. Should be part of policy statement. [381]

(i) Retain objection. The Council need to go further than merely encourage showers and changing room facilities for cyclists on office developments. The City Council’s argument that there might be occasions where it would not be appropriate to insist on such facilities can be met through usual flexibility in the application of the Plan.

(ii) Add (iii) "adequate changing room facilities and showers should be provided in all new office developments of over 200 sqm for the use of cyclists”.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 385 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Reason (iii) Without these related facilities cycling for many people will not become a practical alternative mode of commuting. This is particularly true in the summer months when cycling is an attractive option but for an inability to shower after a hot and sweaty journey to work.

(iv) Retain objection (v). The Council have not provided any argument to support their assertion it would not be appropriate to apply LPAC standards in central London.

Add (v) the following specific requirements, broadly in line with LPAC advice on the subject:

S Licensed Premises (Pubs, wine bars, cafes, restaurants i.e. A3's) 1 space per 20 seats S Food Retail A1, 1 space per 125m sq. S Non Food Retail (A1), 1 space per 300m sq. S Theatres, Cinemas (D2), 1 space per 50 seats S Student Accommodation, 1 space per 4 students.

Reason: (vi) The streets of Westminster presently suffer badly from a lack of cycle parking spaces. This is most acute in the West End and more generally on the streets with extended shop frontages as boundary railings are not often available as an alternative. The use of lampposts often proves the only possibility and this inconveniences pedestrians.

(vii) Retain objection (iv). The Council’s response that it unlikely to receive applications for new overground stations misses the point and most certainly the Council will receive planning applications misses the point. The Council will receive at least two major planning applications for redevelopments for at least two major overground stations, namely Paddington and Victoria.

(viii) Add (vi) the requirement to provide adequate cycle parking provision outside over-ground stations.

(ix) Reason to encourage cycling as a viable mode of transport. [321]

(d) (i) Policy TRANS 11 sets out the cycle parking standards. The LBS suggest that this policy could be amended to be more flexible in relation to extensions or infill sufficient to meet demand. [779]

(e) (i) Object. There should be a separate standard for Higher Education Institutions which should be at a ratio considerably above that for schools and colleges. [807]

(f) (i) Whilst the principle of providing for the needs of cyclists is supported, the requirement for one cycle space per 150 sq m of floorspace in respect of office development is too prescriptive.

(ii) The provision of one cycle parking space per dwelling is often not possible, particularly in schemes of conversion. [724] [686]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 386 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(g) (i) The revised policy now includes cycle parking standards for staff and visitors for retail developments. The policy requires one cycle parking space per ten staff and one cycle parking space per 125 sqm of floorspace for visitors. The provision of such levels of cycle parking for developments such as large foodstores is unrealistic. The standard does not offer any flexibility nor does it take account of the fact that a large number of staff will be in part time employment, any standard should therefore relate to full time equivalent employment places.

(ii) The standards appear to have been derived from the LPAC guidelines. We do not consider that these guidelines are necessarily appropriate for retail development particularly food shopping in Westminster as they were designed for London as a whole. The limited amount of physical space typically found around retail developments in Westminster means that providing the cycle parking to the proposed standard would compromise the layout of developments and encourage space to be wasted. In reality such a level of cycle parking provision would result in a largely unused facility. It is generally accepted that the nature of food shopping makes cycling an unrealistic means of transport in comparison with other sorts of retailing, the standards should reflect this. [91]

(h) (i) The cycle parking standards should be considered as a guideline. The availability of secure parking, location and reasonable number of cycle spaces required should all be a consideration in the provision of parking stands.

(ii) The Authority should avoid through rigid application of policy the creation of dead areas within or adjacent to buildings consisting of cycle bays, which met the guidelines, but do not serve any practical use. Standards for office provision should therefore be capped, in order avoid potentially wasteful oversupply of space.

(iii) Some Boroughs (e.g. LB Hounslow) have standards, which are applicable up to a certain level of floor space. This kind of approach overcomes the need to provide vast swathes of cycle parking when it may not be necessary or appropriate.

(iv) Paragraph 4.96 is too prescriptive, the policy should provide guidance to provide developers with the information on provision required. This paragraph should either be integrated into the policy, or deleted. [716]

(i) (i) Support the policy on cycle parking standards, though this policy should go further to include other building types as specified in the LPAC guidelines, including all industrial, food retail, non-food retail, pubs, restaurants, cinemas, surgeries, etc. [823]

(j) (i) In the Second Deposit Draft UDP, the cycle parking standards for office developments have increased and cycle parking standards for retail developments have been introduced. Objection is made to these changes on the grounds that these new standards are too high and are therefore unrealistic.

(ii) The standards do not allow for flexibility such as where there may be opportunities for shared cycle parking in mixed use schemes or where a particular development is not suited to such a high provision of cycle parking due to the close proximity to public transport, or the particular nature of the development.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 387 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) Reinstate 1 cycle parking space per 150 sqm. floorspace for office development. Delete all reference to cycle parking for retail development. [491]

(k) (i) In the Second Deposit Draft UDP, the cycle parking standards for office developments have increased and cycle parking standards for retail developments have been introduced. Objection is made to these changes on the grounds that these new standards are too high and are therefore unrealistic.

(ii) The standards do not allow for flexibility such as where there may be opportunities for shared cycle parking in mixed use schemes or where a particular development is not suited to such a high provision of cycle parking due to the close proximity to public transport, or the particular nature of the development.

Reinstate 1 cycle parking space per 150 sqm. floorspace for office development. Delete all references to cycle parking for retail development. [780]

(l) (i) Support the policy on cycle parking standards, which is broadly in line with the aim of quadrupling cycle use to a modal share of 10%. Object to the omission of certain types of building included in the LPAC list (see Table 5.4 of the London Cycle Network Design Guide), namely:

Light Industrial (B1): 1 space per 250 m², minimum 2 General Industrial (B2-B7): 1 space per 500 m², minimum 2 Warehouses (B8): 1 space per 500 m², minimum 2 Food Retail (A1): 1 space per 125 m² Non-food retail (A1): 1 space per 300 m² Garden Centre (A1): 1 space per 300 m², minimum 2 Pubs, Wine Bars (A3): 1 per 100 m², minimum 2 Fast Food Take-aways (A3): 1 per 50 m², minimum 2 Restaurants, Cafés (A3): 1 space per 20 seats, minimum 2 Theatres, Cinemas (D2): 1 space per 50 seats, minimum 2 Student Accommodation (C2): 1 space per 2 students Doctor and Dentist Surgeries, Health Centres, Clinics (D1): 1 space per 5 staff plus 1 space per 5 staff for visitors Libraries (D1): 1 space per 10 staff plus 1 space per 10 staff for users In addition, the proposed standards fall short of the LPAC recommendations for the following types of building: Business Offices, Services (B1orA2): 1 space per 125 m², min. 2 Hospitals (C2): 1 space per 5 staff plus 1 space per 10 staff for visitors. [632]

(m) (i) A new policy has been added regarding motorcycles. Although the Crown Estate supports the new policy in principle, i.e. the provision of parking facilities for motorcyclists, this provision should be made in a manner that minimises the visual impact on the streetscape. [680]

(n) (i) Welcome the new cycle parking standards at Section A (non-residential development). However, the requirement for cycling provision should be assessed within the remit of the development. [680]

(o) (i) Recognise the convenience of bicycle use, and welcome the provision of cycle parking standards. However, because of the nature of the modern city, many individuals have to undertake journeys into the City that are not possible by bicycle. [791] Chapter 4 : Transport page 388 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(p) (i) Support. [161]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) Have reviewed the standards and made some changes regarding Offices, Schools and Colleges and Retail, but do not necessarily agree that the LPAC standards will be appropriate in central London. [2]

(b) (i) Now using standards as set out in the LCN Design Manual. Do not propose to have any standards for motorcycle parking.

(ii) First deposit - Agree with first comment.

(iii) The issue of motorcycle (including all powered two-wheelers) policy has been the subject of much recent discussion, with the on-going trials of charges for motorcycle parking, including the provision of security measures, and the high level of objections to the transport chapter of the UDP from motorcyclists. A motorcycle policy has now been written into the Second Deposit version of the UDP which is intended to be a balanced policy recognising that motorcycles take up less roadspace than cars, but also the environmental implications of motorcycle use, the safety problems they cause and various uses they are put to e.g. commuting, couriers, business use, residents, etc. The policy (TRANS 11a) includes charging for on-street parking, at a level which has yet to be decided, but will be at most proportionately less than the charges for car parking, with or without limitations on the length of stay to encourage commuters to park off- street where possible. It reads

(iv) "The City Council will seek to maintain an adequate supply of parking facilities for motorcyclists and will consider motorcyclists needs in the design of any traffic calming and management schemes. In recognising the safety and environmental problems caused by motorcycles relative to other modes, it will be necessary to apply a level of restraint through parking policies."

(v) The reasoned justification for this policy is outlined in paragraphs 4.97a - 4.97g. [381]

(c) (i) Second deposit - Do not agree. It is necessary to encourage people to cycle, and the lack of such facilities is one reason why many people do not. Now using standards as set out in the LCN Design Manual.

(ii) With regard to (iii), do not agree that it would be appropriate to require such facilities in all such developments. Have added to (B), after "TRANS 11" of "and the City Council will encourage the provision of showers, changing facilities and lockers for cyclists at all new workplaces and places of education".

(iii) With regard to (v), have reviewed the standards and made some changes regarding Offices, Schools and Colleges and Retail, but do not necessarily agree that the LPAC standards will be appropriate in central London.

(iv) With regard to (iv), as a land use plan the UDP can only influence development. Since it is considered unlikely that the City Council will receive applications for new overground rail stations it is not considered that it needs a policy on cycle

Chapter 4 : Transport page 389 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

parking outside them. The City Council will however encourage Railtrack to provide cycle parking facilities by other means. [321]

(d) (i) Agree that there is a need for some flexibility. Feel that paragraph 1.4 of the Introduction to the Plan makes this clear. [779]

(e) (i) There is already a standard for "Colleges". Not sure what the objector means by a ratio "above" that for schools. Nevertheless, have reviewed the standards and made some changes regarding Offices, Schools and Colleges and Retail. [807]

(f) (i) Do not agree. Now using standards as set out in the LCN Design Manual.

(ii) The standards have an in-built flexibility, but it is better to have a figure which gives developers the target at which the City Council wishes to aim. [724]

(g) (i) Do not agree. Now using standards as set out in the LCN Design Manual. [91]

(h) (i) Do not agree. Now using standards as set out in the LCN Design Manual.

(ii) Do not agree that the policy is too prescriptive.

(iii) Whilst the policy should be seen as a guideline and there is flexibility in operating it, there should not be a ceiling. It is based on a target of enabling some 10% of employees to cycle to work, not of 10% of employees in small buildings, but significantly less in larger buildings. [716]

(i) (i) Now using standards as set out in the LCN Design Manual

(ii) Have reviewed the standards and made some changes regarding Offices, Schools and Colleges and Retail, but do not necessarily agree that the LPAC standards will be appropriate in central London. [823]

(j) (i) Disagree. Now using standards as set out in the LCN Design Manual. [491]

(k) (i) Disagree. Now using standards as set out in the LCN Design Manual. [780]

(l) (i) Now using standards as set out in the LCN Design Manual.

(ii) Have reviewed the standards and made some changes regarding Offices, Schools and Colleges and Retail, but do not necessarily agree that the LPAC standards will be appropriate in central London. [632]

(m) (i) Support welcomed. Not sure how visual impact of on-street provision can be minimised. [680]

(n) (i) Welcome support. Now using standards as set out in the LCN Design Manual. [680]

(o) (i) Agree that cycle use is not appropriate for all journeys. [791]

(p) (i) Support welcome. [161]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

Chapter 4 : Transport page 390 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

4.11.1 The objections to Policy TRANS 11 seem to be polarised in nature. Apart from the expressions of support, the objections appear either to doubt the usefulness of cycling for a variety of travel functions or consider that cycling facilities should be made mandatory as a matter of planning policy. Although the Mayor’s Transport Strategy certainly emphasises the importance of cycling as a sustainable mode (CD5 or 7 section 4J), the available evidence on modal trends is somewhat inconclusive (see tables below derived from CD11 or 2). Although the overall picture nationally is one of severe decline in cycling as a mode of local transport, it may be noted that, although the London data should be treated with caution on account of a small sample base in the National Travel Survey, they do indicate a reversal of the national trend as far as Outer and Greater London are concerned.

4.11.2 It is doubtful whether on-site (as distinct from on-road) facilities are going significantly to alter modal choice. Equally, it is at least arguable that the efforts of the London Cycling Campaign have resulted in a change against the national downturn in cycling over the past decade. Accordingly, I attach some weight to the relevant claims [161, 632 and 823] to the general effect that provision ought to be more generous. However, I accept the LPA’s argument that the LCN rather than the former LPAC standards ought to be adopted, with the one proviso that the Appendix 4.2 standards ought to cover a wider range of land use. I do not accept the objectors’ arguments against reasonable on-site provision. Policy TRANS 10 merely “encourages” ancillary facilities. More pertinently, the space needed and the structural requirements for cycle parking are modest, compared with heavier vehicle accommodation. Lastly, if space is severely limited, it would be possible for the LPA to waive the Policy TRANS 11 requirements in favour of a commuted payment. This for equivalent on-street public provision (under the terms of Policies TRANS 9 and 10) which the highway authority may well be making and for which suitable highway space is usually to be found.

ANNUAL DISTANCES TRAVELLED BY BICYCLE BY AREA OF RESIDENCE (pers.km)

Years Inner London Outer London Greater London Great Britain 1989-1991 73.6 49.6 57.6 65.6 1998-2000 67.2 59.2 60.8 60.8 %Change 89-00 -8.7 +19.0 +5.0 -8.0

Data Sources: after Tables 4a and 4b of Transport Statistics for London 2001 (CD11/2)

Recommendations

S R4.11.1 Modify Policy TRANS 11 and its supporting text in accordance with the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP.

S R4.11.2 Modify Appendix 4.2 of the UDP to cover the same range of land uses as found in the former LPAC standards for cycle-parking facilities.

TR12: Water Transport

Objectors and Supporters

139 Westminster Society 295 Port of London Authority 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 632 Westminster Cycling Campaign

Chapter 4 : Transport page 391 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

823 Sustrans

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(i) When considering the City Council's desire to increase public knowledge of the canal network and the need to provide better safety along the towpaths, we suggest that cycling is mentioned as one of the ways of achieving both these aims. If conditions along the towpath are improved through redevelopment, cycling can become an important method of increasing personal safety and property security through passive surveillance and the 'chance' factor. Particularly within new developments such as Paddington Basin, shared use of the towpath should be established and catered for. [823]

(b) (i) Support the additional encouragement of the transport of construction spoil and waste by water [632]

(c) (i) Full support for the promotion of the River Thames and canals for the transportation of passengers and freight. [295]

(d) (i) Welcome policy TRANS12 especially the development of water-based passenger services. [139]

(e) (i) Support this policy. Any proposals should not be detrimental to environment. Tourist water based transport should also be encouraged subject to usual safeguards. [381]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) Have added a new paragraph 4.102a to read "The City Council will also encourage the use of towpaths as part of the transport network for pedestrians and cyclists, where shared use is practical. The more such paths are used the more secure they will become as a result of passive surveillance". [823]

(b - e)(i) Support welcomed. [632] [295] [139] [381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.12.1 The sole objection [823] relates to the omission of any reference to cycling along the towpaths that are to be found beside the canals and other waterways in Westminster. To an extent, this has been met by the proposed addition of paragraph 4.102a. This change is endorsed by me since I have already remarked upon the de facto acceptance of cycling (see TR10) along the Grand Union Canal and the Regents Canal. On the other hand, it is not appropriate to modify Policy TRANS 12 itself since cycling is not a “water-based” form of transport. I do not intend to make any further recommendation in addition to R4.10.2 although it would seem that the acceptance of this modification by the LPA would be especially appropriate. The reason is that the objection is by Sustrans who have a legitimate interest in the National Cycling Network (NCN). It is probable that the waterways system in Westminster is indeed the easiest means of connecting the NCN with the London Cycle Network (LCN) within the City of Westminster itself.

Recommendation

S R4.12.1 Modify Policy TRANS 12 and its supporting text in accordance with the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 392 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

TR13: Helicopters

Objectors and Supporters

Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association 131 Marylebone Association 132 St Marylebone Society 253 Insignia Richard Ellis 270 General Aviation Awareness Council 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 686 MOD Defence Estates 755 British Helicopter Advisory Board

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) The Policy does not take into account the needs of existing uses within the City, where helicopter landing currently takes place and continuation is essential to operations and in some cases, security (e.g. Chelsea Barracks). The Policy should acknowledge that there are likely to be genuine and justified exceptions where some increase in the use of helicopters should not be resisted. [686]

(b) (i) Policy far too restrictive should allow for flexible approach to account for needs of London's role as one of the world's most important capital cities. [253]

(c) (i) We suggest the addition of "and Airships" after "Helicopters" in the "Policy" and 4.105. Airships generate penetrating noise. [132]

(d) (i) The British Helicopter Advisory Board wish to associate themselves with this comment made by the General Aviation Awareness Council.

(ii) It is preferable for an area to be served by a number of helipads as this avoids the concentration of activity on one area and also reduces the need for excessive road travel which accords with the principles of sustainable development.

(iii) Government advice is embodied in several PPGs. Paragraph 3.3 of PPG12 requires development plans to justify why policies depart from guidance provided in PPGs and advises that the Secretary of State may intervene in cases which have not been justified. Paragraph 3.3 also advised that "In drawing up Structure Plans, the Act and Regulations together require authorities to have regard to any regional or strategic guidance given by the Secretary of State…"

(iv) This is reinforced in paragraph 42 and 43 of PPG1. Attention is drawn, in particular, to paragraph 42 of PPG1 which states, inter alia:

(v) "It is essential that plan policies and proposals are realistic and provide for choice and competition. The plan should focus on essential land-use issues and build in a degree of flexibility. Highly detailed policies which provide no flexibility may become outdated very quickly as circumstances change"

(vi) What, in effect, amounts to a proposed ban on all future helicopter activity in Westminster is contrary to the above advice in that draft policy TRANS13 is

Chapter 4 : Transport page 393 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

totally inflexible. If adopted it would become impossible for any owner or operator to even contemplate establishing a new helipad in the Borough.

(vii) It does not take into account advice embodied in PPG13. This advice encompasses helicopter activity, which falls under the definition of GA. It endorses inclusion of an appropriate policy which recognises the positive benefits that can accrue. Paragraph 5.35 is particularly relevant and makes it clear that Authorities should consider GA positively in the context of preparation of Development Plan policies:

(viii) "Small airports can serve local business needs, especially in outlying areas, as well as recreational flying. In formulating their plan policies and proposals authorities should take account of the contribution of this General Aviation (GA) to local and regional economies and the benefits of having suitable facilities within reasonable distance of each sizeable centre of population. As demand for commercial air transport grows, GA may find access to larger airports increasingly restricted. GA operators will therefore have to look to smaller airfields to provide facilities."

(ix) In conclusion, Draft Policy TRANS 13: Helicopters is unduly restrictive and does not allow for any potential future helipads in Westminster - the seat of both Central Government and the monarchy. Such a restriction runs contrary to Central Government advice.

(x) The following type of policy is suggested for inclusion within the Unitary Development Plan, to provide clear guidelines to any potential operator who may wish to establish a helipad within the Westminster area. Clear criteria help both potential applicants and Local Planning Authority officers in determining an application, in accordance with s.54a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

"The establishment of helipads, or changes to operations at existing sites, will be considered on their merits having regard to the following:

i) the economic and employment advantages arising.

ii) The likely impact upon residential and other noise sensitive properties in the immediate vicinity (i.e. under flight paths and circuits), by virtue of noise and disturbance.

iii) The locational benefits to public services.

iv) The site's role in the overall transport infrastructure of the Borough, having regard to site access and sustainable development issues.

v) Visual impact.

Having regard to Government advice, in PPG13 and PPG24 in particular, restrictions upon the number, type and times of movements would be the subject of conditions attached to any grant of permission as required in the specific circumstances of the case." [270]

(e) (i) The policy is unduly restrictive. Westminster is privileged to host the seats of the monarchy and the national government. Both require helicopters to fulfil their roles. The national interest might require additional or alternative helicopter Chapter 4 : Transport page 394 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

landing sites for strategic or economic reasons. A more reasonable policy would be along the lines of: "…will consider… in the light of the national interest and environmental” [755]

(f) (i) Support Policy TRANS 13 discouraging the use of helicopters, but object that it does not explicitly mention the greatest nuisance: the increasingly oppressive use of helicopters by the police circling for long periods during hours when most people are attempting to sleep. [129]

(g) (i) The noise of police helicopters near Marble Arch surveying demonstrations is already of great annoyance to many of the local residents. This is of a more intrusive nature than most traffic noise. [131]

(h) (i) Fully support policy.

(ii) Should add that no helipads will be allowed on rooftops (offices or department stores for example) or elsewhere. [381]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (b) & (e) (i) The City Council does not believe that its residents should have to suffer the noise and intrusion caused by helicopters as a result of their choice to live in Westminster. The use of helicopters which use existing take off or landing facilities is not one that can be influenced by the Plan. [686] [253] [755]

(c) (i) The reference to airships was taken out of the Plan as it has no way of influencing their use over Westminster, other than by resisting proposals to site take off and landing facilities in the city. Since the City Council is unlikely to receive any such proposals it is not considered that a reference to airships is necessary. [132]

(d) (i) The City Council does not believe that its residents should have to suffer the noise and intrusion caused by helicopters as a result of their choice to live in Westminster. The use of helicopters which use existing take off or landing facilities is not one that can be influenced by the Plan.

(ii) Do not believe that the policy needs flexibility as cannot see the situation changing in the life of the Plan.

(iii) Do not agree that any arguments about sustainability stand up with regard to helicopter use. [270]

(f) (i) Support welcomed. The use of Police helicopters which use existing take off or landing facilities is not however one that can be influenced by the Plan. [129]

(g) (i) Support welcomed. [131]

(h) (i) Do not feel that this addition is necessary. The policy already opposes any increase in the use of helicopters. [381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.13.1 The representations on Policy TRANS 13 appear to be equally split as between objectors and supporters of the Deposit Version. It is also notable that the present policy is

Chapter 4 : Transport page 395 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

significantly more restrictive than that which figures in the adopted UDP (also TRANS 13). It is equally significant that there has been little in the way of relevant guidance, since the UDP’s adoption, in either PPG13 or RPG3 (para 6.44). What there has been is the formulation of GLA policy in the Draft London Plan (Policy 3C.6) which advises London Boroughs to resist private heliport facilities but to allow, in exceptional cases, those for predominantly emergency use. To secure UDP conformity with the London Plan, I conclude that TRANS 13 ought to be substantially modified,

4.13.2 This might best be done, partly along the lines suggested by GAAC [270], whilst nevertheless recognising the serious noise nuisance that such facilities can cause and also the opportunities of imposing conditions on their use and of rationalising the existing pattern of movement. It is not necessary, in my view, to include airship facilities in the policy in view of the sheer improbability of their landing or mooring in Central London. Equally, in the light of the Harrods v Secretary of State Court of Appeal (2002) judgment, it is unnecessary to impose a general embargo on the use of flat-roofed buildings for landing helicopters or other aircraft.

Recommendation

S R4.13.1 Modify Policy TRANS 13 to read as follows:

"POLICY TRANS 13: HELICOPTERS

(A) The development of new or enlarged facilities for helicopter movements (including applications for the enlargement of existing ones and the variation of their operational restrictions or limitations) will only be allowed where they are essential for public or other emergency services and having regard to the following considerations:

(1) the likely impact on noise-sensitive property in the vicinity (including the vicinity of likely approach flight paths); (2) the economic, environmental and employment advantages of their development; (3) the possibility of rationalising existing helicopter operations at existing sites with a view to an overall reduction in noise and disturbance.

(B) The development of helicopter landing facilities may be subject to conditions in order to ensure that the relevant criteria (1-3) are met and may also be subject to planning agreements or obligations in order to ensure an overall reduction in noise nuisance and disturbance caused by existing operations under applicants’ control."

TR14: Transport Assessments

Objectors and Supporters

1 Westminster Property Owners' Association 73 London Underground Limited 92 GVA Grimley 129 Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association 139 Westminster Society 161 London Transport Users' Committee 253 Insignia Richard Ellis Chapter 4 : Transport page 396 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

321 SWETA (South Westminster Triangle Association) 375 Government Office for London 376 London First 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 553 Kensington and Chelsea with Westminster Friends of the 632 Westminster Cycling Campaign 680 The Crown Estate 686 MOD Defence Estates 695 Ropemaker Properties Ltd 1 724 Grosvenor Limited 780 Selfridges & Co 789 St George Plc 807 London School of Economics and Political Science 814 St Martins Property Investments Limited

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) The thresholds for the requirement of a Traffic Impact Statement, as provided in Appendix 4.1, appear low and should be revised, particularly in light of the existing high public transport accessibility to the borough (as noted in the UDP). The requirement for these statements could delay the planning application process, especially as the thresholds are set so low. The requirements for preparing a transport impact assessment should not be used as a reason for delaying the planning process. The main reason for preparing a transport impact assessment is to demonstrate the impact of the new development on the network. The majority of the developments in central London will be a re- development, i.e. there are already trips being attracted to the area by the existing developments. The Council must ensure that they are only considering the net additional trips rather than the total trips attracted to the new development. [680]

(b) (i) Accept that major new development, which is likely to have a significant impact on transportation infrastructure, should be assessed through a transport impact statement.

(ii) In the context of the very high levels of public transport available in the City of Westminster, the thresholds for the provision of transport impact statement set out in Appendix 4.1 are too low.

(iii) It is likely that the provision of transport impact statements in respect of development as described in Appendix 4.1 will unnecessarily delay the planning application process.

(iv) It would be wrong for policy to seek to create a basis of incremental levies on development to make up existing deficiencies in the public transport infrastructure on the grounds that public transport networks cannot cope. That public transport infrastructure cannot cope is largely as a result of national and regional investment in, and the management of, public transport infrastructure rather than as a result of very marginal changes to the total built area of Westminster. Whilst there are exceptions such as in Paddington, the City Council argues, for example at Paragraph 1.14 of Part I that there is unlikely to be an overall increase in employment. If this is right, then new development largely represents a redistribution of economic activity and employment. It is

Chapter 4 : Transport page 397 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

therefore not appropriate to seek to transfer the burden of funding of transportation on to relatively small net changes in activity, which would arise from the thresholds set out in Appendix 4.1. [724]

(c) (i) Whilst this requirement is supported it must be cross referenced and linked to STRA 6 & TRANS 9. It must be for developers to fund TIS’s and through S106 Agreement carry out enhancements found to be necessary to relieve increased congestion where identified.

(ii) Appendix 4.1 table at para 1.7 (7) is acceptable. [73]

(d) (i) No change, but: supported.

(ii) However, with regard to our comments at First Deposit stage, see comments on the PSPA chapter regarding assessing the cumulative transport impact of all the developments in that area.

(iii) Support the general thrust of the policy, but consider that the first sentence of (A) should be redrafted as follows:-

"All development proposals will be assessed for their cumulative impact in contributing to traffic generation and on on-street parking, congestion, parking, safety, public transport, cyclists and pedestrians".

(iv) In the case of the PSPA and potentially elsewhere, the cumulative impact of all developments on public transport and on the local road system is what should be looked at. [381]

(e) (i) Policy far too restrictive should allow for flexible approach to account for needs of London's role as one of the world's most important capital cities. [253]

(f) (i) Part (D) of this policy refers to the intention of the City Council to impose conditions on a planning permission or seek legal agreements to enable necessary transport improvements arising from a proposed development to be carried out "in conjunction with the development".

(ii) Given that such improvements may need to be carried out by a third party, for example London Transport, in relation to improvements to underground stations, it is unreasonable for the implementation of a development to be tied to the implementation of improvements which are outside the control of the developer. The policy should be amended to allow for flexibility in the timing of transport improvements. In part (D) of the policy replace "in conjunction with the development" at the end of the first sentence with "at an appropriate time". [780]

(g) (i) In respect of the Council’s requirement for the developer or applicant to prepare a Transport Impact Assessment, we recommended that the threshold floorspace size for restaurant use set out in Appendix 4.1 is amended to comply with Government Guidance set out in ‘PPG13 Transport’ (Consultation Draft, October 1999) (Para 68, Annex B) i.e. greater than 1000 square metres for Retail and Non-Retail Uses (In this case, although not specifically stated Non-Retail includes A3 Uses). Further, we recommend that the floorspace threshold the size is used to the exclusion of other guidelines proposed by the Council in Appendix 4.1, such as anticipated vehicle and pedestrian movements, for which there is no agreed basis in Government Guidance. The ‘double application’ of

Chapter 4 : Transport page 398 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

thresholds and guidelines will only serve to confuse and complicate the development process.

(ii) Reasons: In accordance with Government Guidance, it is considered that the use of artificially low floorspace thresholds for development proposals. Such as in the case of A3 : Restaurant uses, can not be justified in terms of the likely level of traffic impact and will only serve to significantly impact on the speed and efficiency of the development process. Similarly, the requirement for a TIA for relatively small proposals places an extra burden on the developer or applicant and the planning system alike, which is unlikely to countenance by any material increase in vehicle and pedestrian movements.

(iii) With respect to the Council’s proposed use of forecast traffic generation levels as a parallel means of assessing whether a TIA is required or not, we do not consider that these Guidelines are sufficiently ‘clear cut’ and are likely to lead to protracted discussions between developers or applicants and the planning authority, particularly where forecast traffic generation levels for a new development proposal can not be agreed. For this reason, consider that it would, on balance, be much better and simpler to stick to the thresholds set out in Government Guidance. [92]

(h) (i) In any proposed new development, which is likely to have a significant impact on transportation infrastructure, it is noted that the City Council proposes that it should be assessed through a transport and impact statement.

(ii) In the context of the very high levels of public transport available in the City of Westminster, the thresholds for the provision of transport impact statement set out in Appendix 4.1 are too low.

(iii) Likely that the provision of transport impact statements in respect of development as described in Appendix 4.1 will unnecessarily delay the planning application process.

(iv) Would be wrong for policy to seek to create a basis of incremental levies on development to make up existing deficiencies in the public transport infrastructure on the grounds that public transport networks cannot cope. That public transport infrastructure cannot cope is largely as a result of national and regional investment in, and the management of, public transport infrastructure cannot cope is largely as a result of national and regional investment in, and the management of, public transport infrastructure rather than as a result of very marginal changes to the total built area of Westminster. Whilst there are exceptions such as in Paddington, the City Council argues, for example, at Paragraph 1.14 of Part 1 that there is unlikely to be an overall increase in employment. If this is right then new development largely represents a redistribution of economic activity and employment.

(v) It is not appropriate to see to transfer the burden of funding of transportation on to relatively small net changes in activity, which would arise from the thresholds set out in Appendix 4.1. Consequently, St Martins Property Corporation Limited objects to the policy and the reasoned justification and to the related Appendix 4.1. [814]

(j) (i) Support Policy TRANS 14 requiring Transport Impact Statements but question whether the size of development for which such Statements will be required has not been set too high. Object that the policy does not also require a Green Chapter 4 : Transport page 399 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Travel Plan to be drawn up by developers setting out measures to discourage reliance on the use of motor cars by those employed on or visiting the site of the new development. [129]

(k) (i) Accept the general requirement of a transport and impact statement for major new developments, this should not slow down the planning process and should recognise that Westminster has probably the best public transport provision in the UK. Capacity problems within the system area a factor of national policy and under-investment, not the strain created by the level of development in Westminster. [376]

(l) (i) The Policy introduces an onerous requirement on developments that is unlikely to be justified in many cases, particularly where adopted Planning Briefs have already identified the transport issues that developers need to address. The Policy should therefore be altered so that the requirement does not apply where adopted Planning Briefs exist. [686]

(m) (i) The thresholds for the requirement of a Traffic Impact Statement, as provided in Appendix 4.1, appear low and should be revised, particularly in light of the existing high public transport accessibility to the borough (as noted in the UDP). The requirement for these statements could delay the planning application process, especially as the thresholds are set so low.

(ii) The requirements for preparing a Transport Impact Assessment should not be used as a reason for delaying the planning process. The main reason for preparing a Transport Impact Assessment is to demonstrate the impact of the new development on the network. The majority of the developments in central London will be a re-development, i.e. there are already trips being attracted to the area by the existing developments. The Council must ensure that they are only considering the net additional trips rather than the total trips attracted to the new development. [695]

(n) (i) Conditional withdrawal. Reference to Transport Impact Assessment has been changed to transport Assessment. [2]

(o) (i) The policy (B) indicates that Transport Impact Statements will be sought in larger developments. Presumably it is intended that the thresholds will be as set out in PPG13, when finally published? [375]

(p) (ii) In respect of the Council’s requirement for the developer or applicant to prepare a Transport Impact Assessment, we recommended that the threshold floorspace size for restaurant use set out in Appendix 4.1 is amended to comply with Government Guidance set out in ‘PPG13 Transport’ (Consultation Draft, October 1999) (Para 68, Annex B) i.e. greater than 1,000 square metres for Retail and Non-Retail Uses (In this case, although not specifically stated Non-Retail includes A3 Uses). Further, we recommend that the floorspace threshold the size is used to the exclusion of other guidelines proposed by the Council in Appendix 4.1, such as anticipated vehicle and pedestrian movements, for which there is no agreed basis in Government Guidance. The ‘double application’ of thresholds and guidelines will only serve to confuse and complicate the development process.

(iii) In accordance with Government Guidance, it is considered that the use of artificially low floorspace thresholds for development proposals. Such as in the case of A3 : Restaurant uses, can not be justified in terms of the likely level of Chapter 4 : Transport page 400 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

traffic impact and will only serve to significantly impact on the speed and efficiency of the development process. Similarly, the requirement for a TIA for relatively small proposals places an extra burden on the developer or applicant and the planning system alike, which is unlikely to countenance by any material increase n vehicle and pedestrian movements.

(iv) With respect to the Council’s proposed use of forecast traffic generation levels as a parallel means of assessing whether a TIA is required or not, do not consider that these Guidelines are sufficiently ‘clear cut’ and are likely to lead to protracted discussions between developers or applicants and the planning authority, particularly where forecast traffic generation levels for a new development proposal can not be agreed. For this reason, consider that it would, on balance, be much better and simpler to stick to the thresholds set out in Government Guidance. [789]

(q) (i) Do not accept the Council’s reasoning that TIS are only applicable to the Plan where they are related to development bound by the Town & Country Act. The Council’s line of argument is not consistent on this matter since TRANS 1 and TRANS 15 are deemed relevant to the Plan even though they do not relate to Town and Country Act applicable development. Note considerable space devoted within the opening section of the Transport Chapter under Council’s Strategy (paragraphs 4.15 - 4.20) to the Council’s opposition to congestion charging; once again this is not Town and Country Act “development” nor in the Council’s arena of control.

(ii) SWeTA support the requirement for TIS (as outlined in Appendix 4.1) for new planning developments operating within the framework of Town & Country Planning Law. Support the idea of extending the requirement to local road traffic management schemes. Acknowledge this is not a requirement of central government planning guidance but nonetheless believe this should not preclude its adoption. The difficulties the Council encountered in introducing road traffic management schemes in Soho and elsewhere demonstrate the need for this extension (not withstanding, there would need to be an alteration to the required elements making up the TIS for these traffic management schemes). [321]

(r) (i) Accept that major new development, which is likely to have a significant impact on transportation infrastructure, should be assessed through a transport impact statement.

(ii) In the context of the very high levels of public transport available in the City of Westminster, the thresholds for the provision of transport impact statement set out in Appendix 4.1 are too low.

(iii) It is likely that the provision of transport impact statements in respect of development as described in Appendix 4.1 will unnecessarily delay the planning application process.

(iv) It would be wrong for policy to seek to create a basis of incremental levies on development to make up existing deficiencies in the public transport infrastructure on the grounds that public transport networks cannot cope. That public transport infrastructure cannot cope is largely as a result of national and regional investment in, and the management of, public transport infrastructure rather than as a result of very marginal changes to the total built area of Westminster. Whilst there are exceptions such as in Paddington, the City Council argues, for example at Paragraph 1.14 of Part I, that there is unlikely to Chapter 4 : Transport page 401 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

be an overall increase in employment. If this is right, then new development largely represents a redistribution of economic activity and employment.

(v) It is not appropriate to seek to transfer the burden of funding of transportation on to relatively small net changes in activity, which would arise from the thresholds set out in Appendix 4.1. Accordingly WPOA object to the policy and the reasoned justification and to the related Appendix 4.1. [1]

(s) (i) Support the principles underlying the need for Transport Impact Statements as set out in appendix 4.1. [139]

(t-v) (i) Support the new policy on Transport Impact Statements. [553] [632] [161]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) Do not agree it is too onerous or will delay the process. To require a TIS is in line with Government Guidance, although Government has yet to issue specific guidance, e.g. on threshold levels.

(ii) Appendix 4.1 invites developers to discuss the City Council's requirements with officers at an early stage so they can advise of the requirements in each case. [680]

(b) (iii) Do not agree it is too onerous or will delay the process. To require a TIS is in line with Government Guidance, although Government has yet to issue specific guidance, e.g. on threshold levels.

(iv) Appendix 4.1 invites developers to discuss the City Council's requirements with officers at an early stage so they can advise of the requirements in each case.

(v) The current wording is intended to suggest that developers should be expected to wholly fund major improvements to public transport, but there be cases where problems that developments might potentially cause could be overcome or at least eased by relatively minor investment. [724]

(c) (i) Feel it is already clear from paragraph 4.107 that the City Council expects to provide the Transport Impact Statement where one is necessary. [73]

(d) (i) Noted. Have made an appropriate change.

(ii) First deposit - The City Council cannot expect developers to provide anything other than an analysis of their own developments. Where necessary the City Council will seek to co-ordinate all the proposals, but the PSPA is a special case. So much so that it has its own chapter in the Plan as well as several planning briefs. [381]

(e) (i) Do not agree that the policy is too prescriptive. It is as flexible as the Plan generally and Appendix 4.1 invites developers to discuss the City Council's requirements with officers at an early stage so they can advise of the requirements in each case. [253]

(f) (i) Each case would be dealt with on its own merits. There might be occasions where the scenario painted did occur, but such scenarios would still be covered by the existing wording, e.g. if a developer funded a scheme through a Section

Chapter 4 : Transport page 402 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

106 agreement, which Transport for London implemented at a later date, the Section 106 would still be "in conjunction with the development". [780]

(g) (i) Government has yet to issue any Guidance on Transport Impact Statements.

(ii) Do not believe that the Council's use of guidelines as well as thresholds will confuse or complicate. They are intended to be helpful. As paragraph 1.7 of Appendix 1 suggests "Applicants should discuss the scope of the TIS with the City Council at an early stage". If they do this, there should not be any confusion. [92]

(h,l,m)(I) Do not agree it is too onerous. To require a TIS is in line with Government Guidance, although Government has yet to issue specific guidance, e.g. on threshold levels.

(ii) Appendix 4.1 invites developers to discuss the City Council's requirements with officers at an early stage so they can advise of the requirements in each case. [807] [686] [695]

(i) (i) Do not agree it is too onerous or will delay the process. To require a TIS is in line with Government Guidance, although Government has yet to issue specific guidance, e.g. on threshold levels.

(ii) Appendix 4.1 invites developers to discuss the City Council's requirements with officers at an early stage so they can advise of the requirements in each case.

(iii) The current wording is intended to suggest that developers should be expected to wholly fund major improvements to public transport, but there be cases where problems that developments might potentially cause could be overcome or at least eased by relatively minor investment. [814]

(j) (i) Support welcome. Agree that the City Council should require Green Travel Plans and the City Council is currently in the process of drawing up its own, but it will not always be possible to link them to developments as they need to be applied to employers rather than landowners or developers. [129]

(k) (i) Do not agree it is too onerous or will delay the process. To require a TIS is in line with Government Guidance, although Government has yet to issue specific guidance, e.g. on threshold levels.

(ii) Appendix 4.1 invites developers to discuss the City Council's requirements with officers at an early stage so they can advise of the requirements in each case. [376]

(n) (i) Have now changed accordingly.

(ii) Do not believe that changing the wording as suggested would make any difference. [2]

(o) (i) Do not necessarily agree that figures published in national Government guidance will be appropriate to central London, but will review the threshold levels within the policy if and when guidance is received from Government. [375]

(p) (i) Government has yet to issue any Guidance on Transport Impact Statements.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 403 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) Do not believe that the Council's use of guidelines as well as thresholds will confuse or complicate. They are intended to be helpful. As paragraph 1.7 of Appendix 1 suggests "Applicants should discuss the scope of the TIS with the City Council at an early stage". If they do this, there should not be any confusion. [789]

(q) (i) Support for the requirement for a TIS welcome.

(ii) But the methods the City Council uses for designing and consulting on traffic management schemes that are not linked to developments are not matters for the Plan. [321]

(r) (i) Do not agree it is too onerous or will delay the process. To require a TIS is in line with Government Guidance, although Government has yet to issue specific guidance, e.g. on threshold levels.

(ii) Appendix 4.1 invites developers to discuss the City Council's requirements with officers at an early stage so they can advise of the requirements in each case.

(iii) The current wording is intended to suggest that developers should be expected to wholly fund major improvements to public transport, but there be cases where problems that developments might potentially cause could be overcome or at least eased by relatively minor investment.

(s) (i) Support welcomed. [139] [553] [632] [161]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.14.1.1 There is little published guidance against which to review Policy TRANS 14. Although the 1999 Consultation Draft of PPG13 did suggest some relevant thresholds for Transport Assessments, these did not appear in the published PPG13 in March 2001. They have been promised in the form of a Best Practice Guide, which has not yet appeared. In the absence of such guidance, the levels selected by the LPA in Appendix 4.1 appear to be reasonable, having regard to the generality of Chapter 4 of PPG13. In particular, paragraphs 84-5 of the PPG usefully list the sorts of situation where planning obligations may be appropriate in connection with proposed development. I appreciate that TRANS 14 deals with Transport Assessments, rather than Planning Obligations. However, it seems a logical connection exists between the two. In other words, the availability of an agreed Assessment may well clarify the nature and extent of an Obligation as regards access and mobility.

4.14.2 I do not accept the argument that, because Westminster enjoys the highest accessibility by public transport, small incremental change by development may in effect be ignored. On the contrary, since Central London enjoys such high accessibility with correspondingly very intense trip density (see CD 5/7), any development that generates a significant movement of people or vehicles needs to be planned very carefully indeed. One of the benefits of setting fairly low thresholds for transport assessments would be the requirement for developers to look carefully and critically at local mobility and access arrangements. In the words of the PPG (paragraph 81): “LPAs should take a more pro- active approach to the implementation of planning policies on transport and should set out sufficient detail in plans to provide a transparent basis for the use of planning conditions if appropriate and for negotiations with developers on the use of planning obligations, to deliver more sustainable transport solutions”.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 404 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

4.14.2 If the provisions of Appendix 4.1 are examined, it is apparent that intending developers will need to make an early appraisal of all the multi-modal aspects of their proposals, not merely the ones to which commercial or economic analysis may normally be directed. It might be helpful to direct attention to the complementary UDP Chapter 4 policies (e.g. TRANS1-4) since conformity with these provisions may require aspects of development to be altered or improved before formal planning submission. Improvements to the local transport infrastructure may involve (a) physical alteration or adaptation of development schemes, (b) a proportionate financial contribution to necessary works either on or off-site or (c) the delay or phasing of development in accordance with external improvement in access. So far from delaying the planning process, it may well expedite it, simply because the requirement for a transport assessment will often encourage a wider analysis of the planning aspects of individual proposals and hence inform and illuminate subsequent negotiations.

4.14.3 I have a degree of sympathy with the objection by SWETA [321]. The LPA are no doubt correct to say that the impact of traffic management schemes do not fall to be considered under planning legislation. However, such measures quite often escape the sort of rigorous evaluation and analysis to which the development of land and buildings are subjected. Indeed, one of the results of implementing TRANS 14 may be to identify a need or opportunity to fund associated traffic management measures, such as alterations to local traffic regulation or to controlled parking. In such cases, it would be reasonable for SWETA to expect satisfactory consultation and conformity with other Chapter 4 policies. I note that this is presumably the intention behind the inclusion of Policy TRANS 14(C) and the LPA may wish to insert relevant cross-references both here and in Appendix 4.1.

4.14.4 The content of Policy TRANS 14 does not seem to impose any undue financial burden on developers or development. It is clear from PPG13 that only proportionate and reasonable contributions for transport-related improvements may be made (see footnote 25 on page 30). Any transport assessment will clearly have to analyse the before and after situation. Any needs assessment will logically be based on net, rather than gross, traffic generation. Where the combined access requirements of several development proposals are involved, as referred to in the SEBRA objection [381] no doubt the LPA will apply C1/97 principles in the apportionment of the appropriate contributions between each. In such circumstances, a joint transport assessment might be in order and a statement to this effect might usefully be added to TRANS 14(A).

Recommendations

S R4.14.1 Modify Policy TRANS 14 and its supporting text in accordance with the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP.

S R4.14.2 Modify Policy TRANS 14(B) by the addition of the following sentence: "In the case of composite, closely related or incremental development, a Joint Transport Assessment may be necessary and may be required".

S R4.14.3 Modify Policy TRANS 14 (C) and Appendix 4.1 by the insertion of suitable references to relevant and related Chapter 4 Policies.

TR15: Traffic Reduction

Objectors and Supporters

2 Greater London Authority 113 Ramblers Association

Chapter 4 : Transport page 405 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

131 Marylebone Association 132 St Marylebone Society 139 Westminster Society 161 London Transport Users' Committee 321 SWETA (South Westminster Triangle Association) 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 632 Westminster Cycling Campaign 719 Charlotte Street Association 724 Grosvenor Limited 744 National Car Parks Ltd 807 London School of Economics and Political Science

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Paragraph 4.111 For completeness, the Mayor’s traffic restriction target, to be adopted as part of Policy TRANS 15, should be included in the text, perhaps as a new paragraph 4.111a, or as an Annex to Chapter 4. [381]

(b) (i) Conditional withdrawal. Wording added.

(ii) Partially sustain objection - Although the proposed changes are welcome , reference must be made to the need to integrate public transport, walking and cycling.

(iii) Minded to withdraw if:

Insert integrate into policy so it reads … the City Council will seek to increase the use, integration and development of public transport. [2]

(c) (i) Change welcome but response to Clear Zone not accepted. Many traffic policies do not relate to land use.

(ii) This should include a policy specifically to reduce through traffic; in East Marylebone this amounts to 70% on some roads. It should also include a commitment to introduce Clear Zones and to co-operation with neighbouring Boroughs to implement measures to reduce through-traffic. This has not hitherto been the case in East Marylebone or Fitzrovia and Covent Garden, where Camden is implementing Clear Zones. [719]

(d) (i) Reduction of motor vehicles will, undoubtedly reduce pollution. However, even electrically driven vehicles will add to congestion. Suggest 'private' for 'motor'. Thus public service motor vehicles - police, fire, ambulance, refuse etc. are excluded. [132]

(e) (i) The committee cannot accept that through or commuter traffic is more undesirable than local traffic. Therefore delete :

'in particular to reduce through & car commuter traffic"[161]

(f) (i) The committee would like to see the adoption of LPAC traffic reduction targets and such measures as are necessary to bring these levels of reduction about.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 406 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) “The city Council will adopt the LPAC traffic reduction target and implement both demand management policies and the improvements to the alternatives to bring about these reductions.” [61]

(g) (i) Pleased the Council agree that good signage is required. In view of the brevity of the proposed addition, surprised the Council are resisting its inclusion. Note an additional sentence in paragraph 4.110 concerning “channelling the benefits of traffic restrain and reduction towards improving safe, effective and enjoyable routes and other facilities for cyclists and pedestrians”. Believe its inclusion would make the rather obtuse statement of policy above more insightful, meaningful and practical. It also has the added virtue of being couched in plain English.

(ii) Accept proposed inclusion may be better added within the actual policy application statement of TRANS 3 Pedestrians, or Trans 4 - Improving the Quality Reliability and Accessibility of Public Transport. [321]

(h) (i) The City Council is ignoring the evidence from other cities within UK and across Europe where car free developments have been implemented successfully. The Council is too presumptuous and overly prescriptive and sweeping (given the diversity of urban planning contexts found in the City) to state categorically there is no scope for car free residential developments. Furthermore as the Council themselves recognise in their 1st deposit response to us on-street parking, demand has already reached its limit, (with no scope to meet additional demand through fresh supply) and therefore a car free residential could not possibly accentuate the existing on-street parking problem.

(ii) Add a statement saying the City Council

"Will consider the idea of a car free housing development planning obligation when the development is deemed major, namely over 50 units, and is either within CAZ or within 500 meters of a major rail or underground interchange". [321]

(i) (i) It is essential that the UDP indicates that tighter controls on parking will involve a reduction in on street parking provision in order to free up the highway for vehicular use and thereby reduce congestion and pollution. [744]

(j) (i) Support the objective of reducing the use of motor vehicles, vehicle travel is important to commercial activity. Therefore, the right balance needs to be struck and greater emphasis placed on reducing residential as well as commercial car parking. [724]

(k) (i) Support the adoption of the traffic reduction targets set out in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. We understand that these imply a 15% reduction in traffic in Westminster. [632]

(l) (i) The City Council should however continue to press for changes to the current scheme for congestion charging.

(ii) The Council should press for concessions for residents and business around the boundaries. [131]

(m) (i) Support. [807]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 407 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(n) (i) In regard to policy TRANS 15 (Traffic Reduction), the Society supports the City Council's opposition to congestion charging on the basis that traffic reduction should be sought first through charging of workplace and other private non- residential parking. Such charging should prove adequate to secure the required levels of traffic reduction. Congestion charging should then only be considered if it is shown that parking charging is not working. We recommend that policy TRANS15 be amended to reflect this approach. [139]

(o) (i) Supported. [113]

(p) (ii) Agree strongly that any congestion charging scheme should be aimed at through traffic and commuters and not at local residents. [381]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) Agree and have added a reference in para. 4.110 [381]

(b) (i) Second deposit - Have amended as suggested

(iii) Have added reference to walking and cycling.

Presume the reference in the objection to 4.11 should be to 4.111, and have expanded on this point to read:

"The City Council will aim to reduce the use of motor vehicles by:

tighter controls on parking, and effective enforcement the introduction of traffic management and calming measures, including the possible closure of roads to exclude through traffic and the reallocation of roadspace to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport encouraging the adoption of Green Travel Plans by employers other appropriate methods to reduce the use of vehicles." [2]

(c) (i) Have added specific references to through and commuter traffic so that the policy reads "To minimise the adverse effects of traffic on the environment and amenity, the City Council will seek to increase the use and development of public transport as a viable alternative to motor vehicles and reduce the use of private motor vehicles, particularly through and commuter traffic. It will adopt the traffic reduction targets set out in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy."

(ii) Clear Zones is a package of schemes which the City Council is drawing up with its neighbours in Camden and the Corporation of London, but it is not appropriate to the Plan which is primarily land use related. [719]

(d) (i) Agree and have made change. [132]

(e) (i) The City Council believes that its residents should not be disadvantaged by their choice of living in Westminster. They should therefore be able to use their cars for local journeys (as they would if they lived outside central London), whilst still subject to a degree of restraint. The inclusion of the words "in particular" show that the policy does apply to all car users, but to some more than others. [161]

(f) (i) The City Council feels that the LPAC figure of 30 - 35% is unrealistically high, and it is noticeable that central Government has not committed itself to any

Chapter 4 : Transport page 408 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

targets and the Mayor's Transport Strategy includes a much lower target of 10 - 15% reduction in central London. [161]

(g) (i) Second deposit - Have added appropriate wording to para. 4.47

(ii) First deposit - Agree that good signing is required, but do not feel this needs to be stated in the Plan, or that it would be appropriate in TRANS 15. [321]

(h) (i) Second deposit - Do not agree. The Second Deposit draft does not rule out car free development, but seeks ways of mitigating against increasing on-street pressure, one of which might be car free development.

(ii) First deposit - The City Council has considered the issue of residential parking standards on several recent occasions, the most recent being on 26 June when a Special meeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee reiterated previous decisions, and the City Council continues to operate minimum parking standards in new residential developments.

(iii) The Committee feels that residents will continue to want to own cars and that to provide housing with little or no parking would simply mean that those cars would have to be parked on-street. On-street residents parking facilities are already oversubscribed. [321]

(i) (i) Paragraph 4.143, which outlines the aims of the parking policies refers to the need to reduce the overall level of parking. However, the issue of on-street parking is not really one for a land use plan. It is tackled in more detail in the City Council's Integrated Transport Strategy which does seek to reduce the overall level of on-street parking. [744]

(j) (i) Support welcome. The City Council believes that its residents should not be disadvantaged by their choice of living in Westminster. They should therefore be able to use their cars for local journeys (as they would if they lived outside central London), whilst still subject to a degree of restraint. The inclusion of the words "in particular" show that the policy does apply to all car users, but to some more than others.

(ii) Paragraph 4.112 also recognises the need to cater for the legitimate need of the business and commercial sector. [724]

(k) (i) Support welcomed. [632]

(i) The City Council is lobbying against the congestion charging scheme and seeking further concessions should the scheme go ahead. [131]

(m) (i) Support welcome. [807]

(n) (i) Welcome support for the Council's stance on congestion charging, but paragraph 4.19 sets out concerns that the City Council has over workplace parking charges and neither the Mayor nor the City Council have the power to introduce charging for other forms of private non-residential parking. [139]

(o) (i) Support welcome. [113]

(p) (i) Support welcome. [81]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 409 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.15.1 There is a very welcome degree of agreement as between the LPA and most of the previous objectors to Policy TRANS 15. In particular, there seems to be broad acceptance of the Mayor’s and the London Plan’s target reduction of 10% in vehicular traffic in Central London. Since the close of the UDP Inquiry, the Central London Congestion Charge Scheme has been implemented, with apparent success and with the seeming effect of the target reduction in traffic. It is therefore appropriate to delete all references to it in the UDP, as indeed is proposed in the pre-inquiry version of the UDP. The other pre-inquiry alterations to the UDP appear to be in line with national and regional planning guidance and are accordingly endorsed. To the extent that some objections have not thus been met, I would make the following comments (since I do not recommend further modification):

[719] The concept of Clear Zones appears to relate to a package of traffic-regulation matters aimed at reducing various forms of pollution, in concert with adjoining London Boroughs. The subject does not figure in the UDP and the objection is therefore to its omission. However, as the LPA point out (and I accept) it does not directly relate to the use of land and buildings and accordingly does not merit inclusion in the UDP.

[161] The former LPAC traffic reduction targets have been overtaken by those set by the GLA and accordingly the LPA are correct in adopting the latter.

[321] The concept of car-free housing is being increasingly adopted but it is an initiative for developers and housing associations, rather than one to be prescribed by LPAs. In any event, their development will be facilitated by my later recommendation to abandon minimum residential parking standards (see TR23).

[744] The subject of on-street parking is dealt with elsewhere in the UDP (see TR21).

[139] The imposition and scale of charges for off-street PNR parking is a matter for the corporate decision of the LPA and should not be included in the UDP.

Recommendation

S R4.15.1 Modify Policy TRANS 15 and its supporting text in accordance with the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP.

TR16: The Road Hierarchy

Objectors and Supporters

10 Pimlico FREDA (Residents' Association) 321 SWETA (South Westminster Triangle Association) 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 680 The Crown Estate

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) The Map sets out four levels of the road hierarchy. Our objection is to one feature of the Map, the non-inclusion of the route formed by Praed Street or Eastbourne Terrace as part of the third level - “local distributor roads” - and the

Chapter 4 : Transport page 410 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

classification of these two roads as part of the fourth and lowest level, “local roads”. For good reason, these roads - which have largely commercial frontages - are used by buses and taxis, and other vehicles serving Paddington Station and the PSPA, and in doing so many of the vehicles are using part of a through route. The present hierarchy could be interpreted, despite the classification of the route over Bishops Bridge as a “local distributor road”, as a Policy to channel local distributor traffic onto the residential Westbourne and Gloucester Terraces (also classified as “local distributor roads”) in preference to the Praed Street or Eastbourne Terrace route, which would be a nonsense. In addition, it would make no sense (paragraph 4.120) to light and maintain Praed Street and Eastbourne Terrace to a lower standard than Westbourne and Gloucester Terraces.

PROPOSAL

(ii) Designate Praed Street and Eastbourne Terrace as “local distributor roads”.

(iii) With regard to our point made at First Deposit stage regarding minimising, without conventional “traffic calming” (as applied to “local roads”), the impact on “local distributor” roads Westbourne and Gloucester Terraces of traffic noise, vibration, speed, pollution and accidents, we are glad that this has been noted. The same objective still applies to Stanhope Terrace, mentioned (in association with the other two Terraces) in our comments on the First Deposit version, but there is the difference that this road is now classified only as a local road, rather than as a “local distributor” road, with which we agree. [381]

(b) (i) Maintain the objections raised during the first deposit UDP review. Access from major developments will not be permitted directly onto GLA or London wide distributor roads, but it should be noted that in many cases alternative access points may not be available, and if they are, it may result in longer journeys, transfer traffic to different roads or areas, and increase pollution levels. Access directly to these roads may affect traffic flow, but may also represent the most beneficial route. The majority of developments in Regent Street have direct access on Regent Street, which is a distributor road, as there is no alternative. The Council should take into consideration the constraint on provision of access to the developments when assessing a proposal for redevelopment along Regent Street.

(ii) Access from major developments will not be permitted directly onto GLA or London wide distributor roads, but it should be noted that in many cases alternative access points may not be available, and if they are, it may result in longer journeys, transfer traffic to different roads or areas, and increase pollution levels. Access directly to these roads may affect traffic flow, but may also represent the most beneficial route.

(iii) The majority of developments in Regent Street have direct access on to Regent Street, which is a distributor road, as there is no alternative. The council should take into consideration the constraint on provision of access to the developments when assessing a proposal for redevelopment along Regent Street. [680]

(c) (i) Insert within the Policy Application

“The City Council will seek to relieve the un-manageable stress on Vauxhall Bridge Road, which has reached beyond its traffic capacity, through pressing the Mayor to add the Belgrave Road Corridor to the GLA Road Network.” Chapter 4 : Transport page 411 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

The existing arrangements means Vauxhall Bridge Road is unable to carry strategic traffic along the Inner London Ring Road efficiently and with minimum environmental damage to local residents. In recognition of this the City Council have described 'Vauxhall Bridge Road as a traffic congestion hotspot'. (The words are those of the Leader of the Council in discussion of World Squares For All at City Council’s Transport Committee meeting.)

(ii) Added pressure will occur following the introduction of the World Squares for all and the congestion charging zone. Already delays are experienced at the top of Vauxhall Bridge Road, with queues on the approaches to Neathouse Place, as strategic traffic snarls with buses, taxis and pedestrian traffic emerging from Victoria Rail or Bus or Underground Station.

(iii) The outline Victoria station master plan proposes the re-introduction of 2-way traffic in front of the station on Victoria street and Vauxhall bridge Road. The introduction of 2 way traffic will make traffic flows still more complicated and heighten still further the congestion problems on the north end of Vauxhall Bridge Road.

(v) The City Council needs to acknowledge the fundamental and irresolvable conflict between differing traffic flows in the area, particularly that connected with the huge number of rush hour office workers crossing Vauxhall Bridge Road heading to or from Victoria Street, and accepting the only resolution is through diverting northbound strategic away from this vital public transport interchange and route it down the Belgrave Road Corridor and Buckingham Palace Road. The introduction of such a policy would support and strengthen TRANS 1 (A), TRANS (2), TRANS3 (A), TRANS 4, TRANS 5 (A) and TRANS 8 (A).

(vii) It is worth noting here the inclusion of Belgrave Road corridor within the GLA Road Network would provide an important opportunity to introduce a north bound bus lane on the Inner London Ring Road between Vauxhall Bridge and Victoria Station which is presently an impossible proposition. [321]

(d) (i) Support general thrust of policy but some "secondary" roads such as Gloucester Terrace, Westbourne Terrace and Stanhope Terrace W2, are very or almost 100% residential and as traffic calming measures are not allowed to be placed in these roads in the form of humps or cushions etc. every effort must be made to minimise the environmental impact on these roads and residents who live on them from noise, vibration, speed, pollution and accidents. Policies to minimise these problems should be vigorously pursued. [381]

(e) (i) Support this Policy, its aim, application, reasoning and associated Map 4.1. [10]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) The status of these roads has not changed since First Deposit and it is not therefore appropriate to object. [381]

(b) (ii) Regent Street is a Local Distributor, not a London Distributor.

(iii) Very few developments, if any, have direct vehicular access on to Regent Street, but are either serviced from the rear or from Regent Street itself.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 412 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iv) The City Council would take into account the need to service property when considering any applications for redevelopment. [680]

(c) (i) Until recently the Belgrave Road corridor was part of the strategic road network but was not included in the TLRN after consultation and after many years of work by the City Council which had sough tits removal.

(ii) The City Council does not want to go back to a situation where there are two strategic roads through Pimlico instead of one. [321]

(d) (i) Support welcome and point noted. [381]

(e) (i) Support welcome. [10]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.16.1 Policy TRANS 16 clearly derives from adopted UDP Policy TRANS 2, which was somewhat laboriously entitled “Changing the traffic pattern to enable roads to fulfil the function for which they are best suited”. The present Policy is considerably simplified and sets out (a) to categorise the City’s road network hierarchy, according to the advice and terminology of RPG3, and (b) to limit the number and locations of future access points on the major distributor roads so defined. The three-tier hierarchy is generally as described in Table 6.3 of RPG 3 (CD 4/5) which I find a little confusing since it differs in terminology, if not in functional categories, from that conventionally used since the publication of the Buchanan Report (1963) “Traffic in Towns” and in numerous later official publications (e.g. DB32(1992)). Since the UDP is intended for a wide audience, I would strongly recommend the adoption of the rather more conventional terms, albeit subtitled using the RPG3 nomenclature for the sake of conformity with the latter.

4.16.2 Most of the objections to TRANS 16 [10,321,381] relate to the inclusion or exclusion of certain links from the major distributor network. Whilst I sympathise with the interests involved, I do not consider it my proper function, nor do I possess all the evidence, to try to adjudicate on these matters. In the case of the Belgrave Road (A3213) and Vauxhall Bridge Road (A202) nexus, I note with approval the LPA’s successful, if protracted, efforts to have the former taken out of the major distributor network. My limited comments on the possible improvement of the latter are set out later (see TR18). The content of Policy TRANS 16 is generally supported, except that I would recommend its subdivision into two parts in order (a) to describe the hierarchy and (b) to set out the limits on new frontage access. In connection with the latter, I would recommend the inclusion of a cross-reference to Policies TRANS 1-4 in recognition of the sort of secondary problems of access correctly identified by the Crown Estate [680].

Recommendations

S R4.16.1 Modify the supporting text to Policy TRANS 16, generally in accordance with the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP.

S R4.18.2 Modify Policy TRANS 16 to read as follows:

"POLICY TRANS 16: THE ROAD HIERARCHY

(A) The City Council has defined a hierarchy of roads within Westminster and classifies them, by name and function, in relation to their relative importance

Chapter 4 : Transport page 413 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

as through routes or roads for local movement and access. They are shown on the Proposals Map and also on Map 4.6 in the Written Statement as:

(1) Primary Distributor Roads (TfL London Road Network (TLRN)). (2) District Distributor Roads (London or Local Distributor Roads). (3) Local Distributor Roads.

(B) The City Council will not normally permit major development proposals to have direct vehicular access on to the defined Primary or District Distributor Road network. Where no reasonable alternative to direct access exists, the number of individual new access points on the Distributor Roads will be kept to a minimum and will not be permitted in close proximity to road junctions or wherever the provision of an access might adversely affect the safety and free flow of traffic, including pedestrian traffic, having regard to Policies TRANS 1- 4."

S R4.18.3 Modify the terminology of the Written Statement and Map 4.6 and the notation on the Proposals Map to accord with the above.

TR17: Protecting Filling Stations

Objectors and Supporters

131 Marylebone Association 132 St Marylebone Society 375 Government Office for London 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 632 Westminster Cycling Campaign 697 Pimlico Capital Ltd 724 Grosvenor Limited

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) The Policy is incomplete and should be expanded as follows :-

“(D)The City Council will resist the addition of general retail facilities to existing filling stations if the trade generated by these facilities would disturb the operation of the filling station or limit its capacity. ”

(ii) There is a general tendency to add mini-supermarkets to existing filling stations, often on a scale which generates turnover in excess of the turnover of the filling activity (that of the filling station proper). While this may provide a useful service, it can also create problems such that there is a need for planning control, especially with regard to off-street waiting facilities. The general retail facilities may be used by customers who take advantage of their ability to come by car to the filling station and wait there when they only want to buy goods, without re-filling their car; this may disturb the operation of the filling station where these cars wait in the forecourt or at unsuitable locations in adjacent roads.

(iii) In addition, customers who have re-filled their cars will leave them at the pumps while they choose and pay for other goods, if no other waiting facilities are

Chapter 4 : Transport page 414 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

provided; in consequence, access to pumps will be blocked at times when demand for fuel is high, leading to frustrated customers queuing in their vehicles in adjacent streets.

(iv) These points are underlined by the limited scope of the protection policy, that is, it applies only to the filling stations included in the list, which are on the main road network, and so not to the filling station at Kendal Street referred to in comments at First Deposit. [381]

(b) (i) In terms of the sequential test, out-of-centre sites should, if they are to be considered, be well served by public transport. [375]

(c) (i) The term 'Distributor Road' is not a commonly used term and is not explained in the text so it would helpful to define it in paragraph 4.126. [375]

(d) (i) The filling station in Kendall Street, W2 which is just off the Edgware Road should be protected. [131]

(e) (i) Pimlico Capital is the freehold owner of the filling station at 48-46 Ebury Bridge Road. Objection is raised to its inclusion in the list of protected filling stations. This is for the following reasons:

It is not a commercially successful filling station and may close in any event due to market forces.

Only 2 of the 14 protected filling stations are on a Local Distributor road. The other one is at 1 Semley Place on Buckingham Palace Road which is close to Victoria coach station. All of the others are on London Distributor or GLA roads.

Ebury Bridge Road is a residential road. The site is opposite and flanked by residential properties. This conflicts with the stated intention of the protected filling stations (para 4.126) which is to discourage motorists passing through residential roads in search of fuel.

4. There are 3 other and better located filling stations in the vicinity i.e.. 132 Grosvenor Road, 1 Semley Place and 148 Vauxhall Bridge Road. In conclusion, 48-56 Ebury Bridge Road is an anomaly in this list of protected filling stations. It has been carried through from the old UDP. The location is very different from the others which are on main roads such as Park Lane, Edgware Road, Bayswater Road, Marylebone Road and Park Road. An exception may be justified if it was the only protected filling station in this part of Westminster but there are 3 others in better locations. Now is the time to delete 48-56 Ebury Bridge Road. This would strengthen the policy since the protected filing station would all be on GLA or London Distributor Roads. 1 Semley Place would be an exception but this may be justified by it's proximity to Victoria Coach Station and main line station. [697]

(f) (i) In view of the proximity of 48-56 Ebury Bridge Road and 1 Semley Place, Grosvenor considers that 1 Semley Place should be deleted from the list set out in Policy TRANS 17. [724]

(i) Support the inclusion of the new policy (C) to promote the availability of alternative fuels and recharging points. [632]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 415 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(h) (i) Support inclusion of penultimate three listed addresses. We regret that 61 Park Road is still empty. [132]

(i) (i) Supported. [381]

(j) (i) Support policy. Consideration should be given to keeping petrol station at Kendall Street W2, as in the area we have recently lost petrol station in Westbourne Grove (in Kensington & Chelsea) and are in danger of also having another one close in the area (also in Kensington & Chelsea) in Pembridge Road, off Westbourne Grove. [381]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) Has not changed since First Deposit and it is not therefore appropriate to ……..[381]

(b) (i) There is little point in a petrol filling station being well served by public transport. [375]

(c) (i) Have added reference in TRANS 17 to TRANS 16 (where they are defined), but the terms London Distributor Road and Local Distributor Road are outlined in RPG3 - "Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities." [375]

(d) (i) The policy is intended to retain filling stations which are on the main road network, so that traffic does not need to drive through residential areas to get fuel and, in the case of Semley Place, to ensure that a potential source of LPG remains available. This does not mean that the City Council is seeking the closure of other filling stations, but it does not intend to specifically protect them from closure. [131]

(e) & (f) (i) Like the objector says, this policy has been carried through from the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. The City Council continues to believe that there is a need to keep a certain number of filling stations and that those on the distributor and Transport for London Road Networks are the ones best kept.

(ii) The policy does however state that the Council will "resist" the loss of these filling stations, which is intended to indicate that there is some flexibility within the policy to consider each case on its merits. [697] [724]

(g) (i) Support welcomed. [632]

(h) (i) Support welcomed. [132]

(i) (i) Support welcomed. [381]

(j) (i) The policy is intended to retain filling stations which are on the main road network, so that traffic does not need to drive through residential areas to get fuel and additionally, in the case of Semley Place, to ensure that a potential source of LPG remains available. This does not mean that the City Council is seeking the closure of other filling stations, but it does not intend to specifically protect them from closure. [381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

Chapter 4 : Transport page 416 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

4.17.1 The evident intention of the LPA is to make sure that (petrol) filling stations are retained within the major distributor road network in Westminster (illustrated in map 4.6). The actual wording of Policy TRANS 17 is a little ambiguous: “off the TLRN or Distributor Road Network” could mean either “fronting the network” or “remote from the network”. Since it is presumably intended to signify the latter, when read together with the Policy Application paragraph, it would be as well to modify it. A more confusing aspect of the wording is the use of the terms “TLRN or Distributor Road Network” (as used in RPG3) rather than the more conventional terminology of “Primary, District or Local Distributors”. Elsewhere in this report (see TR16), I advise the use of the latter terms, very largely in the interests of consistency with long-standing official guidance (e.g. "Roads in Urban Areas" (HMSO 1966 and 1979)) and with development plans elsewhere.

4.17.2 The objections which relate to the establishment of small supermarkets within filling station sites [375, 381] need not be upheld since the Policy is not directed against the scale or incidence of retail trading. Perhaps it should be, in view of the fact that such trading is now commonplace, but the fact is that it is not; presumably such activity would be controlled by Policy SS 9 (see SH09). The objections [697, 724] that relate to the listing of specific premises i.e. TRANS 17(A)(2) raise some matters that are not strictly relevant to a development plan. It would be inappropriate to comment on the merits of this particular case. However, the inclusion of a filling station sited on a Local Distributor Road (q.v.) seems logical in principle; the intention is to keep a range of filling facilities available to road users and an examination of map 4.6 shows that a Policy restricted to Primary and District Distributors would unreasonably curtail this range.

4.17.3 The fact that the Ebury Bridge Road premises provide liquid petroleum gas (LPG) fuelling is, in my opinion, irrelevant to the merits of the Policy. The object is clearly to make sure that a wide range of fuels and re-fuelling facilities are readily available and in accessible locations. As I have said, locations fronting Local Distributors are entirely appropriate; the loss or retention of a site selling LPG may well be material to a development control decision but such sales can scarcely be allowed to influence the inclusion or otherwise of a specific site within the terms of TRANS 17. I am not prepared to comment on the merits of including isolated filling stations such as that in Kendal Street W2. The loss of local filling stations may be regretted by residents but the Policy is solely directed towards the retention of such facilities on the distributor network and the consequential avoidance of vehicular traffic infiltrating residential areas.

Recommendations

S R4.17.1 Modify the supporting text to Policy TRANS 17 in accordance with the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP.

S R4.17.2 Modify Policy TRANS 17(A) by the insertion of references (1-13) in place of bullet points.

S R4.17.3 Modify Policy TRANS 17(B) to read:

"(B) The City Council will normally refuse applications for new petrol and other vehicle re-fuelling or re-charging facilities unless they are accessibly located on the Major Distributor Network, as defined by TRANS 16 and shown on map 4.6."

TR18: Ensuring that Provision is Made for Necessary Road Improvements

Objectors and Supporters

Chapter 4 : Transport page 417 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

2 Greater London Authority 10 Pimlico FREDA (Residents' Association) 80 The Crown Estate 161 London Transport Users' Committee 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 695 Ropemaker Properties Ltd 1 724 Grosvenor Limited 892 Mr Dean and Sons

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) It will not be possible for the road widening to be carried out in stages, and partial widening will not achieve the objectives. The property at 283 Edgware Road will be improved and brought back into full commercial and residential use if not purchased for incorporation into a complete widening in conjunction with the proposed adjacent development. No owner of that property will contemplate redevelopment of the site when more than half is safeguarded for road widening. [892]

(b) (i) Objection sustained. Please refer to the attached letter from the Mayor of London, dated 10 October 2002, which provides more detail on this objection.

(ii) Alteration of first deposit objection due to change in TfL work programming TfL would oppose any widening of Edgware Road between Newcastle Place and would request the removal of any proposed widening scheme in the UDP as this is no longer proposed in TfL's work programme.

(iii) Current scheme does not include provision for a northbound bus lane.

(iv) This policy provides the opportunity to enhance road improvements still further than that stated by Point (A) by incorporating bus priority measures. This particularly applies to Edgware Road between Newcastle Place and Church Street.

(v) Paragraph 4.133 also requires updating in line with the policy.

(vi) The first and second sentences of paragraph 4.133 use terms which are out of date.

(vii) Delete Point (A) and replace with:

'Within the Plan period the City Council will pursue the widening of Edgware Road between Newcastle Place and Church Street and the provision of a bus lane on Edgware Road in advance of Church Street. This will require the acquisition of land affected by the safeguarding line shown on Map 4.2.'

(viii) Update paragraph 4.133 to include a reference to bus priority measures.

(ix) Delete first sentence and replace with: “Edgware Road is part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) and forms part of the A5.”

(x) Replace 'GLA Road' with 'Transport for London Road Network (TLRN)' in the second sentence. [2]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 418 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(c) (i) This should be modified because as part of the Council’s traffic reduction strategy, greater provision should be made for public transport. Improvements such as road widening can increase road capacity and may encourage increased volumes of traffic, contrary to the Council’s objective to reduce journeys made by private modes of transport. Policy should emphasis that these improvements should only take place in absolutely essential circumstances.

(ii) The necessary road improvements should be considered in circumstances where it will improve the road safety and or or are associated with redevelopment proposals. The Council should consider road widening proposals after extensive consultation with local residents and businesses. [695]

(d) (i) The committee would only support new road capacity that is necessary for improved public transport. Therefore we object to para (a) until it is demonstrated that this widening is to facilitate public transport. [161]

(e) (i) Object to the omission of UDP 1997 Policy TRANS 4(6) and MAP 19: Vauxhall Bridge Road Safeguarding Line. Reinstate, with wording suitably adjusted - to enable long-term option of local townscape and environmental enhancement; and safety measures as then desirable.

(ii) The former widening policy was aimed at providing greater carriageway capacity and has, over some 50 years, resulted on the one hand in the setting back of all post-WWII redevelopment along the south-west side of Vauxhall Bridge Road and, on the other hand, in the City Council' acquiring most of the few properties which are today still sited on the original 19th Century building line. Of the remainder, Nos. 1-3 Churton Street (Bank) and No 167 Vauxhall Bridge Road (Post Office) will, when the relevant leases fall in, become the property of the City Council as freeholder.

(iii) In this very unusual situation the safeguarding Policy now presents a unique means, at probably no significant current cost, to ensure that, eventually and if future citizens so wish, Vauxhall Bridge Road can become a broad and much more pleasant thoroughfare of consistent width throughout its length, with e.g. wider and better-apportioned pavements, major environmental improvements such as tree-planting; and much enhanced townscape and views, consistent both with national policies and with the increasing attention to be given to historic approaches into central London from the River Thames.

(iv) This future prospect should not be foregone simply because the original purpose of the safeguarding no longer obtains. On the contrary, retention fully accords with the purposes of current UDP Policy TRANS 5 - Significant minor improvements - and of the corresponding Policy TRANS 18(B) in UDP First Deposit of 26 September 2000.

(v) In the short-term, however, without retention of the safeguarding line, the Tachbrook Triangle site (First Deposit V14), now effectively Council-owned, could well be redeveloped to the present mean pavement width determined by the 19th Century building line and to heights at least those of the later properties opposite. This must result in increased reverberation of traffic noise, air pollution and wind effect - all too comparable to what pedestrians sadly now experience in much of Victoria Street. [10]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 419 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(f) (i) Support TRANS 18 (D) last bullet point and suggest instead of exceptional say "some" and also cut out "future". Advantages of having private frontage land are numerous. Control standard of footway maintenance, control of tables and chairs, control over A boards and other structures on highway, as well as future road minor widening works. (e.g. to clear pinch point or provide loading or servicing lay-by). [381]

(g) (i) TRANS 18 (B) refers to two criteria applying to implementation of safeguarding.

(ii) The reasoned justification should confirm that both criteria would apply fully. [724]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) The City Council does not understand why it should not be possible for the road widening to be carried out in stages. The developer of the rest of the site has demonstrated that current traffic levels, together with the traffic generated by the proposed development, could be satisfactorily carried on a partially widened Edgware Road.

(ii) No more or less of 283 Edgware Road is safeguarded for road widening in the pre-inquiry Plan than in the Adopted Plan. [892]

(b) (i) Still under discussion following meeting with GLA or TfL officers.

(ii) Updated by replacing references to GLA Roads with TLRN Roads as suggested, but the widening of Edgware Road will improve conditions for bus services. The current design of the scheme does not include a northbound bus lane because tests have found that such a scheme could cause congestion for general traffic, which, if blocked back to Harrow Road could cause quite widespread disruption to traffic including buses. In short it is felt that buses would benefit more from widening without a bus lane than they would from widening with a bus lane. [2]

(c) (i) Feel that (B) already adequately describes the situation under which road widening will be considered, but have added to the justification "Major road widening schemes will not be pursued simply to increase capacity." [695]

(d) (i) The widening of Edgware Road will improve conditions for bus services. The current design of the scheme does not include a northbound bus lane, as LTUC have previously requested, because tests have found that such a scheme could cause congestion for general traffic, which, if blocked back to Harrow Road could cause quite widespread disruption to traffic including buses. In short it is felt that buses would benefit more from widening without a bus lane than they would from widening with a bus lane. [161]

(e) (i) The City Council no longer wishes to widen Vauxhall Bridge Road, having had the Belgrave Road corridor taken out of the Red Route Network and excluded from the Transport for London Road Network.

(ii) It would not be appropriate to continue to keep in the Plan a safeguarding line for a scheme the City Council no longer wishes to implement. [10]

(f) (i) Agree with the point being made, but do not agree that changing "exceptional" to "some" would have the desired effect.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 420 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) Have deleted "future". [381]

(g) (i) Believe it is clear from the policy that both criteria should apply, through the inclusion of the word "and". [724]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.18.1 Policy TRANS 18 appears to consolidate and bring forward Policies TRANS 3-7 (inclusive) of the adopted UDP. The previously adopted policies provided for rather more extensive road improvement schemes than those currently proposed. No doubt this reflects the general intention of the London Plan to scale down new road construction in favour of greater investment in public transport and other modes of travel. Nevertheless, the LPA wish to retain two of the previous safeguardings for road improvement. One affects Edgware Road (A5) and the other Bishop’s Bridge Road (A4206), respectively Primary and Local Distributor Roads (see TR 16). The former is regarded by the LPA as likely to be facilitated because of probable redevelopment proposals, the latter because it will be necessary as part of the general improvement of the various transport interchange and movement requirements of the Heathrow Express Railway and Crossrail 1 proposals (see SA00-05). The effect of the two safeguardings is (a) to require any development proposals physically to accommodate their spatial demands and (b) to signal the LPA’s intention to acquire the land, either compulsorily or by agreement, as and when the development takes place.

4.18.2 This sort of safeguarding is a long-standing form of planning control. It acquired a certain notoriety under the former London County Council (LCC) because that authority quite frequently demanded (and obtained) the freehold interest in the safeguarded land, as a form of planning gain. This sort of arrangement would appear to run counter to current planning guidance with regard to agreements or obligations. However, in the present case, the LPA quite properly wish to indicate the extent of land needed for purely local road improvement (which appear incidentally to satisfy the fairly strict criteria laid down by TRANS 18 itself) and seemingly intend to acquire the land by agreement. The reason for this is so that “any land…needed for such an improvement is not built upon” (paragraph 4.132). In view of the circumstances described by the LPA, this seems an entirely reasonable requirement and I accept that the acquisitions may be made in stages and the land devoted to a suitable interim use, pending the road improvement’s programmed implementation.

4.18.3 Accordingly, I do not support the objection [892] relating to a single property affected by the A5 safeguarding. This is for two reasons. The first is the fact that the safeguarding is identical to that of the adopted UDP and there is no evidence to suggest that circumstances have altered in the interim period, apart from extensive site clearance. The second is that the Policy only bites if operational development is intended, not if change of use is sought, as implied in the objection. Thirdly, if application for permission for operational development (i.e. redevelopment) is made and refused under TRANS 18, the landowner could either serve a blight notice on the LPA or appeal the decision as being against the provisions of the very same UDP Policy. For this reason alone, I consider it necessary to modify the Policy so that the same criteria apply to both safeguarded and (unspecified) minor road improvements under TRANS 18(C). My site inspection revealed that most of the property needed for road improvement had in fact been demolished and interim use for public car parking had been made of the land in question.

4.18.4 The provisions of Policy TRANS 18(C) appear to encompass many of the objectives of other Chapter 4 Policies (e.g. TRANS 1-3). For this reason, it might be appropriate to include cross-references to these policies. Since the somewhat detailed criteria in TRANS 18 may quite often relate to individual development control decisions, I consider it essential Chapter 4 : Transport page 421 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

that the bullet-pointed criteria be numbered TRANS 18(C)(1-8) and TRANS 18(D)(1-2). The reason for doing so is that it may be necessary to cite the precise aspect of the Policy upon which either unfavourable (or, in future, even favourable) decisions have been based. The reason for subdividing 18(C) and 18(D) is that the former relates to purely area-wide or general policies of the UDP whereas the latter takes into account site-specific considerations which may equally apply to either safeguarded or minor road improvements. Finally, the title of the Policy is recommended for modification in the combined interests of brevity and scope of application.

4.18.5 In relation to the area-specific objection [10] which seeks to have the widening of Vauxhall Bridge Road (A202) restored as a TRANS 18 safeguarding, I conclude that the provisions of TRANS 18(C-D) would be entirely adequate for this improvement to be effected. My site inspection confirms that significant environmental advantages would be gained and I do not doubt that the likely pattern of public ownership would indeed facilitate the necessary improvement. My site inspection revealed that substantial demolition of the Tachbrook Triangle had taken place. As with the Edgware Road improvement, I note that this road is also a Primary Distributor, part of the TfL Red Route Network and additionally serves as an important link in the bus network of Central London. I have little doubt that its local improvement would meet criteria 18(C)(3 and 6) (modified numbering). Whether, as in the case of Edgware Road widening, there was a inherent conflict between criteria (2) and (6) would be for the LPA and TfL to decide and prioritise in the light of future circumstances.

Recommendations

S R4.18.1 Modify the supporting text to Policy TRANS 18 in accordance with the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP.

S R4.18.2 Modify Policy TRANS 18 to read as follows:

"POLICY TRANS 18: ROAD IMPROVEMENTS

(A) Within the Plan period, the City Council will safeguard the widening of Edgware Road (A5) (between Newcastle Place and Church Street) in conjunction with any redevelopment proposals that may allow or require the acquisition of land affected by the safeguarding line as shown on Map 4.7 in the Written Statement.

(B) Within the Plan period, the City Council will safeguard the widening of Bishop’s Bridge Road (A4206) (between Eastbourne Terrace and Harrow Road) as shown on Map 4.8 in the Written Statement.

(C) Where the City Council identifies an opportunity for either safeguarded or minor road improvement that arises from, or is incidental to, a redevelopment proposal, provided that such improvement would offer or permit any of the following planning benefits:

(1) improved road safety (see TRANS 2); or, (2) reduced local traffic congestion; (see TRANS 1); or, (3) improved conditions for pedestrians (see TRANS 3); or, (4) improved access or servicing arrangements (see TRANS 20); or, (5) improved environmental improvements (see TRANS 1); or, (6) improved public transport (see TRANS 9); or, (7) improved conditions for cycling (see TRANS 10); or, (8) other improvements in accordance with Chapter 4 Policies, then, Chapter 4 : Transport page 422 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(D) The City Council may require or agree the acquisition of the necessary land for the road improvement provided that:

(1) the extent of land so acquired would not unreasonably restrict or prejudice the intended or authorised use of the land subject of a development proposal; and, (2) the extent of acquisition and subsequent demolition required for the development and road improvement would not have an adverse impact on the immediate street scene or local townscape (see DES 7).

(E) Where the City Council identifies the prospect of minor highway improvement arising from or incidental to development but where this improvement is less significant or outside the categories identified in (C) above, it may nevertheless seek to achieve the improvement by negotiation and legal agreement.

(F) [insert wording as in Deposit Version TRANS (E)]"

TR19: DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE HIGHWAY

Objectors and Supporters

491 Mercers Company 759 The Thorney Island Society 780 Selfridges & Co.

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Aim of this policy is to limit the extent of new basement vaults under the highway. The proposed policy states that “The City Council will seek to restrict the extent of new basements under the highway such that there is a minimum vertical clearance between the footway and the top of the basement of 900mm and that the basement extends no more than 1,800mm underneath the highway”.

(ii) Objection is on the grounds that it will potentially restrict a range of innovative basement links between the Mercers’ Covent Garden Estate. Linking the different blocks at basement level by re-introducing underground passageways or providing new links should be encouraged by the City Council. The basement links provide the opportunity to reduce pedestrian and vehicle conflict at surface level and can also be developed for servicing, waste segregation or recycling and refuse collection.

(iii) The vertical clearance required by the policy of 900mm between the footway and the top of the basement will not be necessary in all cases and should be assessed on the nature of the street for each specific set of circumstances. Side roads and minor roads are unlikely to require the full clearance of 900mm.

(iv) The proposed restriction that the basement extends no more than 1,800mm underneath the highway is also objected to on the grounds that it would unnecessarily restrict the future development of basement areas and links between basements under the highway. The policy should consider the

Chapter 4 : Transport page 423 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

structural requirements for basements under the highway such that each particular proposal is assessed for each site independently.

(v) Delete Policy TRANS 19. [491] [780]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) The measurements within the policy should be seen as a guideline and it is felt that there is enough flexibility within the policy and indeed the Plan to enable each case to be decided on its merits.

(ii) The benefits of preserving space underneath the highway for services etc., would be weighed against the benefits of any proposals for underground walkways, connections into the Underground network, etc.

(iii) The policy would however help to prevent storage facilities being provided which caused future disruption at surface level because of difficulties accessing services. [491] [780]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.19.1 It is a feature of much older properties in Central and Inner London that they have extensive basement areas under the highway. This space has traditionally been used for non-habitable uses such as storage. Its ease of access from the public highway has often facilitated its use for fuel delivery. More recently, such underground space has often been used for habitable uses, especially in listed or period properties where floorspace is at a premium. The apparent purpose of Policy TRANS 19 is to avoid the perpetuation of this traditional arrangement in new development. This is worthy of support since the space underneath highways, or more particularly footways, is extremely useful and easily accessible for the growing communications networks (e.g. CTV) as well as the more traditional services of gas, water and electricity. The use of footway space for underground services avoids the need to encroach upon the carriageway and facilitates their maintenance and repair.

4.19.2 I detect within the few objections to this policy [491 et al] a degree of special pleading. That is to say, the circumstances of the objectors and their development intentions might be unreasonably compromised by the particular restrictions imposed by TRANS 19. Without wishing to comment on their particular circumstances, I can readily envisage cases where the embargo on basement construction might well be inappropriate or quite unnecessary. It may very well be the case that, in certain historic areas or buildings, the extension of basements or the construction of underground passages may be required in the interests of finding new uses for older property, as advised by PPG15. I take no view on the dimensional restrictions given in the Policy apart from commenting that they appear reasonable. All that seems to be called for is the substitution of the word “generally” in the formulation of TRANS 19 in order to secure adequate flexibility.

Recommendation

S R4.19.1 Modify Policy TRANS 19 to read as follows:

"POLICY TRANS 19: DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE HIGHWAY

(A) The City Council will generally restrict the lateral and vertical extent of new or extended basement areas under the adjacent highway so that there remains a

Chapter 4 : Transport page 424 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

minimum vertical depth below the footway or carriageway of about 900 mm and the extent of the new or extended basement area does not encroach more than about 1.8 m under any part of the adjacent highway."

TR20: Servicing Deliveries and Collection

Objectors and Supporters

64 Shaftesbury PLC 82 Consignia plc 91 Tesco Stores 108 Society of London Theatre 141 Burford Group plc 161 London Transport Users' Committee 370 Theatres Trust 491 Mercers Company 680 The Crown Estate 695 Ropemaker Properties Ltd 1 713 Legal & General Life Assurance Society Ltd 724 Grosvenor Limited 777 J D Wetherspoon Plc

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Policy TRANS20 deals with servicing, deliveries and collection activities. The proposed modification to the policy made within the Revised (Second) Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan seeks to establish that the City Council may place conditions on servicing to restrict such activities to particular times.

(ii) Concerned that the proposed modification to policy TRANS20 may have adverse implications for operational servicing and access (collection and distribution of consignments) to its Royal Mail and Post Office Counters Limited premises.

(iii) While Consignia plc attempts to conduct as much of its operational services as possible without the use of motor vehicles, the large weight, volume and frequency of posting of mail consignments in urban centres, including the City Westminster demands the use of vehicles. Furthermore, the use of vehicles minimises risks to security and personal safety during the undertaking of these services.

(iv) Measures which seek to restrict the hours of use of vehicles would therefore threaten the ability of Consignia plc to maintain a high quality and effective service to businesses and the community which would be to their detriment.

(v) The Council's response to this objection (second deposit responses) states that while the Council fully recognises the need for some businesses to operate outside normal working hours, this clause would not affect existing developments. This response does not give Consignia plc assurance that any future developments will not be negatively affected by this clause.

(vi) Consider it wholly inappropriate that the City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan recognise its operational and servicing requirements and therefore provide adequate safeguards that measures to control servicing

Chapter 4 : Transport page 425 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

access hours do not impede its statutory duties. The additional sentence at the end of policy TRANS20 erodes this safeguard with regards to any future developments undertaken by Consignia plc.

(vii) On the grounds of the objection raised, the City Council is requested not to modify policy TRANS20 by way of an additional sentence at the end of the policy.

(viii) Policy TRANS 20 is too rigid in its application and could prevent otherwise desirable development in accordance with the objective of achieving an urban renaissance. The third line of the policy should be modified to read;"…..and will encourage the provision of vehicle servicing needs of development on site and off street"…..[713]

(c) (i) The aim of this policy is to provide for the efficient servicing of and deliveries to and collection from properties within Westminster. The policy requires that the vehicular servicing needs of developments are fully accommodated on-site and off-street, preferably at the rear of or under the building.

(ii) The justification for this policy is made on amenity grounds and in order to avoid the worsening of traffic congestion and safety. However, the policy prevents a more flexible approach that could potentially enable dual use of pedestrianised areas by servicing vehicles and pedestrians. For roads where traffic congestion is not the key issue, which includes a larger number of side roads in Westminster, it is inappropriate to reduce the density of development on urban land when side roads have the capacity to accommodate additional servicing activity.

(iii) The management and location of servicing and deliveries should be based on the existing traffic flows around a development, the incidence of traffic congestion and the potential to provide on-street servicing for specific sites.

(iv) Suggest addition to policy TRANS 20 as follows:

“In pedestrianised areas where this is neither practical or appropriate, shared use of the surface will be considered with servicing restricted to acceptable hours where pedestrians are not inconvenienced.” [491]

(d) (i) Policy is worded in such a way that there is an expectation that on-site and off- street servicing facilities should be provided. The 1997 UDP suggested that such facilities should be provided “where practicable”. This appears to be a rather more pragmatic approach, since in many locations, particularly within conservation areas or where sites have limited street frontages, there is little or no scope to provide on-site or off-street servicing facilities. A pragmatic approach needs to be adopted. Servicing off street is a fact of life in Central London, and even where facilities are provided they are seldom used. [141] [108]

(e) (i) The requirements in the proposed policy may not be possible to meet in redevelopment proposals, particularly in restricted sites or old buildings and blocks. The size, location and or area of the site may not allow for rear or below ground servicing and or collection. The UDP should reflect individual circumstances and take a more flexible approach if development is to come forward.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 426 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) The Council should acknowledge in the UDP that it is not always possible to provide the servicing and deliveries within the curtilage of the premises. Every redevelopment proposal should be assessed on its merits and should be required to provide the servicing or deliveries on site depending on its location and site constraints. [695]

(f) (i) Maintain objections raised at first deposit. The requirements in the proposed policy may not be possible to meet in redevelopment proposals, particularly in restricted sites or old buildings and blocks. The size, location and or area of the site may not allow for rear or below ground servicing and or collection. The UDP should reflect individual circumstances and take a more flexible approach if development is to come forward. The council should acknowledge in the UDP that it is not always possible to provide the servicing and deliveries within the curtilage of the premises. Every re-development proposal should be assessed on its merits and should be required to provide the servicing or deliveries on site depending on its location and site constraints. In addition, new text has been added making reference to the possible attachment of conditions on servicing to restrict such activity to certain times. Further objections are raised to this new text since time restrictions could clearly have unacceptable implications on servicing in general.

(i) The Policy is worded in such a way that there is an expectation that on-site and off-street servicing facilities should be provided. The 1997 UDP suggested that such facilities should be provided “where practicable”. This appears to be a rather more pragmatic approach, since in many locations, particularly within conservation areas or where sites have limited street frontages, there is little or no scope to provide on-site or off-street servicing facilities. A pragmatic approach needs to be adopted. Servicing from off the street is a fact of life in Central London, and even where facilities are provided they are seldom used. [64]

(h) (i) The purpose of this policy is to normally require that vehicular servicing needs are fully accommodated off street. Whilst this approach is one which is generally shared by Tesco Stores Ltd, within urban areas such as Westminster there will on occasion be a need to service from the street. It is considered this approach can form part of a proper servicing strategy in order to maximise the use of urban resources, subject to regulation as to the times and actual location of delivery. Whilst it is recognised the policy includes a flexible approach, it is considered this needs to be expressed more clearly to ensure the policy is not used to prevent what would otherwise be acceptable servicing arrangements. [91]

(i) (i) While acknowledging the importance of servicing, at the same time modern servicing standards may be incompatible with conservation areas and historic structures such as listed theatre buildings. Where extensions to such buildings are possible flexibility needs to be shown to cultural, and arts uses. The policy should recognise this and make explicit that the standards will be applied flexibly depending on the characteristics of particular users, and particularly arts and cultural users. It is unrealistic to expect that theatres will be serviced by vehicles which can be accommodated on site and off street. In particular, the size of vehicles used by touring productions will not fit within any existing theatre, and it unreasonable to expect this level of servicing for any new theatre. Within the CAZ a measure of balance is required and as much should be stated in the background reasoning to the policy. [108]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 427 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(j) (i) The ‘aim’ of this policy is to achieve efficient servicing of properties within the City. However, in our view it is both unrealistic and inappropriate to expect the ‘vehicular servicing needs to be fully accommodated on-site and off-street, at the rear of or under the building’. Whilst this may be possible in the case of new developments involving either the demolition of the existing built form or the development of a vacant, empty site, it is impractical for conversions of the existing built form. The congestion on the road is caused by the sheer quantity of people commuting into the centre of London by private motor vehicles, and cannot be solved by requiring on-site servicing in the centre of a World City. In its current form the policy could prevent appropriate reuse of sites. Any adverse impacts caused by additional servicing could be adequately controlled by condition to avoid peak hours and the policy should refer explicitly to this. [777]

(k) (i) Support this paragraph, but would wish to add a paragraph to enforce the use of this off street parking area.

(ii) Add: The committee will enter into a legal agreement with any developer ensuring such parking bays are actually used. [161]

(l) (i) It is extremely unlikely that any new medium or large scale theatres will be created on new sites in the West End. Any new theatres are more likely to be created as a result of redevelopments on existing theatre sites. These sites are extremely constricted, and it is unrealistic to expect service vehicles (which may, as now, only visit infrequently) to be accommodated off street.

(ii) It is unrealistic to expect that theatres will be serviced by vehicles which accommodated on site and off street. Particularly where touring productions are presented, the size of vehicle required is not going to fit on the site of any existing theatre, nor would be it reasonable to expect this for any new theatre buildings.

(iii) Recommend add to Para 4.139: ‘are catered for off the street. This will not be necessary for theatres’ [370]

(m) (i) The policy and reasoned justification should be amended to give greater recognition to the difficulty in providing servicing and delivery facilities in the built up area of Westminster. There needs to be recognition that the policy objective is not always easy to achieve and exceptions to policy allowed for where appropriate. [724]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) Do not agree. Such conditions are already often placed on hotels, supermarkets, etc. but the City Council fully recognises that some businesses have to operate outside normal working hours. The clause would not affect existing developments. [82]

(b-i) The policy includes "normally" to indicate that the City Council Believe that this is sufficient to cover the cases that the objector is referring to. [491] [695] [64] [91] [777] [724] [713]

(d) (i) The policy includes "normally" to indicate that the City Council recognises that there will be times when it is not possible to service off-street.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 428 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) The City Council already puts conditions on its planning permissions that off- street servicing areas must be used, but have added reference to this to the reasoned justification in paragraph 4.139 to read "On amenity grounds and in order to avoid the worsening of traffic congestion and safety, the City Council will generally require that the justifiable vehicular servicing needs of developments are catered for off the street and it will put conditions on planning permissions to ensure that such areas are used." [141]

(f) (i) Agree in part. Where new facilities are provided the City Council will wish such facilities to be provided off-street, but there will be other policies to consider which could over-ride this, such as if an existing theatre, which was being redeveloped was listed.

(ii) The policy includes "normally" to indicate that the City Council recognises that there will be times when it is not possible to service off-street. Believe that this is sufficiently flexible. [680]

(i) (i) Agree in part. Where new facilities are provided the City Council will wish such facilities to be provided off-street, but there will be other policies to consider which could over-ride this, such as if an existing theatre, which was being redeveloped was listed.

(ii) Whilst the City Council realises that it is not always possible to service existing theatres off-street, the plan is about development. There is no reason why any new theatres should not be designed in such a way as to accommodate their own needs off-street.

(iii) The policy includes "normally" to indicate that the City Council recognises that there will be times when it is not possible to service off-street. Believe that this is sufficiently flexible. [108]

(k) (i) The City Council already puts conditions on its planning permissions that off- street servicing areas must be used, but have added reference to this to the reasoned justification in paragraph 4.139 to read "On amenity grounds and in order to avoid the worsening of traffic congestion and safety, the City Council will generally require that the justifiable vehicular servicing needs of developments are catered for off the street and it will put conditions on planning permissions to ensure that such areas are used." [161]

(l) (i) Agree in part. Where new facilities are provided the City Council will wish such facilities to be provided off-street, but there will be other policies to consider which could over-ride this, such as if an existing theatre, which was being redeveloped was listed.

(ii) Whilst the City Council realises that it is not always possible to service existing theatres off-street, the plan is about development. There is no reason why any new theatres should not be designed in such a way as to accommodate their own needs off-street. [370]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.20.1 Many of the objections appear to be confusing the powers available to the local authority for the regulation of traffic on the highway with those available for the control of the development and, more particularly, the redevelopment of land and buildings. The

Chapter 4 : Transport page 429 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

imposition of control on the loading and unloading of service vehicles on the public highway is a matter for the highway authority. No doubt the planning authority will have regard to the presence or stringency of waiting and loading prohibitions in determining planning applications. In particular, the LPA may also wish to consider the presence or the imposition of such loading limits when applying Policy TRANS 20 to development (either by way of change of use or redevelopment) and will assess the need and feasibility of off-street servicing arrangements in the light of such circumstances. The existence and extent of shared-surface or wholly pedestrianised areas will be taken into account; whether or not servicing vehicles are admitted to them is for the highway authority to determine, no doubt influenced by representations received from the LPA.

4.20.2 Despite representations [108, 141] to the contrary, there would seem to be no Policy precisely comparable to TRANS 20 in the adopted UDP. The nearest equivalent is Policy TRANS 24(A) which uses the same word “normally” in its formulation regarding off-street servicing. Given that this Policy has been in operation for at least six years, it would seem right to reflect its detailed terms in a successor policy. The desire of the LPA to impose planning conditions regarding hours and exclusive use of servicing areas or space can scarcely be faulted although I am very doubtful whether the use of such space in preference to on-street servicing could be enforced. It is entirely proper for the LPA to signal such conditions in the UDP; their imposition may be appealed if they are applied in what are clearly unreasonable circumstances. The need to insert Policy TRANS 20 may well derive from the past reluctance of developers to incur expense by off-street servicing provision.

4.20.3 A clear distinction needs to be drawn between minimising parking provision (see TR21), which by its very presence attracts vehicular traffic, and the UDP’s required provision of servicing space under Policy TRANS 20. The latter Policy merely accommodates traffic which will in any event have been generated by the authorised use of the land rather than by the adequacy or generosity of off-street space for loading or unloading. No doubt the LPA will apply TRANS 20 with due discretion in the case of conservation areas and especially in the case of listed buildings. In both cases, it may be harmful to the area’s character or the integrity, setting or historic interest of the latter to require or expect provision to be made for off-street and on-site loading and unloading of large vehicles. For that reason, I intend to modify the wording of the policy to require its application “in most cases” rather than “normally”. In my opinion, an explicit exemption for theatres (or indeed for any specific building type) would not be inappropriate. It is not entirely improbable that a purpose-built theatre (or theatres) will be built in Westminster during the currency of the UDP.

Recommendation

S R4.20.1 Modify Policy TRANS 20 to read as follows:

"POLICY TRANS 20: OFF-STREET SERVICING, DELIVERIES AND COLLECTION

(A) The City Council will require convenient access to all premises for servicing vehicles (to include access for emergency services) and will, in most cases, require that the servicing needs of authorised development are adequately accommodated on-site and off-street, preferably either behind or under new or converted buildings. Such provision should be adequate to cater for the size, type and anticipated frequency of arrival of vehicles likely to be used for collection and delivery. Conditions may be imposed in order to restrict servicing activity to certain times and to ensure that the facilities are kept permanently available for their intended use, in order to minimise or prevent disturbance and inconvenience to adjoining occupants."

Chapter 4 : Transport page 430 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

TR21: Off-Street Parking

Objectors and Supporters

28 London Tourist Board 77 St Mary's Hospital 91 Tesco Stores 131 Marylebone Association 161 London Transport Users' Committee 269 St James Homes 321 SWETA (South Westminster Triangle Association) 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 632 Westminster Cycling Campaign 668 Christopher Evans 680 The Crown Estate 695 Ropemaker Properties Ltd 1 724 Grosvenor Limited 790 The Berkeley Group 791 Gerard Livett

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Paragraph 4.161 recognises a reduction of car journeys would be achieved through a removal of non essential PRN's, and to this end welcomes the removal of non essential PRN's. At the same time the paragraph acknowledges a large reduction in PRN's is unlikely to be achieved through a voluntary policy. In view of the City Council accepting the benefits of a reduction in non essential PRN's, and the ineffectiveness of a voluntary policy, the City Council should seek the Mayor to take advantage of the powers given him to levy and direct a charge on non essential PRN's within the city and beyond.

(ii) The case for adopting measures to discourage commuters driving into Westminster is very widely agreed upon. [321]

(b) (i) The aim of the policy is to control and co-ordinate on-street and off-street parking to reduce the overall level of parking, while maintaining adequate availability of parking space for essential and priority users. The Policy as proposed is based on minimum car parking standards for development. The proposed policy, as it currently stands, is not compatible with the rest of the Chapter or UDP. The policy contradicts the Housing Chapter of the UDP as the minimum use of parking standards will mean that valuable land that could be used for housing will be used for parking instead. The inability of developers to meet parking standards will restrict the amounts of housing development and conversions that can take place. This should not be the case, particularly as Westminster is seeking to reduce traffic and national policy is to use a maximum standard approach to parking. PPG13, Public Consultation Draft, states that;

‘Policies in development plans should set maximum levels of parking for broad classes of development which encourage sustainable transport choices and promote development in locations well served by public transport, walking and cycling. There should be no minimum requirements for development.’

(ii) The policy should promote maximum levels or standards of parking rather than minimum levels in order to restrict the ease of parking and encourage other

Chapter 4 : Transport page 431 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

forms of transport to be used. Car-free developments should also be encouraged by the policy, particularly as public transport access is good and that the proposed UDP is promoting cycling, walking and public transport improvements.

(iii) The Government has been investigating the various measures in reducing the amount of traffic on road network in central London. There is evidence to suggest that a reduction in parking provision at the destination will divert some of the trips on other modes. The Council has also indicated that it wishes to reduce the number of parking spaces at non-residential developments to try and reduce the traffic attracted to the central area. Their policy on the provision of parking spaces for residential development should be in line with their policy on non- residential development. [695] [680]

(c) (i) The section on parking (TRANS 21-26) makes no mention of the role of motorcycles and scooters in providing a sustainable mode of transport in the City. As the council will be aware, Motorcycle and Scooter sales have increased by 40% year on year for the last 3 years. This has lead to a vastly increased requirement for parking spaces for these vehicles. This requirement has not been met, indeed the council has reduced parking availability in many cases.

(ii) I would remind the council that motorised 2 wheelers represent a viable alternative to car transport within the city. They use substantially less fuel, do not contribute to congestion and, when parking spaces are available, they take up less valuable space. I write as one who frequently uses my bike to visit the City for business and personal reasons

(iii) The plan should be amended to reflect these facts, and the council should plan to increase the number of motorcycle bays as part of the UDP. [668]

(d) (i) Food shopping frequently necessitates customers carrying large volumes of heavy foodstuffs home. It is not possible for this volume of products to be transported home by public transport. It is therefore essential for food shopping developments serving a main food shopping role, to have sufficient car parking spaces to meet the needs of their customers if off-site parking and congestion is not to occur. Whilst the policy includes some flexibility in its application, including provision for vehicles for essential business journeys, which may for instance involve the carriage of heavy or bulky items, but not for customer shopping visits to foodstores. We believe such a further exception should be included within this part of the policy so as to permit such journeys as the parking standards set out in Policy TRANS22 do not make any distinction between those trips to comparison shops - which do not generally give rise to such bulky or heavy purchases - and those to main food shopping destinations. [91]

(e) (i) The policy requires that in all developments where parking is required, a minimum or one or 20% of the spaces whichever is the greater, should be designed for, and accessible to disabled users. Most other London Boroughs have a target of 10-15% for the provision for disabled drivers or passengers, and it is considered that a similar figure would be a more appropriate requirement for the City.

(ii) Policy TRANS 21(E) should be reworded to delete reference to the requirement for 20% spaces for disabled users, and be replaced with 10%. [269] [790]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 432 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(f) (i) I recognise that parking standards for all types of development are necessary. However, in none of these policies are standards set out for motorcycle parking, an omission that should be rectified.

(ii) Because the incidence of motorcycle ownership and use is less than that of motor cars, I would recommend lower parking standards that is required for cars, but for such standards to be set at levels that would encourage the use of motorcycles and scooters over the use of motor cars. [791]

(g) (i) As a form of two-wheeled transport, the motorcyclist is less vulnerable to injury than a pedal cyclist.

(ii) As the motorcycle is a viable alternative to other forms of private transport (please see representations to Part 1 Policies), I hold that the council should include motorcycles and scooters in their parking standards policies. [791]

(h) (i) The committee believes all parts of Westminster should be accessible to public transport and more lax parking standards should not be applied as they will reduce further the demand for public transport.

(ii) Delete the last 2 lines. [161]

(i) (i) The committee believes that parking is a vital element in any transport package to resolve traffic. As such add:

..as part of a transport package aimed at managing demand and allocating road space towards public transport, cycling and walking. [161]

(j) (i) Welcome the Council's response to comment on parking that the number of parking spaces will be monitored. Hope that this response could be included in the supporting paragraphs in this section.

(ii) Note the policies on parking and would request that the Council continues to monitor, during the Plan period and beyond, the total on- and off-street parking in Westminster. We are concerned that decreases in provision, especially through redevelopment of off-street car parks, should not make the City a destination that would be too inhospitable for people visiting on business or for leisure purposes (to the area's net benefits) by car, especially those with impaired mobility. [28]

(k) (i) Whilst the principle of providing disabled parking as set out in Sub-Paragraph (E) is supported, it is not always possible to achieve the minimum requirements set out. The policy is drafted in absolute terms and should be modified to enable the circumstances of each case to be assessed. [724]

(i) As stated in the draft [131]

(i) We welcome the support for change of use of parking areas excess to standard in (A) as well as the use of maximum parking standards in (B). [632]

(i) We welcome the deletion of one of the aims of the car-parking policy, namely to ensure an adequate provision of parking to support and enhance local economic activity.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 433 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) We do not believe that car-parking is required for most of the economic activity in Westminster.

(iii) We support the aim of the car-parking policies, namely to reduce the overall level of parking. [632]

(i) Support. [161]

(p) (i) Support paragraph (C) of this policy as it permits a greater supply of parking in circumstances where operational needs demand increased numbers of parking spaces. This policy accepts the particular needs of developments such as healthcare facilities where parking is required day and night for staff, patients and visitors. Adequate parking facilities prevent misuses of on-street space and assists in the efficient operation of the facility. [77

(q) (i) Support policy TRANS 21 (E). One disability bay could often be insufficient. [381]

Summary of Council’s Response

(i) It is not appropriate to use the Plan to lobby the Mayor. [321]

(b) (i) Do not agree. Parking standards are all maximums now. [695] [680]

(c) (f) (g) (i) The issue of motorcycle (including all powered two-wheelers) policy has been the subject of much recent discussion, with the on-going trials of charges for motorcycle parking, including the provision of security measures, and the high level of objections to the transport chapter of the UDP from motorcyclists. A motorcycle policy has now been written into the Second Deposit version of the UDP which is intended to be a balanced policy recognising that motorcycles take up less roadspace than cars, but also the environmental implications of motorcycle use, the safety problems they cause and various uses they are put to e.g. commuting, couriers, business use, residents, etc. The policy (TRANS 11a) includes charging for on-street parking, at a level which has yet to be decided, but will be at most proportionately less than the charges for car parking, with or without limitations on the length of stay to encourage commuters to park off- street where possible. It reads:-

"The City Council will seek to maintain an adequate supply of parking facilities for motorcyclists and will consider motorcyclists needs in the design of any traffic calming and management schemes. In recognising the safety and environmental problems caused by motorcycles relative to other modes, it will be necessary to apply a level of restraint through parking policies."

(ii) The reasoned justification for this policy is outlined in paragraphs 4.97a - 4.97g. See also the City Council's Inquiry Proofs on Motorcycling. [668] [791]

(d) (i) The City Council believes, as is referred to in paragraph 7.137 of the Shopping and Services Chapter, that there is already ample opportunity for those that want to food shop by car to do so. Where no customer parking is provided customers are also at liberty to park on-street, or use taxis or minicabs. [91]

(e) (i) Westminster requires much less parking in commercial developments than most other boroughs, but it does not have any less disabled residents or visitors. The

Chapter 4 : Transport page 434 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

proportion of spaces that need to be allocated to the disabled is therefore higher. [269]

(h) (i) The statement is not meant to be referring just to other parts of Westminster, but anywhere that is not at all accessible by public transport. [161]

(i) (i) Agree that all the various modes of transport and all the policies should be seen as part of an integrated package, but it is not necessary to repeat this in every aim, and do not see why the aim of the parking policies should be singled out for the inclusion of such a statement. [161]

(j) (i) The number of parking spaces will be monitored. [28]

(k) (i) The Plan has an inherent flexibility. [724]

(l)-(q) (i) Support welcome. [131] [632] [161] [77] [381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.21.1 The UDP deals with all aspects of parking under a group of Policies TRANS 21-26. All the relevant advice and policy content of the London Plan is usefully elaborated in a single Annex 4. Since the various UDP Policies are closely inter-related and their supporting texts and reasoned justifications are indeed combined, I intend therefore to deal with the objections which they raise and my conclusions on them largely under a single heading (see TR25). The exception to this is Policy TRANS 26 (see TR26). This raises somewhat specialised issues and considerations and, being a distinctly separate problem, is not covered by GLA advice and is therefore entirely locally-determined.

Recommendations

See under TRANS 25.

TR22: Off-Street Parking: Non-Residential Development

Objectors and Supporters

91 Tesco Stores 92 GVA Grimley 131 Marylebone Association London Transport Users' Committee 253 Insignia Richard Ellis 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 680 The Crown Estate 695 Ropemaker Properties Ltd 1 713 Legal & General Life Assurance Society Ltd 719 Charlotte Street Association 777 J D Wetherspoon Plc 791 Gerard Livett 818 Hospital of St John and St Elizabeth

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

Chapter 4 : Transport page 435 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(a) (i) As a form of two-wheeled transport, the motorcyclist is less vulnerable to injury than a pedal cyclist.

(ii) As the motorcycle is a viable alternative to other forms of private transport (please see representations to Part 1 Policies), I hold that the Council should include motorcycles and scooters in their parking standards policies. [791]

(b) (i) Whilst the revised deposit text is an improvement on the First Deposit text, the objection is maintained since the policy still fails to accord with the advice in PPG13.

(ii) In accordance with the advice in PPG13 and the emerging draft PPG13, the residential car parking standard should not be expressed in terms of a minimum provision. [713]

(c) (i) The aim of the policy is to control and co-ordinate on-street and off-street parking to reduce the overall level of parking, while maintaining adequate availability of parking space for essential and priority users. The policy as proposed is based on minimum car parking standards for development. The proposed policy, as it currently stands, is not compatible with the rest of the Chapter or UDP. The policy contradicts the housing chapter of the UDP as the minimum use of parking standards will mean that valuable land that could be used for housing will be used for parking instead. The inability of developers to meet parking standards will restrict the amounts of housing development and conversions that can take place. This should not be the case, particularly as Westminster is seeking to reduce traffic and national policy is to use a maximum standard approach to parking. PPG13, Public Consultation Draft, states that;

‘Policies in development plans should set maximum levels of parking for broad classes of development which encourage sustainable transport choices and promote development in locations well served by public transport, walking and cycling. There should be no minimum requirements for development.’

(ii) The policy should promote maximum levels or standards of parking rather than minimum levels in order to restrict the ease of parking and encourage other forms of transport to be used. Car-free developments should also be encouraged by the policy, particularly as public transport access is good and that the proposed UDP is promoting cycling, walking and public transport improvements.

(iii) Any redevelopment in central London should be sought on the basis that there are no parking spaces on site. The area is well served by public transport and the Council should use the provision of parking spaces as a tool to control the amount of traffic attracted to central London on a daily basis. A maximum parking standard should therefore be pursued both for residential and non- residential developments. [695] [680]

(d) (i) The Hospital of St John and St Elizabeth ("the Hospital") welcomes the recognition in draft Policy TRANS 22(D) that hospitals require special off-street parking provision. The Hospital believes, however, that there should be explicit recognition in this policy that ample parking is needed for patients, and some parking is needed for visitors, to hospitals. The Hospital appreciates that such provision should not be unlimited but suggests that additional wording be inserted at the end of paragraph (D) of draft Policy TRANS 22 as follows: "It is recognised that adequate off-street parking should be provided for patients at Chapter 4 : Transport page 436 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

hospitals and some off-street parking should be provided for visitors to hospitals". [818]

(e) (i) The policy sets out restrictive parking standards for non-residential development. The First Deposit policy stated that parking for customers will not “normally” be permitted, the revised policy has deleted the word “normally”, and thus parking for shop customers will not now be permitted.

(ii) Whilst this approach may be practical for those making comparison purchases, the policy does not take account of the needs of customers of foodstores. In such stores, the weekly food shopping is collected in a shopping trolley in the store and needs to be transported home by car. By not permitting parking for customers, the store would not be able to provide a basic requirement, and accordingly would not be as attractive as competing facilities. This would result in customers increasing the length of travel to undertake food shopping, thus being at odds with the broader environmental objectives of the plan.

(iii) This policy sets out the parking standards for off-street parking. Paragraph A sets out the provision for offices, shops, industry and warehousing, stating a maximum normal provision of one space for each 1,500 square metres of gross floorspace for staff plus one space per 6,000 sqm. disabled parking for both staff and visitors. The policy also states that parking for shop customers will not normally be permitted.

(iv) Whilst this approach may be acceptable for those making comparison purchases of a limited nature, it is not appropriate to meet the needs of customers at foodstores where the weekly food trip is collected in a shopping trolley in the store, and thereafter needs to be transferred to a car for transportation home. The approach of the policy, in not permitting suitable customer car parking provision, would mean that a store could not provide for the basic requirements of its customers, and would accordingly not be as attractive as competing facilities further afield, to which customers would travel in preference. This scenario would make no contribution towards the broader environmental objectives of the UDP to both cut traffic movements and emission of pollutants.

(v) The parking standard for retail foodstores is therefore considered wholly inadequate and should be revised to provide a more realistic level of provision for customers. [91]

(f) (i) Whilst recognising the need to reduce car parking provision for commercial uses within Central London and encouraging people to use public transport, it is considered that it is not practical to place an embargo on car parking within hotel developments. Therefore, the policy should be amended to enable the provision of parking to be determined on the merits of the case or against a set standard.

(ii) The policy fails to take account of the needs of those guests travelling to hotels with heavy suit cases who need the use of a car. These guests can not reasonably be expected to have to use public transport. Further, the policy is biased in favour of those tourists travelling from abroad, rather than living in the UK.

(iii) Once the car is parked, the probability is that guests would spend their time in London using public transport. It is not considered that some parking provision within hotel developments is unsustainable. [92]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 437 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(g) (i) Policy far too restrictive should allow for flexible approach to account for needs of London's role as one of the world's most important capital cities. [253]

(h (i) Recognise that parking standards for all types of development are necessary. However, in none of these policies are standards set out for motorcycle parking, an omission that should be rectified.

(ii) Because the incidence of motorcycle ownership and use is less than that of motor cars, I would recommend lower parking standards that is required for cars, but for such standards to be set at levels that would encourage the use of motorcycles and scooters over the use of motor cars. [791]

(i) (i) Support. [131]

(j) (i) Given the optimum accessibility to a range of means of public transport particularly within the CAZ, we support section C of Policy TRANS 22. We maintain that given the location and the nature of entertainment uses (pubs and bars in particular), parking spaces are inappropriate and therefore the provision of such would not support a key objective of PPG13. [777]

(k) (i) Support. [161]

(l) (i) Policy supported. [381]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) & (h) (i) The issue of motorcycle (including all powered two-wheelers) policy has been the subject of much recent discussion, with the on-going trials of charges for motorcycle parking, including the provision of security measures, and the high level of objections to the transport chapter of the UDP from motorcyclists. A motorcycle policy has now been written into the Second Deposit version of the UDP which is intended to be a balanced policy recognising that motorcycles take up less roadspace than cars, but also the environmental implications of motorcycle use, the safety problems they cause and various uses they are put to e.g. commuting, couriers, business use, residents, etc. The policy (TRANS 11a) includes charging for on-street parking, at a level which has yet to be decided, but will be at most proportionately less than the charges for car parking, with or without limitations on the length of stay to encourage commuters to park off- street where possible. It reads:-

"The City Council will seek to maintain an adequate supply of parking facilities for motorcyclists and will consider motorcyclists needs in the design of any traffic calming and management schemes. In recognising the safety and environmental problems caused by motorcycles relative to other modes, it will be necessary to apply a level of restraint through parking policies."

(ii) The reasoned justification for this policy is outlined in paragraphs 4.97a - 4.97g. See also the Council's Inquiry proofs on motorcycling. [791]

(b) (i) Do not agree. Parking standards are all maximums now and considered to be in line with Government guidance.

(c) (i) Do not agree. Parking standards are all maximums now and considered to be in line with Government guidance. [695] [680]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 438 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(d) (i) Do not agree that there is necessarily a need for patient and visitor parking in an area such as Westminster, which is well-served by public transport. Public off- street car parks and on-street metered bays provide facilities for those that feel they must use a car. [818]

(e) (i) The relevant Council Committee has given guidance to officers that it feels that the car-based supermarkets that have already been permitted, together with those just outside Westminster are sufficient to meet residents’ needs.

(ii) The City Council believes, as is referred to in paragraph 7.137 of the Shopping and Services Chapter, that there is already ample opportunity for those that want to food shop by car to do so. Where no customer parking is provided customers are also at liberty to park on-street, or use taxis or minicabs. [91]

(f) (i) Many tourists from abroad will hire cars if they need them. They are unlikely to hire cars if they are simply going to leave them at a hotel whilst they use public transport. Taxis and mini-cabs would enable guests who do not wish to use buses or trains to move heavy luggage. [92]

(g) (i) All policies within the Plan have an inherent flexibility.

(ii) Do not agree that London's status as a World City will be threatened as a result of Westminster's restrictive parking policies. [253]

(i) - (l) (iii) Support Welcomed. [131] [777] [161 [381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.22.1 The UDP deals with all aspects of parking under a group of Policies TRANS 21-26. All the relevant advice and policy content of the London Plan is usefully elaborated in a single Annex 4. Since the various UDP Policies are closely inter-related and their supporting texts and reasoned justifications are indeed combined, I intend therefore to deal with the objections which they raise and my conclusions on them largely under a single heading (see TR25). The exception to this is Policy TRANS 26 (see TR26). This raises somewhat specialised issues and considerations and, being a distinctly separate problem, is not covered by GLA advice and is therefore to be entirely locally-determined.

Recommendations

See under TRANS 25.

TR23: Off-Street Parking: Residential Development

Objectors and Supporters

1 Westminster Property Owners' Association 2 Greater London Authority 20 Covent Garden Area Trust 64 Shaftesbury PLC 92 GVA Grimley 131 Marylebone Association 132 St Marylebone Society

Chapter 4 : Transport page 439 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

141 Burford Group plc 161 London Transport Users' Committee 269 St James Homes 375 Government Office for London 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 473 Councillor Simon Stockill 476 Councillor Katy Thorne 485 House Builders Federation 491 Mercers Company 632 Westminster Cycling Campaign 680 The Crown Estate 686 MOD Defence Estates 695 Ropemaker Properties Ltd 716 The Cooper Group 719 Charlotte Street Association 724 Grosvenor Limited 748 British Land Company PLC 752 David Boothroyd 774 Asset Consultants Ltd. 784 Councillor Andrew Whitley 788 Consortium of Registered Social Landlords 790 The Berkeley Group 791 Gerard Livett 795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited) 802 Royal Bank of Scotland Group 803 Standard Life Assurance Company 819 Chelsea Methodist Centre 823 Sustrans 852 George Wimpey

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Does not admit the possibility of car free housing.

(ii) May restrict the provision of additional housing units.

(iii) Conflicts with government policy, emerging and otherwise, notably Draft PPG13 and "Planning for Sustainable Development" and RPG 3. [774]

(b) (i) Policy TRANS 23 (A) promotes the provision of residential car parking in all development subject to minimum provision in accordance with the policy. This approach applies to all residential development irrespective of location and the nature of occupation.

(ii) Most of Westminster is well served by public transport as explained in Paragraph 4.6. National and regional policy seeks to reduce levels of residential car parking and to work towards traffic reduction and a shift to modes of transport other than the car. The concept of car-free residential development is being promoted in London.

(iii) The use of land for car parking in the centre of Westminster represents an inefficient use of scarce land. This will serve to reduce the amount of residential use, which can be provided.

(iv) In the central area, there is particularly good public transport provision. Chapter 4 : Transport page 440 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(v) Accordingly, the policy is out of step with general planning policy in respect of residential car parking both nationally and particularly within Central London. The Policy should, therefore, be amended to provide for maximum parking levels to be provided at the discretion of the developer.

(vi) Policy TRANS 23 (B) seeks to restrict conversions of residential property where there is a deficiency of on-street parking places. Again, this policy approach is inconsistent with national and regional policy and, in practice, will lead to the reduction in the number of dwellings provided. Many residential conversions have been carried out, particularly within the central area, which have made a substantial contribution to the increase in the numbers of dwellings in Westminster over the last decade. A strict application of parking policy would not have enabled this increase to be achieved and will prejudice further increase in the future. [724] [1]

(c) (i) The maximum parking standards for new residential development should comply with PPG3 guidance, that is provide a maximum average of not more than 1.5 spaces per dwelling.

(b) (i) Policy TRANS 23 (b) suggests that parking provision should be demand-led rather than encouraging lower car ownership and the use of alternative forms of transport. In the circumstances stated in TRANS 23 (b) it would be more appropriate to allow residential development to proceed providing that a contribution towards improving public transport, cycling and walking is made. The Unitary Development Plan should be amended as follows:

Insert in Policy TRANS 23 (A) the statement that “the consequences of applying these maximum standards should not result in a level of parking provision that exceeds an average standard of 1.5 spaces per dwelling overall”.

Insert in Policy TRANS 23 (B) the statement that “where such an on-street parking deficiency exists the Council will seek a contribution to improvements in public transport, cycling and pedestrian provision”.

Delete the final sentence of Policy TRANS 23 (B).

(ii) In sub-section A, the policy sets out minimum car parking standards for units of one, two or three or more units. The use of minimum standards is not consistent with the provisions of the consultation draft PPG13 “Transport”, which advocates the use of maximum standards for parking at small developments (para.36), and sets out national maximum standards for various uses (Annex B). The policy therefore needs to be revised in order to more accurately reflect the government’s current position regarding the use of maximum standards for parking provision.

(iii) The policy also fails to distinguish between the parking requirements of open- market and affordable housing. Practical experience has shown that car ownership is lower for occupants of affordable housing than open-market housing. As proposed, the parking requirements contained in policy TRANS 23 for affordable and market housing will result in the over-provision of parking, and therefore be contrary to the objectives of the consultation draft of PPG 13, such as the reduction of the level of parking provision in new developments. The policy therefore requires review and needs to take account of developer discretion in the provision of affordable and open-market housing. Chapter 4 : Transport page 441 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iv) Policy TRANS 23 should be reworded to employ the use of maximum parking requirements; include car parking requirements for both affordable and open- market housing which reflect the level of car-ownership in the City. [269] [790]

(d) (i) Opposition to Car Free Housing is not understood, since this is a voluntary arrangement which allows housing to provided in areas where on-street parking is already under pressure.

(ii) The Council should actively promote 'Car free' housing schemes, thereby obviating the need for parking provision and promoting the objective of reducing car use. [719]

(e) (i) It is not considered appropriate to set minimum standards for car parking provision within residential developments. In accordance with Government Planning Policy Guidance set out in ‘PPG3: Housing, 2000’ the Council should be flexible in the application of standards. (Para 11 & 51). There will be circumstances where it is not appropriate to provide any car parking within a housing scheme, such as within close proximity to a major public transport interchange. In other parts of Central London poorly served by public transport, it might be appropriate to set a standard above the minimum provision, particularly where the area suffers from acute on-street car parking stress. [92]

(f) (i) Restricting extensions on the grounds of parking facilities conflicts with the City Council's housing policies. Selected new developments near to public transport modes should be designed from the outset with no parking, with residents having no legal rights to Respark cards. [132]

(g) (i) The adoption of a maximum standard for residential use is welcomed. However, the lack of parking in residential conversion schemes for example, should not preclude the granting of permission for residential use, to do so would be inconsistent with the other policies promoting residential use.

(ii) Paragraph 4.11 states that national policy is aiming for sustainable transport, therefore suggesting that there should be a cut in car use as also indicated in paragraph 4.14, which states that there is a need for integrated transport policies which encourage the use of other forms of transport.

(iii) Policy TRANS 23 would be contrary to the above national policy guidance which seeks maximum as opposed to minimum car parking standards for residential developments in the interests of reducing reliance upon the car. It is therefore unreasonable to require new residential developments within the Central Area to provide residential car parking if the constraints of the site militate against it. Providing residential parking within schemes in the CAZ or wider CAZ is unnecessary given the highly accessible locations. It should not be required, merely encouraged if practical or desirable. On street parking stress indicators should be abolished, providing for the needs of the motorist will only encourage more use of motor vehicles and on-street parking simply leads to potentially more congestion.

(iv) Insisting on high parking provision can also undermine the council's strategy to secure more housing.

(v) Parking standards should be reduced according to accessibility to public transport. [803] Chapter 4 : Transport page 442 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(h) (i) In relation to Policy TRANS 23: Off Street Parking: Residential Development we would wish to see reference to both a maximum standard overall and a reduced parking standard for affordable housing developments. At present there is no direct reference to the issue of car parking standards and its relationship with the development of affordable housing. However Circular 6or98, states that:

“Local Planning Authorities should be flexible on car parking standards as ownership rates are generally lower for occupants of affordable housing than for those of general market housing. This approach may make it easier for the developer to provide affordable housing.”

(Circular 6or98 Planning and Affordable Housing - Para.14)

(ii) It is suggested that the adoption of a flexible approach, as outlined above would subsequently allow greater gains to be made in achieving the provision of such affordable housing and contribute significantly to the aims and objectives of PPG3 (Housing) in that Local Planning Authorities should:

S Plan to meet the housing requirements of the whole community, including those in need of affordable housing and special needs housing.

S Make more efficient use of land by reviewing planning policies and standards.

S Provide wider housing opportunity and choice and a better mix in the size, type and location of housing than is currently available. (PPG 3 - Para. 2).

(iii) PPG 3 also advocates flexibility in relation to car parking standards so that its objectives may be achieved through: “Introducing greater flexibility in the application of parking standards, which the government expects to be significantly lower than at present.” (PPG 3 - Para. 11)

(iv) It is further stated that this is particularly applicable to developments where the demand is likely to be less than for standard family housing.

(v) Furthermore this approach provides that developers should not be required to provide more car parking than they or potential occupiers might want, nor to provide off street parking where there is no need or where there is a demand for car free housing. In addition such policies that relate to car parking standards should recognise that car ownership varies with income, age, household type, and the type of housing and its location.

(vi) The Council should be flexible in considering the adoption of “Car Free” standards in the Central Activities Zone (Chapter One). [788]

(i) (i) Welcome the change to maxima not minima but continue to object to the need to apply a blanket policy across all developments. The majority of off street parking on recent affordable housing developments is heavily under utilised and has led to unsafe areas being created and an increase in anti-social behaviour in this regions. Off street parking should be sympathetic to the current and future residents of the specific developments. In large high value homes, a higher quota will make sense. In affordable homes however, even large units are unlikely to take up a prescribed maximum. However, the move to a maximum

Chapter 4 : Transport page 443 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

rather than a minimum position helps towards this objective whilst not quite giving a desirable level of flexibility.

(ii) Where the viability of any affordable housing scheme development is affected by policies TRANS23 (off street parking) or H5(B) (40% of housing to have 3 or more bedrooms), the City Council must consider the acute demand for the supply of additional affordable housing (and the consequential reduction in the temporary accommodation obligation of the City Council) as having greater importance in planning decision terms.

(iii) The universal use of minimum (rather than a mixture if maximum and minimum) levels of provision required in all new developments irrespective of circumstance is a barrier to housing provision. This would not be true in terms of viability, logic and design. Most importantly, it will not deliver more or better homes. [784]

(j) (i) There should be maximum not minimum parking standards for residential areas and that it is appropriate to develop car free housing.

(ii) Change minimum to maximum.

(iii) Add policy to promote car free housing as the first option - use policy of Camden City Council. [161]

(k) (i) Suggest that the proposed Westminster Council policy does not reflect the clear intention within government policy to encourage much lower provision of off- street parking where appropriate as a means to discouraging increased traffic flow in already congested areas. Hope to see some reference in the policy to (legally enforceable) car-free schemes such as have been developed in the Borough of Camden.

(ii) Specifically, the government guidelines indicate that the required level of off- street parking should not be expressed as a minimum standard. Although they suggest a fairly generous maximum, there is clearly a strong case for this being lower in an area such as Westminster, as the overall sense of the government guidelines make clear.

(l) (i) Object to part A and B of this policy on the grounds that where residential sites are highly accessible by public transport the requirement to provide off street parking should be reduced or waived. [748]

(m) (i) Recognise that parking standards for all types of development are necessary. However, in none of these policies are standards set out for motorcycle parking, an omission that should be rectified.

(ii) Because the incidence of motorcycle ownership and use is less than that of motor cars, I would recommend lower parking standards that is required for cars, but for such standards to be set at levels that would encourage the use of motorcycles and scooters over the use of motor cars. [791]

(n) (i) The City Council should also take the demand for affordable housing into consideration when the viability of any affordable housing scheme development is affected by Policies TRANS23 on off-street parking, or H5(B) on family-sized dwellings. [752]

(o) (i) First Deposit comments partly added, which presume stand. Chapter 4 : Transport page 444 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) Have reservations about the way in which, outside the special case of the PSPA, which has good public transport facilities, the new maximum standards will operate, with out any minima. Perhaps ranges would be better. It appears that new residential developments could be put in place with minimal off-street parking, subject to the rather vague requirements of Policy TRANA 23 (B). What is meant by “mitigated”?

(iii) Whilst support much of policy do not agree with insertion of "minimum" in TRANS 23 (A) second line. There is an argument to replace with "maximum" (as PSPA) but at very least exclude minimum. Also, total no of spaces after rounding up should now say allow 3 extra spaces. Rounding up should be on total of 3 (categories A & B & C). Also, parking within development not as essential near good transport facilities, nor in central area where car free developments could well be appropriate. [381]

(p) (i) Where the viability of any affordable housing scheme development is affected by policies TRANS23 (off street parking) or H5 (b) (40% of housing to have three or more bedrooms). The City Council must consider the acute demand for the supply of additional affordable housing (and the consequential reduction in the temporary accommodation objection of the City Council) as having greater importance in planning decision terms. [476] [473]

(q) (i) Whilst otherwise support the change to maximum car-parking standards for residential developments, object to the absence of a standard for one-bedroom units. In our view, a maximum of less than one space per unit would be appropriate, given that not all residents will wish to have cars and indeed less than half Westminster households do at present. It is inappropriate to have the same standard for both one-bedroom and two-bedroom units.

(ii) A lower car-parking standard for one-bedroom flats in Westminster would be in accordance with PPG3, which says that local authorities “should revise their parking standards to allow for significantly lower levels of off-street parking provision, particularly for developments in locations, such as town centres, where services are readily accessible by walking, cycling or public transport”. [632]

(r) (i) TRANS 23 Objection to B since this unnecessarily restricts the potential for new much needed housing - see comments re Car Free Housing in comments in 1st Deposit Draft above, also TRANS 26 4.145a and 4.146, which are supported, seem to contradict this policy. [719]

(s) (i) Policy Sub-Paragraph (B) places a parking criterion against residential development by conversion. In an area, such as Westminster, with high levels of public transport accessibility, especially in the Central Area, it is not appropriate to prevent residential development solely due to the matter of car parking. This does not represent best use of scarce urban land. This is particularly relevant given the Council’s aspirations to increase the number of homes in the City. The policy should be amended. [724] [1]

(t) (i) There seems to be a contradiction within the UDP with regard to car parking controls. The use of minimum car-parking standards as opposed to maximum standards, goes against the general principle advocated by the Council, of using parking controls in tackling traffic reduction. The policy also contradicts the draft

Chapter 4 : Transport page 445 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

PPG13, which proposed maximum car-parking levels for all types of development. [823]

(u) (i) As a form of two-wheeled transport, the motorcyclist is less vulnerable to injury than a pedal cyclist.

(ii) As the motorcycle is a viable alternative to other forms of private transport (please see representations to Part 1 Policies), I hold that the council should include motorcycles and scooters in their parking standards policies. [791]

(v) (i) On the basis that the Council have not accepted arguments, wish to continue with objection as originally stated.

(ii) Whilst the supporting text to TRANS 23 refers to statements within RPG 3 that “it will not be necessary for every residence to have parking space” and that “Boroughs should not require minimum resident parking standards where they would make conversion of buildings impractical or they would lead to lower densities that would not be typical for Central City living” we note that the Council still seek to identify a minimum level of parking for all forms of residential development. Whilst acknowledging that there is a need to provide appropriate levels of car parking for residential users it is suggested that further flexibility for lower levels of car parking should be provided either within Policy TRANS 23 or as an alternative policy requirement to allow greater alternative reduced car parking usage in locations well served by public transport.

(iii) It might therefore be appropriate to include a policy that encourages an increase in the number of car free housing schemes in locations, which are accessible by public transport, where there is a range of local amenities and the area is subject to controlled parking zones. [802]

(w) (i) Would like to see more effective enforcement of the "exclusive and permanent use of residents" requirement. [131]

(x) (i) The adoption of a maximum standard for residential use is welcomed. However, the lack of parking in residential conversion schemes for example, should not preclude the granting of permission for residential use, to do so would be inconsistent with the other policies promoting residential use.

(ii) Paragraph 4.11 states that national policy is aiming for sustainable transport, therefore suggesting that there should be a cut in car use as also indicated in paragraph 4.14, which states that there is a need for integrated transport policies which encourage the use of other forms of transport.

(iii) Policy TRANS 23 would be contrary to the above national policy guidance which seeks maximum as opposed to minimum car parking standards for residential developments in the interests of reducing reliance upon the car. It is therefore unreasonable to require new residential developments within the Central Area to provide residential car parking if the constraints of the site militate against it. Providing residential parking within schemes in the CAZ or wider CAZ is unnecessary given the highly accessible locations. It should not be required, merely encouraged if practical or desirable. On street parking stress indicators should be abolished, providing for the needs of the motorist will only encourage more use of motor vehicles and on-street parking simply leads to potentially more congestion.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 446 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iv) Insisting on high parking provision can also undermine the Council's strategy to secure more housing.

(v) Parking standards should be reduced according to accessibility to public transport. [795]

(y) (i) The maximum parking standards for new residential development should comply with PPG3 guidance, that is provide a maximum average of not more than 1.5 spaces per dwelling.

(ii) The Unitary Development Plan should be amended as follows:

Insert in Policy TRANS 23 (A) the statement that “the consequences of applying these maximum standards should not result in a level of parking provision that exceeds an average standard of 1.5 spaces per dwelling overall”. [852]

(z) (i) Sustain objection. References to encourage Clear Zones, Home Zones and car free developments have not been included.

(ii) Partially sustain first deposit objection - The move to maximum parking standards is welcome.

(iii) There should be a section in this policy which positively encourages Clear Zones, Home Zones and car free developments.

(iv) These standards are minimum standards (except for when applied to the Paddington Special Policy Area). This conflicts with PPG 3 which requires maximum parking standards. There are no justifications for applying blanket minimum parking standards for residential developments, or why Westminster should be an exception to this well established policy.

(v) There is no mention of Clear Zones, Home Zones, or Car Free Developments. This policy should encourage these initiatives and developments as they will benefit air quality and promote sustainable development. Westminster is considered particularly suitable for these schemes due to its high public transport accessibility. These initiatives could form part of a comprehensive and overarching proactive policy framework for sustainable transport over the plan period, in line with the Mayor’s Transport, Spatial Development and Air Quality Strategies.

(vi) The City Council should work to reduce the amount of residents parking by implementing Clear Zones, Home Zones and Car Free Developments as well as work with neighbouring boroughs who want to set up such initiatives which overlap borough boundaries. Maximum car parking standards should also apply to residential developments.

(vii) Change the standards expressed in the policy from minimum to maximum parking standards.

(viii) Include a section in this policy which positively encourages Clear Zones, Home Zones and car free developments. [2]

(aa) (i) Paragraph 4.11 states that national policy is aiming for sustainable transport, therefore suggesting that there should be a cut in car use as also indicated in

Chapter 4 : Transport page 447 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

paragraph 4.14, which states that there is a need for integrated transport policies which encourage the use of other forms of transport.

(ii) Policy TRANS 23 would be contrary to the above national policy guidance which seeks maximum as opposed to minimum car parking standards for residential developments in the interests of reducing reliance upon the car. It is therefore unreasonable to require new residential developments within the Central Area to provide residential car parking if the constraints of the site militate against it. Providing residential parking within schemes in the CAZ or wider CAZ is unnecessary given the highly accessible locations. It should not be required, merely encouraged if practical or desirable. On street parking stress indicators should be abolished, providing for the needs of the motorist will only encourage more use of motor vehicles and on-street parking simply leads to potentially more congestion.

(iii) Insisting on high parking provision can also undermine the council's strategy to secure more housing.

(iv) Parking standards should be reduced according to accessibility to public transport. [141]

(ab) (i) The introduction of maximum standards is welcomed. However, the standards have been increased and new supporting text in paragraph 4.146 states that the City Council will encourage developers to provide parking up to the maximum standards in residential development. The previous objection was made to the special circumstances of sites in Central London where car free housing could be appropriate in certain circumstances. Whilst it is noted that the amended policy now deals with all residential developments as opposed to differentiating between redevelopments and conversions, this still has not allowed for the absence of the car. As such the objection is maintained and the reasons are re-iterated:

(ii) With reference to the 1991 Census data for Covent Garden the current car ownership levels are between 0.3 and 0.4 cars per household. The proposed residential parking standards will therefore do nothing to “reduce the overall level of parking” as stated in the general aims and will clearly exceed the requirement for “maintaining adequate availability of parking space”. Indeed, the proposed standards will encourage higher levels of car ownership.

(iii) The Mercers’ Company therefore object to the proposal to encourage developers to provide up to the maximum standards of parking for residential development, and further object to the high level of parking provision that is required by the proposed parking standards.

(iv) Furthermore, the policy contradicts national and London policy. PPG13, paragraph 1.8 under “Planning for Less Travel.

S Include new policy between TRANS 23 (B) and (C) as follows:

‘In central areas of Westminster where car ownership is low and traffic congestion is high, the City Council will have regard to the capacity of the area to accommodate additional cars and support a lower level of car parking and in appropriate circumstances support car free housing accommodation. ’Delete

Chapter 4 : Transport page 448 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

paragraph 4.146 and replace with policy stating that car free housing will be encouraged in appropriate circumstances.

(v) Policy TRANS 23 states that for residential development the City Council will normally require parking space to be provided on the basis of a minimum. The minimum parking standards required are one parking space for three or more bedrooms, 0.75 of a space for two bedrooms and 0.5 of a space for a one- bedroom unit.

(vi) For a mixed development providing an equal number of one, two and three- bedroom units the average minimum parking provision for three new residential units would be 2.25 spaces, that are then required to be rounded up to a minimum of 3 spaces, an average provision of one space per unit. With reference to the 1991 Census data for Covent Garden the current car ownership levels are between 0.3 and 0.4 cars per household. The proposed minimum residential parking standards will therefore do nothing to “reduce the overall level of parking” as stated in the general aims and will clearly exceed the requirement for “maintaining adequate availability of parking space”. Indeed, the proposed standards will encourage higher levels of car ownership.

(vii) Object to the proposal to use minimum parking standards for residential development, they should clearly be maximum standards to comply with national policy, and further objects to the high level of parking provision that is required by the proposed parking standards.

(viii) Include new policy between TRANS 23 (A) and (B) as follows:

“(B) In central areas of Westminster where car ownership is low and traffic congestion is high, the City Council will have regard to the capacity of the area to accommodate additional cars and support a lower level of car parking and in appropriate circumstances support car free housing accommodation. “ [491]

(ac) (i) The aim of the policy is to control and co-ordinate on-street and off-street parking to reduce the overall level of parking, while maintaining adequate availability of parking space for essential and priority users. The Policy as proposed is based on minimum car parking standards for development. The proposed policy, as it currently stands, is not compatible with the rest of the Chapter or UDP. The policy contradicts the Housing Chapter of the UDP as the minimum use of parking standards will mean that valuable land that could be used for housing will be used for parking instead. The inability of developers to meet parking standards will restrict the amounts of housing development and conversions that can take place. This should not be the case, particularly as Westminster is seeking to reduce traffic and national policy is to use a maximum standard approach to parking.

(ii) The policy should promote maximum levels or standards of parking rather than minimum levels in order to restrict the ease of parking and encourage other forms of transport to be used. Car-free developments should also be encouraged by the policy, particularly as public transport access is good and that the proposed UDP is promoting cycling, walking and public transport improvements.

(iii) Any redevelopment in central London should be sought on the basis that there are no parking spaces on site. The area is well served by public transport and the Council should use the provision of parking spaces as a tool to control the Chapter 4 : Transport page 449 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

amount of traffic attracted to central London on a daily basis. A maximum parking standard should therefore be pursued both for residential and non- residential developments. [695]

(ad) The changes in this Policy introduce potential car parking problems both on a housing development and in the surrounding area. Neither site-owners or developers nor planners will be able to influence the level of car ownership of potential occupiers, so that over-demand for spaces is likely to arise. Whilst appreciating the desire to discourage car use, this approach will have adverse effects on the amenity and safety of both occupiers and neighbours. The original requirement of 1 space per unit should be retained (with exceptions for affordable housing units). [686]

(ae) (i) Maintain the objections raised during the first deposit stage of the UDP review. The City Council’s response appears to be rather confused, and further clarification is sought.

(ii) The aim of the policy is to control and co-ordinate on-street and off-street parking to reduce the overall level of parking, while maintaining adequate availability of parking space for essential and priority users.

(iii) Policy as proposed is based on minimum car parking standards for development. The proposed policy, as it currently stands, is not compatible with the rest of the Chapter or UDP. The policy contradicts the housing chapter of the UDP as the minimum use of parking standards will mean that valuable land that could be used for housing will be used for parking instead. The inability of developers to meet parking standards will restrict the amounts of housing development and conversions that can take place. This should not be the case, particularly as Westminster is seeking to reduce traffic and national policy is to use a maximum standard approach to parking. PPG13, Public Consultation Draft, states that;

"Policies in development plans should set maximum levels of parking for broad classes of development which encourage sustainable transport choices and promote development in locations well served by public transport, walking and cycling. There should be no minimum requirements for development";

(iv) The policy should promote maximum levels or standards of parking rather than minimum levels in order to restrict the ease of parking and encourage other forms of transport to be used. Car-free developments should also be encouraged by the policy, particularly as public transport access is good and that the proposed UDP is promoting cycling, walking and public transport improvements.

(v) Any redevelopment in central London should be sought on the basis that there is no parking spaces on site. The area is well served by public transport and the council should use the provision of parking spaces as a tool to control the amount of traffic attracted to central London on a daily basis. A maximum parking standard should therefore be pursued both for residential and non- residential developments.

(af) (i) The adoption of a maximum standard for residential use is welcomed. However, the lack of parking in residential conversion schemes for example, should not preclude the granting of permission for residential use, to do so would be inconsistent with the other policies promoting residential use. Chapter 4 : Transport page 450 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) Paragraph 4.11 states that national policy is aiming for sustainable transport, therefore suggesting that there should be a cut in car use as also indicated in paragraph 4.14, which states that there is a need for integrated transport policies which encourage the use of other forms of transport.

(iii) Policy Trans 23 would be contrary to the above national policy guidance which seeks maximum as opposed to minimum car parking standards for residential developments in the interests of reducing reliance upon the car. It is therefore unreasonable to require new residential developments within the Central Area to provide residential car parking if the constraints of the site militate against it. Providing residential parking within schemes in the CAZ or wider CAZ is unnecessary given the highly accessible locations. It should not be required, merely encouraged if practical or desirable. On street parking stress indicators should be abolished, providing for the needs of the motorist will only encourage more use of motor vehicles and on-street parking simply leads to potentially more congestion.

(iv) Insisting on high parking provision can also undermine the Council's strategy to secure more housing.

(v) Parking standards should be reduced according to accessibility to public transport. [64] [716]

Summary of Council’s Response

(i) Policy has now changed to a maximum and considered to be in line with Government guidance. The Second Deposit version does not exclude the possibility of car free housing. Developers can propose development with less than the maximum amount of parking. [774] [724] [719] [92][132] [788] [161] [819] [748] [476] [823] [802] [852] [141] [695] [686] [680] [717] [64] [716]

(b) (i) Do not agree. Parking standards are all maximums now and considered to be in line with Government guidance. [724]

(c) (i) Do not agree. Parking standards are all maximums now and considered to be in line with Government guidance. Nevertheless, the City Council believes that the situation on its streets, where there are only some 80 Respark bays available per 100 permits on issue represents “exceptional circumstances”. In reality, a proportion of new residents will want to own cars, both now and in the future, and if off-street facilities are not provided for them this will increase the pressure on on-street facilities, which many existing residents already find difficult. [269] [790]

(d) (i) The UDP does not oppose car free developments.

(ii) Furthermore it does not believe it is appropriate to operate a different standard for affordable housing. [719]

(e) (i) Do not agree. Parking standards are all maximums now and considered to be in line with Government guidance. [92]

(f) (i) The Second Deposit version does not exclude the possibility of car free housing. [132]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 451 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(g) (i) Welcome part withdrawal of objection. Do not believe the policy on conversions is in conflict.

(ii) First deposit - The City Council has considered the issue of residential parking standards on several recent occasions, the most recent being on 26 June when a Special meeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee reiterated previous decisions, and the City Council continues to operate minimum parking standards in new residential developments.

(iii) The Committee feels that residents will continue to want to own cars and that to provide housing with little or no parking would simply mean that those cars would have to be parked on-street. On-street residents parking facilities are already oversubscribed. [803]

(iv) Do not agree. Since the policy is now a maximum, developers of affordable housing are free to propose standards lower than 1:1, or what might be expected to be achieved in other developments.

(h) (i) The issue of motorcycle (including all powered two-wheelers) policy has been the subject of much recent discussion, with the on-going trials of charges for motorcycle parking, including the provision of security measures, and the high level of objections to the transport chapter of the UDP from motorcyclists. A motorcycle policy has now been written into the Second Deposit version of the UDP which is intended to be a balanced policy recognising that motorcycles take up less roadspace than cars, but also the environmental implications of motorcycle use, the safety problems they cause and various uses they are put to e.g. commuting, couriers, business use, residents, etc. The policy (TRANS 11a) includes charging for on-street parking, at a level which has yet to be decided, but will be at most proportionately less than the charges for car parking, with or without limitations on the length of stay to encourage commuters to park off- street where possible. It reads :-

"The City Council will seek to maintain an adequate supply of parking facilities for motorcyclists and will consider motorcyclists needs in the design of any traffic calming and management schemes. In recognising the safety and environmental problems caused by motorcycles relative to other modes, it will be necessary to apply a level of restraint through parking policies."

(ii) The reasoned justification for this policy is outlined in paragraphs 4.97a - 4.97g. See also the Council's Inquiry Proofs of Motorcycling. [791]

(i) (i) Feel the change met the objection at First Deposit. Nevertheless, Government Guidance specifically excludes the use of minimum parking standards and the City Council has agreed to follow this Guidance. [476]

(j) (i) Feel that with maximum standards there is sufficient flexibility for lower standards to be applied to one bedroom units. [632]

(k) (i) Do not agree that the two statements are in conflict. [719]

(l) (i) Do not believe the policy on conversions is in conflict. [724] [1]

(m) (i) The issue of motorcycle (including all powered two-wheelers) policy has been the subject of much recent discussion, with the on-going trials of charges for Chapter 4 : Transport page 452 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

motorcycle parking, including the provision of security measures, and the high level of objections to the transport chapter of the UDP from motorcyclists. A motorcycle policy has now been written into the Second Deposit version of the UDP which is intended to be a balanced policy recognising that motorcycles take up less roadspace than cars, but also the environmental implications of motorcycle use, the safety problems they cause and various uses they are put to e.g. commuting, couriers, business use, residents, etc. The policy (TRANS 11a) includes charging for on-street parking, at a level which has yet to be decided, but will be at most proportionately less than the charges for car parking, with or without limitations on the length of stay to encourage commuters to park off- street where possible. It reads :-

"The City Council will seek to maintain an adequate supply of parking facilities for motorcyclists and will consider motorcyclists needs in the design of any traffic calming and management schemes. In recognising the safety and environmental problems caused by motorcycles relative to other modes, it will be necessary to apply a level of restraint through parking policies."

(ii) The reasoned justification for this policy is outlined in paragraphs 4.97a - 4.97g. See also the Council's Inquiry Proofs on Motorcycling. [791]

(i) The City Council will seek to enforce such conditions to prevent parking spaces that are intended for the use of residents being used by commuters. [131]

(n) (i) Welcome part withdrawal of objection. Do not believe the policy on conversions is in conflict. [795]

(o) (i) The City Council has considered the issue of residential parking standards on several recent occasions, the most recent being on 26 June when a Special meeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee reiterated previous decisions, and the City Council continues to operate minimum parking standards in new residential developments.

(ii) The Committee feels that residents will continue to want to own cars and that to provide housing with little or no parking would simply mean that those cars would have to be parked on-street. On-street residents parking facilities are already oversubscribed. [2]

(p) (i) Do not agree. Parking standards are all maximums now and considered to be in line with Government guidance.

(ii) The City Council has considered the issue of residential parking standards on several recent occasions, the most recent being on 26 June when a Special meeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee reiterated previous decisions, and the City Council continues to operate minimum parking standards in new residential developments.

(iii) The Committee feels that residents will continue to want to own cars and that to provide housing with little or no parking would simply mean that those cars would have to be parked on-street. On-street residents parking facilities are already oversubscribed. [141]

(q) (i) The City Council believes that the situation on its streets, where there are only some 80 Respark bays available per 100 permits on issue represents “exceptional circumstances”. In reality, a proportion of new residents will want to Chapter 4 : Transport page 453 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

own cars, both now and in the future, and if off-street facilities are not provided for them this will increase the pressure on on-street facilities, which many existing residents already find difficult. [491]

(r) (i) Do not agree. Parking standards are all maximums now and considered to be in line with Government guidance. [695]

(s) (i) Welcome part withdrawal of objection. Do not believe the policy on conversions is in conflict.

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.23.1 The UDP deals with all aspects of parking under a group of Policies TRANS 21-26. All the relevant advice and policy content of the London Plan is usefully elaborated in a single Annex 4. Since the various UDP Policies are closely inter-related and their supporting texts and reasoned justifications are indeed combined, I intend therefore to deal with the objections which they raise and my conclusions on them largely under a single heading (see TR25). The exception to this is Policy TRANS 26 (see TR26). This raises somewhat specialised issues and considerations and, being a distinctly separate problem, is not covered by GLA advice and is therefore entirely locally-determined.

Recommendations

See under TRANS 25.

TR24: Off-Street Parking: Mixed Development

Objectors and Supporters

1 Westminster Property Owners' Association 131 Marylebone Association 132 St Marylebone Society 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 680 The Crown Estate 695 Ropemaker Properties Ltd 719 Charlotte Street Association 791 Gerard Livett

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) As a form of two-wheeled transport, the motorcyclist is less vulnerable to injury than a pedal cyclist.

(ii) As the motorcycle is a viable alternative to other forms of private transport (please see representations to Part 1 Policies), the Council should include motorcycles and scooters in their parking standards policies.

(iii) Recognise that parking standards for all types of development are necessary. However, in none of these policies are standards set out for motorcycle parking, an omission that should be rectified.

(iv) Because the incidence of motorcycle ownership and use is less than that of motor cars, recommend lower parking standards that is required for cars, but for

Chapter 4 : Transport page 454 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

such standards to be set at levels that would encourage the use of motorcycles and scooters over the use of motor cars. [791]

(b) (i) The aim of the policy is to control and co-ordinate on-street and off-street parking to reduce the overall level of parking, while maintaining adequate availability of parking space for essential and priority users. The Policy as proposed is based on minimum car parking standards for development. The proposed policy, as it currently stands, is not compatible with the rest of the Chapter or UDP. The policy contradicts the Housing Chapter of the UDP as the minimum use of parking standards will mean that valuable land that could be used for housing will be used for parking instead. The inability of developers to meet parking standards will restrict the amounts of housing development and conversions that can take place. This should not be the case, particularly as Westminster is seeking to reduce traffic and national policy is to use a maximum standard approach to parking. PPG13, Public Consultation Draft, states that;

‘Policies in development plans should set maximum levels of parking for broad classes of development which encourage sustainable transport choices and promote development in locations well served by public transport, walking and cycling. There should be no minimum requirements for development.’

(ii) The policy should promote maximum levels or standards of parking rather than minimum levels in order to restrict the ease of parking and encourage other forms of transport to be used. Car-free developments should also be encouraged by the policy, particularly as public transport access is good and that the proposed UDP is promoting cycling, walking and public transport improvements.

(iii) Any redevelopment in central London should be sought on the basis that there are no parking spaces on site. The area is well served by public transport and the Council should use the provision of parking spaces as a tool to control the amount of traffic attracted to central London on a daily basis. A maximum parking standard should therefore be pursued both for residential and non- residential developments. [695] [680]

(c) (i) Opposition to Car Free Housing is not understood, since this is a voluntary arrangement which allows housing to provided in areas where on-street parking is already under pressure.

(ii) The Council should actively promote 'car free' housing schemes, thereby obviating the need for parking provision and promoting the objective of reducing car use. [719]

(d) (i) If mixed residential and non-residential parking is to be provided in separate facilities, developments usually need to be of a substantial scale. Any requirement to provide residential parking within commercial developments and investments can cause real difficulties in practice, particularly in respect of security. There can also be a substantial adverse impact on commercial value.

(ii) The Policy should be amended to encourage provision rather than to require separate provision.

(iii) The Policy should also be amended to allow for cases where the provision of residential parking within commercial development is not appropriate. [1]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 455 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(e) (i) Support. [131]

(f) (i) Support the permanent retention of parking for residents within particular mixed developments, but commend, also TRANS 23B alternative as above. [132]

(g) (i) Support policy. [381]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) The issue of motorcycle (including all powered two-wheelers) policy has been the subject of much recent discussion, with the on-going trials of charges for motorcycle parking, including the provision of security measures, and the high level of objections to the transport chapter of the UDP from motorcyclists. A motorcycle policy has now been written into the Second Deposit version of the UDP which is intended to be a balanced policy recognising that motorcycles take up less roadspace than cars, but also the environmental implications of motorcycle use, the safety problems they cause and various uses they are put to e.g. commuting, couriers, business use, residents, etc. The policy (TRANS 11a) includes charging for on-street parking, at a level which has yet to be decided, but will be at most proportionately less than the charges for car parking, with or without limitations on the length of stay to encourage commuters to park off- street where possible. It reads :-

"The City Council will seek to maintain an adequate supply of parking facilities for motorcyclists and will consider motorcyclists needs in the design of any traffic calming and management schemes. In recognising the safety and environmental problems caused by motorcycles relative to other modes, it will be necessary to apply a level of restraint through parking policies."

(ii) The reasoned justification for this policy is outlined in paragraphs 4.97a - 4.97g. See also Council's Inquiry proofs on Motorcycling. [791]

(b) (i) The revised standards do comply with Government Guidance. Nevertheless, the City Council believes that the situation on its streets, where there are only some 80 Respark bays available per 100 permits on issue represents “exceptional circumstances”. In reality, a proportion of new residents will want to own cars, both now and in the future, and if off-street facilities are not provided for them this will increase the pressure on on-street facilities, which many existing residents already find difficult

(ii) The City Council has considered the issue of residential parking standards on several recent occasions, the most recent being on 26 June when a Special meeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee reiterated previous decisions, and the City Council continues to operate minimum parking standards in new residential developments.

(iii) The Committee feels that residents will continue to want to own cars and that to provide housing with little or no parking would simply mean that those cars would have to be parked on-street. On-street residents parking facilities are already oversubscribed. [695] [680]

(c) Welcome part withdrawal of objection. Policy has now changed to a maximum. The Second Deposit version does not exclude the possibility of car free housing. [719]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 456 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(d) (i) The objector appears to have mistaken the point of the policy, which is not requiring residential parking in non-residential developments, but in mixed use developments where one of the uses is residential. [1]

(e)-(g) (i) Support welcome. [131] [132] [381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.24.1 The UDP deals with all aspects of parking under a group of Policies TRANS 21-26. All the relevant advice and policy content of the London Plan is usefully elaborated in a single Annex 4. Since the various UDP Policies are closely inter-related and their supporting texts and reasoned justifications are indeed combined, I intend therefore to deal with the objections which they raise and my conclusions on them largely under a single heading (see TR25). The exception to this is Policy TRANS 26 (see TR26). This raises somewhat specialised issues and considerations and, being a distinctly separate problem, is not covered by GLA advice and is therefore entirely locally-determined.

Recommendations

See under TRANS 25.

TR25: Off-Street Parking: Public Off-Street Parking

Objectors and Supporters

2 Greater London Authority 131 Marylebone Association 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 680 The Crown Estate 695 Ropemaker Properties Ltd 1 744 National Car Parks Ltd 791 Gerard Livett

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) As a form of two-wheeled transport, the motorcyclist is less vulnerable to injury than a pedal cyclist.

(ii) As the motorcycle is a viable alternative to other forms of private transport (please see representations to Part 1 Policies), the Council should include motorcycles and scooters in their parking standards policies.

(iii) Recognise that parking standards for all types of development are necessary. However, in none of these policies are standards set out for motorcycle parking, an omission that should be rectified.

(iv) Because the incidence of motorcycle ownership and use is less than that of motor cars, I would recommend lower parking standards that is required for cars, but for such standards to be set at levels that would encourage the use of motorcycles and scooters over the use of motor cars. [791]

Chapter 4 : Transport page 457 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(b) (i) Sustain objection with further comment - Some of the second deposit amendments are welcome. However, there is still no aim in this policy to reduce the total amount of parking provision through for example actively promoting the non replacement of off street public parking to reduce the amount of total parking provision. This would be more in line with the promotion of traffic restraint.

(ii) Point (A) of this policy does not fit within the Council’s transport strategy in that this is not showing parking restraint. LPAC’s Sustainable Residential Quality advice advocates better utilisation of urban land by redeveloping areas such as car parks. The replacement of existing facilities undermines this.

(iii) Point (B) of this policy promotes new car parking. New car parking should not be permitted because Westminster is generally well served by public transport. More sustainable forms of transport should be encouraged by making it more difficult to park, particularly in central London. It is difficult to understand how provision of new car parks contributes to a traffic restraint or reduction policy, and the wider aims of sustainable development and integrated transport as expressed in Part 1 of the UDP although it does mention net reductions, but not in all cases. This policy therefore undermines the aspirations for transport and sustainable development expressed in Part 1 of the UDP.

(iv) Point (C) is slightly more positive because it introduces the possibility or reducing off street parking. However, the bullet points mainly relate to usage, convenience and residential amenity, rather than reducing the need to travel, or sustainable transport.

(v) Reword this policy so that it does not encourage new parking and is linked to a sustainable transport policy framework with an emphasis on traffic restraint and reduction. [2]

(c) (i) The aim of the policy is to control and co-ordinate on-street and off-street parking to reduce the overall level of parking, while maintaining adequate availability of parking space for essential and priority users. The Policy as proposed is based on minimum car parking standards for development. The proposed policy, as it currently stands, is not compatible with the rest of the Chapter or UDP. The policy contradicts the Housing Chapter of the UDP as the minimum use of parking standards will mean that valuable land that could be used for housing will be used for parking instead. The inability of developers to meet parking standards will restrict the amounts of housing development and conversions that can take place. This should not be the case, particularly as Westminster is seeking to reduce traffic and national policy is to use a maximum standard approach to parking. PPG13, Public Consultation Draft, states that;

‘Policies in development plans should set maximum levels of parking for broad classes of development which encourage sustainable transport choices and promote development in locations well served by public transport, walking and cycling. There should be no minimum requirements for development.’

(ii) The policy should promote maximum levels or standards of parking rather than minimum levels in order to restrict the ease of parking and encourage other forms of transport to be used. Car-free developments should also be encouraged by the policy, particularly as public transport access is good and that the proposed UDP is promoting cycling, walking and public transport improvements. Chapter 4 : Transport page 458 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) Any redevelopment in central London should be sought on the basis that there are no parking spaces on site. The area is well served by public transport and the Council should use the provision of parking spaces as a tool to control the amount of traffic attracted to central London on a daily basis. A maximum parking standard should therefore be pursued both for residential and non- residential developments. [695] [680]

(d) (i) There is no material change of use to a car park if the cars parked there are parked by visiting members of the public, or are parked for car hire purposes or for long stay storage purposes. The use of the building remains unchanged - for the parking of cars. In the absence of any intensification of use the purpose for which the cars are parked is not likely to involve development for which planning permission is required.

(ii) This policy is flawed and should be deleted or substantially redrafted. [744]

(e) (i) Support. [131]

(f) (i) The reservation is about the end of TRANS 24 (B). We think that the provision of facilities for motor cycles and cycles should be mandatory.

(ii) Reword so that “required” qualifies both disabled and motor cycles or cycles.

(iii) Any such parking permitted should also allow for motorcycles, bikes (free) and disabled bays. [381]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) The issue of motorcycle (including all powered two-wheelers) policy has been the subject of much recent discussion, with the on-going trials of charges for motorcycle parking, including the provision of security measures, and the high level of objections to the transport chapter of the UDP from motorcyclists. A motorcycle policy has now been written into the Second Deposit version of the UDP which is intended to be a balanced policy recognising that motorcycles take up less roadspace than cars, but also the environmental implications of motorcycle use, the safety problems they cause and various uses they are put to e.g. commuting, couriers, business use, residents, etc. The policy (TRANS 11a) includes charging for on-street parking, at a level which has yet to be decided, but will be at most proportionately less than the charges for car parking, with or without limitations on the length of stay to encourage commuters to park off- street where possible. It reads :-

"The City Council will seek to maintain an adequate supply of parking facilities for motorcyclists and will consider motorcyclists needs in the design of any traffic calming and management schemes. In recognising the safety and environmental problems caused by motorcycles relative to other modes, it will be necessary to apply a level of restraint through parking policies."

(ii) The reasoned justification for this policy is outlined in paragraphs 4.97a - 4.97g. See also Council's Inquiry Proofs on Motorcycling. [791]

(b) (i) Aim in para. 4.143 recognises need to reduce parking overall. Believe this objection will be withdrawn following meeting with GLA or TfL officers.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 459 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) With regard to (A), if parking facilities are allowed to be replaced, but no additional spaces are created, the worst scenario is that the same number of car parking spaces will remain. It is far more likely over the years that some car parks will be redeveloped as car parks and some will be redeveloped for other uses. This would lead to a net loss of parking spaces which does not undermine LPAC's Advice.

(iii) With regard to (B), suggest that the objection to this (and to (A)) could be met by the deletion of the final bullet point from (A), which would then mean that any new public off-street parking would be either replacement for existing facilities or result in a reduction in on-street spaces.

(iv) Suggest that (C) should be re-worded to be more positive about loss of off-street parking facilities. [2]

(c) (i) The revised standards do comply with Government Guidance. Nevertheless, the City Council believes that the situation on its streets, where there are only some 80 Respark bays available per 100 permits on issue represents “exceptional circumstances”. In reality, a proportion of new residents will want to own cars, both now and in the future, and if off-street facilities are not provided for them this will increase the pressure on on-street facilities, which many existing residents already find difficult. [695] [680]

(d) (i) The City Council has taken legal advice on this matter which suggests that such a change would be a change of use. [744]

(e) (i) Support welcomed. [131]

(f) (i) Do not agree that parking for motorcycles or cycles need be mandatory.

(ii) Will add that provision should be made for disabled parking, and encourage separate facilities for motorcycles and cycles but it will be partly up to the operators of individual car parks whether provision is made. [381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.25.1 Although many objections have been duly made to the large group of related Policies TRANS 21-25, they repeatedly raise generic issues that are most conveniently dealt with under relatively few headings. It should be noted that the adoption of the London Plan will require that the Boroughs' UDP be in conformity with its Policies. I have accordingly looked at Annex 4 of that Plan with particular care. In many cases, the UDP Chapter 4 Policies appear to me to be in very general conformity with the advice of the London Plan and indeed with PPG13. The issues which I intend to use as headings under which to assess the various objections are as follows:

Private Non-Residential Parking (PNR) Minimum Levels of Provision Traffic Restraint Provision of Motorcycle Parking Requirement for Foodstore Parking Disabled Parking Conformity with PPGs and RPGs Monitoring of Parking Provision

Chapter 4 : Transport page 460 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Car-Free Housing Hotel and Hospital Parking Private Non-Residential Parking (PNR)

4.25.2 The existence of PNR parking spaces is problematic; past planning policies of the LCC, the GLC and Central London Boroughs successively demanded on-site parking to be provided as a requirement of planning permission. This regime has been in force since the 1950s and consequently a very great deal of such parking is in existence. Indeed, the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (CD5/7) estimates that 55% of car trips to Central London are generated by PNR provision. It follows therefore that the restrictive effects on traffic generation due to setting maximum, rather than minimum, parking requirements (a policy trend only evident during the past decade) are to an extent vitiated by this backlog of PNR parking provision.

4.25.3 Reduction will no doubt be strongly opposed in individual cases. No powers, other than the revocation, compulsory purchase or discontinuance powers contained in the Planning Acts, are available to reduce the amount of existing PNR parking space to bring it in line with emergent planning policies. These are unlikely widely to be deployed because of their heavy financial implications. That is no doubt a very compelling argument in favour of the recently introduced Congestion Charge. I conclude that the effect of significantly reducing on-site parking provision, stringently implemented, is the only effective means available to the City Council, in the short term, to address the problem of traffic restraint.

Minimum Levels of Provision

4.25.4 The trend towards maximum levels of parking has been evident since the first publication of PPG13 in 1994. This theme is echoed in RPG3 (1996) and RPG9 (2001) and forms the basis of the London Plan’s setting of maximum parking standards in its Annex 4. The general application of this policy towards the setting of standards is usefully summarised in RPG3 as:

(a) an area assessment of relative accessibility by public and private transport; (b) a network-based identification of congestion and necessary traffic reduction; (c) an appreciation of the overall effects of controlling on-street parking (CPZs).

4.25.4 It is significant that the London Plan considers that the whole of Central London is within the highest category of public transport accessibility (PTAL Zone 6) and accordingly sets the lowest comparative figures for parking provision across all categories of land use. The equivalent standards prescribed by the London Plan and the Review UDP may usefully be (very briefly) summarised and tabulated for the purposes of comparison:

Chapter 4 : Transport page 461 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Land Use Use Class GLA Standard UDP Standard

Foodstores A1 nil provision (PTAL6) nil provision Professional Services A2 nil provision (PTAL6) nil provision Catering Establishments A3 nil provision nil provision

Offices B1 sp/1000-1500 sq m sp/1500sq m

Hotels C1 sp/1-10 bedrooms nil provision Hospitals C2 sp/2-4 bedspaces nil provision Residential C3 1-2 spaces/dwelling 1-1.5 sp/dw

Non-Residential Institutions D1 Individual Assessment Ind Assess Entertainment Uses D2 sp/5 seats (PTAL1-4) nil provision

4.25.6 It will be seen that the GLA and UDP standards are broadly in accord, given that Westminster is entirely within PTAL Zone 6 for the purposes of applying the GLA standards. The main areas of dispute are in regard to foodstores, hotels and hospitals (see later) and dwellings. The objection to the latter standard is that the UDP is seeking to impose a minimum level of provision (one space/dwelling), quite contrary to PPG3 (para 51) and PPG13 (para 52) advice to the contrary. Indeed, the London Plan makes it clear (albeit in a footnote to Table 2 in Annex 4) that “an element (sic) of car-free housing should be provided where appropriate”. I conclude that the LPA’s claim that all parking standards are maximum standards is a trifle disingenuous and that the UDP is in effect prescribing a minimum level of residential parking. The issue is most likely to be raised in the case of car-free housing which I consider later, but my overall conclusion is that a modification of Policy TRANS 23(A) is needed to address this apparent lack of conformity with the London Plan.

Traffic Restraint

4.25.7 The onset of the Congestion Charge in Central London appears to have had the effect of reducing traffic levels by the amount set as a target by both the GLA and the City Council. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy usefully defines Traffic Restraint in its Glossary as: “ The discouragement of traffic, especially the car, by traffic management, fiscal measures and the co-ordinated application of transport and planning policy”. The UDP complements the London Plan overall strategy by its key component Policies such as TRANS 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11 and 15. These have already been considered in this report and have generally been commended for adoption.

4.25.8 The effect of TRANS 21-26 (inclusive) will further help to reduce non-essential traffic and my conclusion is that TRANS 25, in particular, is in very general conformity with the emergent London Plan, following the latter’s recent Examination in Public (EiP). I have already noted that the Congestion Charge, as an effective fiscal measure, seems to have resulted in traffic reduction of the order sought in the UDP, notwithstanding the City Council’s reservations on it. I conclude that there is no “quick fix” to the many problems of Central London traffic and that it is by the consistent and rigorous application of the soon to be adopted planning policies by the GLA and LPA that the problems of excessive car- dependency will in future be overcome.

Provision of Motorcycle Parking

4.25.9 The growing prevalence of PTW vehicles in Central London streets has been drawn to my attention and has been reinforced by my observations during site inspections following the close of the inquiry. My earlier conclusion (see TR00) was that the scope for requiring

Chapter 4 : Transport page 462 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

PTW parking provision is very limited, not least because advice in the London Plan on setting standards is absent. Indeed there is little guidance either in the earlier (2001) Transport Strategy. My conclusion is that PTW use is growing but that, as a motorised mode, it should not be accorded the same degree of priority as walking, cycling and the use of public transport. In this view, I share the LPA’s concern that PTW use is likely to be at the expense of the latter means of travel, even if it does not actually compete with the limited space available for movement. However, to the extent that it reduces car-dependency and use, some provision should be made for parking. I believe the best way of securing such provision is to include a statement to the effect that conversion of car to PTW parking spaces will be permitted without the need for express authorisation on a ratio of 1:5 (see 4.0.6).

Requirement for Foodstore Parking

4.25.10 The advice of the London Plan (Annex 4) is that no dedicated parking ought to be permitted in conjunction with Central London foodstores. It is hard to disagree with this stance, given that suitably large sites will be hard to find and that the residential densities will support the provision of frequent smaller outlets. Indeed, my impression, on inspection, is that the smaller format foodstores pioneered by Tesco’s “Metro” and Sainsbury’s “Local” initiatives have been conspicuously successful in many places in Westminster. They also give the appearance of being well integrated with the urban fabric in a variety of redevelopment schemes. I fully accept the LPA’s argument that bulky food shopping in Westminster is entirely possible by using taxis, by using both on-street and off-street public parking provision, by the use of more frequent, convenient and commodious bus services, or even on foot. I would also point out that the increasing popularity of home delivery services, offered by the major traders such as Tesco and Waitrose, adds another option to the resident food shopper. I conclude that a standard for dedicated shopper parking is not justified.

Disabled Parking

4.25.11 Just as public buildings and public transport are being provided with easier physical access for the disabled, it seems appropriate to make adequate parking provision available for disabled drivers. This minimum provision will presumably normally be accommodated in conjunction with the specified levels of operational parking. Some provision will be especially important in the case of shopping development, in view of the absence generally of off-street parking in such cases. I note also that explicit mention is made of the disabled requirement in TRANS 21, 22, 23 and 25 and that the generalised rate of provision for non-residential development is set at 20% of the overall number of spaces. This is the subject of objection but I support the LPA’s view that it is an appropriate level, having regard to Westminster’s population profile and, indeed, the greater stringency of parking control, as compared with the Inner and Outer London Boroughs.

Conformity with PPGs and RPGs

4.25.12 The UDP appears to have had adequate regard to both RPG3 (as later modified by RPG9 Policy T3) and the content of PPG13. The necessary differentiation between Outer, Inner and Central London conditions have been recognised and the universal prevalence of CPZ and associated Red Route parking control within Westminster is another powerful disincentive to the optional or non-essential use of cars as a travel mode.

Monitoring of Parking Provision

Chapter 4 : Transport page 463 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

4.25.13 Some disquiet is felt by the objectors at the apparent lack of co-ordination as between on-street and off-street provision. The LPA’s general view is that the former is a matter for transport planning and for traffic and highways powers of regulation and enforcement whereas only the latter is within the land use planning ambit. This is of course literally true but the advice of the London Plan is to take a slightly more synoptic and holistic view of parking provision than that implicit in the UDP. The LPA contend that overall levels of parking provision will be monitored. This may well be so (see paragraph 4.148 of the Pre Inquiry version of the UDP for additional wording to cover this intention). However, I conclude that action on the balance of supply and demand, as revealed by monitoring, ought to be more explicitly incorporated into the Policy Application and this I intend to recommend. The subsequent determination of area-wide parking stress indicators might usefully be applied to the selection of site-specific parking provision in the case of individual planning applications where variations above and below the norm may be justified.

Car-Free Housing

4.25.14 My conclusion is that there is no place for minimum parking standards for residential development in Westminster. However, I do not believe that the omission of parking from housing development will result in significant traffic restraint, as it might do in the case of employment or commercial floorspace. My reasoning is that it is the availability or adequacy of parking at the destination of individual trips that is the critical factor; not the levels of parking provision or car ownership at the trip origin. This general point is made in Annex 4 (paragraph 3) to the London Plan. The main benefit of car-free development probably lies in the realm of securing higher residential densities, a point made at the inquiry by objectors. However, I slightly doubt the commercial wisdom of the absence of provision of parking in market housing although car-free affordable housing is certainly endorsed in PPG13, among other sources of guidance. My overall conclusion is that lower or nil provision of residential car parking ought to be tied to the proportion of affordable housing, the existence of planning agreements to restrict RESPARK entitlement and other safeguards and also to the area-wide parking stress monitoring and analysis referred to above.

Hotel and Hospital Parking

4.25.15 The UDP prescribes nil provision in the case of hotels and discretionary provision in the case of hospitals. Both these aspects of Appendix 4.2 are the subject of objections. In the case of the former, I support the LPA position for the simple reason that it would be unwise to add to the estimated existing 16 000 off-street parking spaces in Westminster. Not only would the quantitative addition be undesirable but the fact that it would be dedicated provision would seem to run completely counter to both the London Plan and the UDP’s aims of increasing traffic restraint and the pooling of parking provision wherever possible. The London Tourist Board’s (28) anxiety is well understood but the fact that Westminster is par excellence an international business and tourist destination suggests that hotel clients will accept parking limitations and the use of hire cars, taxis and other forms of public transport to be the norm as it is elsewhere in large cities in Western Europe. The tourist situation could well be eased by the wider availability of Park and Ride (Parkway) provision on the M25 orbital and approach motorways. This might allow seamless interchange and linked modal trips (car-train-taxi) to Central London destinations. This is outside the scope of the Westminster UDP but something which the London Tourist Board might itself usefully pursue

4.25.16 Moreover, there is a Greater London or strategic aspect to this particular facet of planning policy and traffic restraint. The London Plan specifically takes account of the needs of car-borne hotel clientele. It acknowledges that motor-based accommodation of the Travel Inn variety ought to enjoy what it terms “unfettered parking provision”. The corollary to this concession is that such hotels should enjoy immediate access to arterial (i.e. primary Chapter 4 : Transport page 464 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

distributor) roads. This implies that provision ought to be made in Outer (and possibly Inner) but certainly not in Central London. Hotel development has shown a markedly centripetal tendency in London until fairly recently but latterly there has been increasing provision of bedspaces outside the Central Area, the traditional location of hotel development. It may be assumed that the GLA’s strategy is to concentrate car-based hotel accommodation in Outer London in locations with high PTAL characteristics and to assume that visitor trips to, from and within Central London will be made by public transport, much as the LPA argues.

4.25.17 A possible solution to the dilemma, at least in the case of significant and suitably positioned hotel development, might be the joint or related development of new hotels with associated public car parking. This possibility was not discussed at the Inquiry since there were then no relevant appearances by objectors. It occurs to me that, provided there were general conformity with Policies TRANS 1-3,9,14,16 and 25, it might be possible to combine, conceivably on adjacent sites, the concurrent development of new tourist hotels with new and public car and coach parking. Such an arrangement would have to be subject to strict planning conditions and a variety of planning agreements and undertakings but it would have the supreme merit of avoiding an undue increase of off-street and especially dedicated car parking provision in Westminster. Since this possibility was not mentioned in the written representations and was not able to be discussed at the Inquiry, I make no recommendations on the subject but offer the above comments on an informal basis.

4.25.18 The case of hospitals is slightly different. The UDP (and the London Plan (Annex 4)) accepts that there should be discretionary assessment made in individual cases. It is certainly likely that most patients and some visitors will be car-dependent in Greater London as a whole. However, given the good public transport access throughout Westminster, the GLA (C2) standard of one car space to every 2-4 bedspaces is not at all appropriate. Perhaps the most equitable approach would be to regard visitors’ parking as essential operational parking, as in a sense it is, in much the same way as medical and nursing staff require access at all hours of the day and night. A recommended solution would be to specify or allow reasonably generous and suitably-located operational provision to be made and to write this into the relevant Policy (i.e. TRANS 22(D)).

Recommendations

S R4.25.1 Modify Policies TRANS 21-25 and supporting text, generally in accordance with the pre-inquiry version of the Review UDP.

S R4.25.2 Modify Policy TRANS 21(C) to read as follows:

"(C) In exceptional cases, the City Council may permit parking provision beyond the maximum or discretionary levels set out in Appendix 4.2, taking into account the following operational needs (excluding servicing requirements under Policy TRANS 20) which are defined as:

(1) the necessary accommodation of vehicles used for essential business journeys, not possible by other means, such as those involving the carrying of heavy or bulky items; (2) the necessary accommodation of vehicles required for operational purposes and which must be kept on the premises.

All such cases will need to be supported by a Transport Assessment under Policy TRANS 14 (see Appendix 4.1)."

S R4.25.3 Modify Policy TRANS 22(D) to read as follows:

Chapter 4 : Transport page 465 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

"(D) Hospitals and Medical Centres

Provision for parking will be determined on the merits of individual cases, including size and location of premises. Operational parking spaces (in addition to those authorised under Policy TRANS 21) including that required for disabled access, medical and nursing staff who have a demonstrable emergency commitment, short-term visitor and drop-off spaces and emergency vehicle access should normally be provided off-street and under cover."

S R4.25.4 Modify Policy TRANS 23(A) to read as follows:

"(A) The City Council will normally require off-street parking to be accommodated on the basis of a maximum provision of:

(1) one car space per unit of residential accommodation containing either one or two bedrooms: (2) one or two car spaces per unit of residential accommodation comprising three bedrooms or more (provided that the aggregate provision does not exceed 1.5 spaces per dwelling).

The City Council will require that any such parking spaces shall be reserved for the sole permanent use of residents and planning permissions shall be made conditional on such a limitation, subject only to the possible subsequent allocation of motorcycle parking on the basis of 5 spaces per former car parking space. The permanent loss of any existing off-street residential car parking space will not be permitted other than in exceptional circumstances."

S R4.25.5 Modify Policy TRANS 23 by the addition of TRANS 23(D) to read as follows:

"(D) In the case of residential development intended and designed to be "car-free", no off-street provision need be made (apart from that operationally required by Policy TRANS 20) but conditions may be imposed in the light of:

(1) the proportion of affordable housing to be provided; (2) the maximum size of dwelling in the proposed development; (3) the net residential density proposed; (4) the monitored adequacy or stringency of local on-street parking; and, (5) the existence of agreements restricting RESPARK entitlement."

S R4.25.6 Modify paragraph 4.148 of the supporting text to read as follows:

"4.148 The City Council is prepared to consider the removal of on-street parking spaces as a justification for the development of off-street parking where clear environmental or transport benefits can be demonstrated (with reference to Policy TRANS 14 if appropriate). The total number of on- and off- street parking spaces (both public and private) will be monitored and the City Council will review their adequacy and future retention. This information will be used in connection with future levels of parking provision to be made off- street, in the application of Policies TRANS 21-25 to individual cases."

Chapter 4 : Transport page 466 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

TR26: Off-Street Parking: All Development (Forecourt Parking)

Objectors and Supporters

2 Greater London Authority 131 Marylebone Association 138 Westbourne Neighbourhood Association 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 632 Westminster Cycling Campaign 680 The Crown Estate 791 Gerard Livett

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) As a form of two-wheeled transport, the motorcyclist is less vulnerable to injury than a pedal cyclist.

(ii) As the motorcycle is a viable alternative to other forms of private transport (please see representations to Part 1 Policies), the council should include motorcycles and scooters in their parking standards policies.

(iii) Recognise that parking standards for all types of development are necessary. However, in none of these policies are standards set out for motorcycle parking, an omission that should be rectified.

(iv) Because the incidence of motorcycle ownership and use is less than that of motor cars, recommend lower parking standards that is required for cars, but for such standards to be set at levels that would encourage the use of motorcycles and scooters over the use of motor cars. [791]

(b) (i) Want stronger enforcement to discourage the owners of shops from parking on their private forecourts. [131]

(c) (i) Sustain objection. The amended wording is a slight improvement but does not go far enough.

(ii) Sustain objection. It is not always essential to provide car parking spaces for residents, residents’ visitors and short stay visitors to shops particularly in areas that are highly accessible by public transport.

(iii) Minded to withdraw provided deletion of section beginning: ‘Where possible, convenient parking should be provided for residents to enable them to park near their homes. In addition, parking provision is necessary to meet the needs of residents’ visitors, essential business users, short stay visitors to shops…’

(iv) This is another example of a lack of an integrated approach to transport and serves to undermine the aspirational integrated and sustainable transport policies in Part 1 of the UDP. It lacks a transport vision because it only replicates current unsustainable parking patterns and does not seek to proactively promote alternative ways of dealing with transport, such as restraint based car parking measures. It is not necessarily the case that parking is ‘essential to the functioning of any area’, particularly in parts of Westminster which are very well served by public transport. This paragraph is consequently

Chapter 4 : Transport page 467 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

inward looking, and uninformed by current policy advice about integrated transport.

(v) It omits the idea of car free development and other initiatives which can contribute to sustainable development which do not need car parking. The idea of car free developments should be introduced to balance this paragraph, as well as re-evaluating the whole approach of parking in the plan in terms of environmental issues and sustainability.

(vi) Delete first sentence of this paragraph. Reword to balance this paragraph with integrated transport ideas and sustainable development requirements, linking in with an overall strategy. [2]

(d) (i) Policy as proposed is based on minimum car parking standards for development. The proposed policy, as it currently stands, is not compatible with the rest of the Chapter or the UDP. The policy contradicts the housing chapter of the UDP as the minimum use of parking standards will mean that valuable land that could be used for housing will be used for parking instead. The inability of developers to meet parking standards will restrict the amounts of housing development and conversions that can take place. This should not be the case, particularly as Westminster is seeking to reduce traffic and national policy is to use a maximum standard approach to parking. PPG13, Public Consultation Draft, states that;

'Policies in development plans should set maximum levels of parking for broad classes of development which encourage sustainable transport choices and promote development in locations well served by public transport, walking and cycling. There should be no minimum requirements for development.'

(ii) The policy should promote maximum levels or standards of parking rather than minimum levels in order to restrict the ease of parking and encourage other forms of transport to be used. Car-free developments should also be encouraged by the policy, particularly as public transport access is good and that the proposed UDP is promoting cycling, walking and public transport improvements.

(iii) The area is well served by public transport and the council should use the provision of parking spaces as a tool to control the amount of traffic attracted to central London on a daily basis. A maximum parking standard should therefore be pursued both for residential and non-residential developments. [680]

(e) (i) Off street parking and use of gardens. This represents an enormous loss of amenity in terms of greenery and wildlife. In conservation areas, the townscape is lost where front gardens form an integral part of the building. Welcome the change of policy whereby such areas will be protected. [138]

(f) (i) Support new paragraph 4.146a, amongst the others. Does this paragraph mean that new development involving the creation of an off-street parking space, perhaps within the curtilage of the house, can be resisted, if it means knocking down a wall, the creation of a crossover, coupled with the loss of one or more RESPARK spaces.?

(ii) MAP 4.5 (See Porchester Road, Westbourne Grove and Chepstow Road.) unsure about the significance of a route being a bus initiative route (Route 36),

Chapter 4 : Transport page 468 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

whilst Routes 7 and 23 are designated as bus priority routes. Which is best for the user?.

(iii) Support for paras 4.163-4.164 [381]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) The issue of motorcycle (including all powered two-wheelers) policy has been the subject of much recent discussion, with the on-going trials of charges for motorcycle parking, including the provision of security measures, and the high level of objections to the transport chapter of the UDP from motorcyclists. A motorcycle policy has now been written into the Second Deposit version of the UDP. This is intended to be a balanced policy recognising that motorcycles take up less roadspace than cars, but also the environmental implications of motorcycle use, the safety problems they cause and various uses they are put to e.g. commuting, couriers, business use, residents, etc. The policy (TRANS 11a) includes charging for on-street parking, at a level which has yet to be decided, but will be at most proportionately less than the charges for car parking, with or without limitations on the length of stay to encourage commuters to park off- street where possible. It reads :-

"The City Council will seek to maintain an adequate supply of parking facilities for motorcyclists and will consider motorcyclists needs in the design of any traffic calming and management schemes. In recognising the safety and environmental problems caused by motorcycles relative to other modes, it will be necessary to apply a level of restraint through parking policies."

(ii) The reasoned justification for this policy is outlined in paragraphs 4.97a - 4.97g. See also Council's Inquiry Proofs on Motorcycling. [791]

(b) (i) Support welcomed. It is difficult to enforce against parking on forecourts and the enforcement or lack of it against such things is not a matter for the Plan. [131]

(c) (i) Believe this objection will be withdrawn following the deletion of “essential” as far as it applies to residents and following meeting with GLA or TfL officers.

(ii) The reasons for restraining parking are given in other paragraphs as are the alternative means for dealing with transport, such as encouraging walking, cycling and public transport. This paragraph simply states why it is still necessary to provide some parking facilities. [2]

(d) (i) The revised standards do comply with Government Guidance. Nevertheless, the City Council believes that the situation on its streets, where there are only some 80 Respark bays available per 100 permits on issue represents “exceptional circumstances”. In reality, a proportion of new residents will want to own cars, both now and in the future, and if off-street facilities are not provided for them this will increase the pressure on on-street facilities, which many existing residents already find difficult.

(ii) The City Council has considered the issue of residential parking standards on several recent occasions, the most recent being on 26 June when a Special meeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee reiterated previous decisions, and the City Council continues to operate minimum parking standards in new residential developments.

Chapter 4 : Transport page 469 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) The Committee feels that residents will continue to want to own cars and that to provide housing with little or no parking would simply mean that those cars would have to be parked on-street. On-street residents parking facilities are already oversubscribed. [680]

(e-f) (i) Support welcomed. [138] [381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.26.1 The scope of the above objections indicates that some of them are directed at other UDP Policies. For example, those relating to the use and parking of motorcycles are covered by new Policy TRANS 11a (see TR11A). Similarly, those relating to car-free housing are considered elsewhere in this report (see TR25). What Policy TRANS 26 is directed at is the quite often unsightly formation of off-street parking spaces in front gardens, forecourts and even within parts of de facto footways that remain part of private property. Given the welcome plethora of recent and useful design guidance on the subject (e.g. “Better Places to Live” (DTLR+CABE: 2001, “Paving the Way” (ODPM+CABE: 2002) and “Home Zone-Design Guidelines” (IHIE: 2002) it is clear that the ad hoc conversion of such space is generally to be avoided in favour of the discreet location of off-street parking. This may be either integrally within new buildings or as part of a considered and properly landscaped environmental enhancement scheme. The re-naming of the Policy would also serve to focus its intended impact.

4.26.2 However, one major problem is that development control may in practice be restricted by the freedom given under the current GPDO 1995 (in particular article 3 Permitted Development under Parts 1 and 2 of its Second Schedule). Paving over a front garden and arranging crossover access may often be possible without authorisation from the planning authority (but not without that of the highway authority). At the same time, article 4 of the GPDO allows local authorities to bring these operations within planning control, especially within conservation areas, and subsequently to enforce compliance with such control, provided of course that the development was not originally authorised by the GPDO. In view of the importance that the LPA rightly attach to this critical aspect of townscape conservation, it would be helpful to signal its intention (a) to invoke article 4 and (b) in the case of future development, to remove permitted development rights by condition.

Recommendation

S R4.26.1 Modify Policy TRANS 26 to read as follows:

"POLICY TRANS 26: OFF-STREET PARKING IN FORECOURTS AND FRONT GARDENS

(A) The use of private forecourts or front gardens for parking vehicles will be resisted unless authorised or arranged as part of an approved overall development proposal or else within a comprehensive scheme of environmental traffic management or street scene enhancement.

(B) The City Council will encourage the removal of such parking provision from front gardens or shop frontages or forecourts where it currently exists and will seek to remove permitted development rights for such minor operations where the quality of the local townscape or street scene justifies such action.

(C) In the interests of maintaining the good appearance of new development and preventing the loss of existing on-street parking provision, the Council may

Chapter 4 : Transport page 470 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

impose conditions to withdraw permitted development rights and to secure the permanent retention of authorised and integral off-street parking provision."

TR27: Access Ramps on the Highway

Objectors and Supporters

73 London Underground Limited 807 London School of Economics and Political Science

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Object. The policy should be less restrictive on buildings which are used by large numbers of people, such as buildings used for teaching and research by Higher Education Institutions. [807]

(i) This policy is inconsistent with STRA 18. It may only be possible to accommodate access for mobility impaired by such means. The exceptions in policy application are too restrictive and should be modified.

add “or where there is no alternative” at end of sentence. [73]

Summary of Council’s Response

(a) & (b) (i) The provision of ramps on the highway raises several issues as described in paragraph 4.167 but also issues of ownership and responsibility for maintenance, cleansing etc. If the owner of a building needs to make that building accessible to people with mobility difficulties it would be preferable if that provision could be made within the site, not on the public highway. [807] [73]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

4.27.1 The provision of access ramps for the disabled and partially mobile is increasingly and rightly viewed as an enabling and socially inclusive objective. It is in addition a requirement of the Building Regulations (currently Part M of the Regulations). The physical entrance arrangements may often be difficult to accommodate. Typically they call for maximum gradients of 5% and minimum widths of 1.200 m with available headroom of at least 2.100 m. Ideally these access arrangements should be made within buildings or on private land. Quite often they are not, because either there is no space available or because building owners or developers are not willing to sacrifice either site area or internal floorspace and prefer to externalise the problem, quite literally, to the public realm. What the LPA are seeking to do is to resist any such latter pressure, especially where the public highway involved is at or below a reasonable minimum for pedestrian (or other) traffic.

4.27.2 There can be no objection to the basic aim of this planning policy. An important exception to the rule of generally fitting ramps and other access arrangements internally is that of listed buildings. Here it may indeed be preferable to make external arrangements in the interests of preserving the special character of the building. This of course must be balanced against the possible injury that access devices may have on the setting of the listed building or buildings in question. In many ways, this raises similar issues to those of safeguarding public amenity by way of ensuring the safe and easy passage of pedestrian traffic along and within the frontage footway. If this is adequately dimensioned (and here relevant considerations may be minimum highway standards) there can be no objection. In

Chapter 4 : Transport page 471 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

most instances it will be a matter of judging applications case by case and on merit; however, it is essential that the situation is covered by a suitably modified TRANS 27.

Recommendation

S R4.27.1 Modify Policy TRANS 27 to read as follows:

"POLICY TRANS 27: DISABLED ACCESS TO BUILDINGS

(A) The City Council will require the provision of access ramps and other facilities for the disabled to be located entirely within the curtilage or the interior of buildings to which they are intended to provide access, unless it is necessary to encroach on the public highway where they should not unreasonably inconvenience pedestrian or other traffic or adversely affect the setting of listed buildings."

Chapter 4 : Transport page 472