 |
|
|
| |
|
| 5.
TRANSPORT CHAPTER |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
INTRODUCTION |
| 5.1 |
Land use and transport issues are closely inter-related. Transport policies which promote more sustainable transport choices and reduce the need to travel by car are central to promoting sustainable land-use patterns. |
| 5.2 |
Over the last few decades there has been a massive increase in demand for transport in the United Kingdom. However, the increase within the different modes of transport has not been equal, with the use of the private motor vehicles demonstrating an exponential growth rate, considerably higher than alternatives, such as bus, train, walking or cycling. |
| 5.3 |
The Government has set out its policy for
the future of transport in its White Paper 'A New Deal for Transport:
Better for Everyone' (July 1998). To assist in implementing a consistent
local approach on planning and transport, Local Transport Plans have
a central role in co-ordinating and improving local transport provision.
The Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan (LTP) has been jointly
produced by Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council
and covers the period 2001/2-2005/6, accompanied by Annual Progress
Reports, 2003/4 being the most recent version. The replacement "LTP
2" is currently under preparation and will cover a period of
five years from 2006/7 - 2010/11; expected to be completed in March
2006. Within the Borough of Gedling, the County Council is responsible
for roads in the Borough and Network Rail, the rail operating companies
and bus companies for public transport. |
| 5.4 |
The Borough of Gedling comprises the north eastern suburbs of Greater Nottingham as well as a number of outlying villages located around the urban fringe. The City Centre is a very important provider of employment, retail, education, transport and leisure facilities for the Greater Nottingham region and therefore acts as a significant draw on journeys undertaken by the Borough's residents. In addition to the City Centre, there are a number of less significant but none the less important centres of trip generation. In simple terms these combine a mixture of uses; involving district centres, main employment sites, education establishments and leisure facilities. Other chapters within the Local Plan seek to direct new development firstly to land within the main urban areas; secondly to land adjoining the main urban area; and thirdly along the public transport corridor to Hucknall. |
| 5.5 |
In terms of household car ownership, rates within the Borough have continued to increase and this has contributed to 33% growth in daily traffic flows in Greater Nottingham between 1980 and 1991 (source: National Road Transport Forecast). Over half of Gedling's workforce travel to the City for work (source: 1991 Census) and 1991 surveys showed nearly 83% of cars inbound into Greater Nottingham at the morning peak carried no passengers. At the same time there has been a significant drop in the number of people travelling to work by bus and train. The net effect of this has been an associated increase in road congestion and pollution. |
| 5.6 |
The suburbs of Greater Nottingham are linked to the City Centre by a number of radial routes. These include the Mansfield Road (A60), Woodborough Road (B684) and the Burton Road/ Colwick Loop Road (A612 and B686). These can be subject to considerable congestion, particularly during morning and evening peaks. Radial routes are often built up and there is little scope for significant widening. Past research has shown that widening could, in any case, simply increase traffic flows and generate more traffic and therefore do little to alleviate the problems of congestion and pollution. Some road and junction improvements for public transport benefits may be possible in certain locations. |
| 5.7 |
Passenger train facilities within the Borough are limited compared to other conurbations of a similar size. The Robin Hood Line is a rail service which operates between Nottingham Midland Station and Worksop. The first stage between Nottingham and Newstead was opened in 1993 and the extension to Worksop was completed in May 1998. A half hourly service is provided between Nottingham and Mansfield Woodhouse and a regular hourly service is provided between Nottingham and Worksop Monday to Saturday. |
| 5.8 |
NET (Nottingham Express Transit) Line One is a modern light rapid transit (tram system), which runs from Hucknall, through Bulwell, Basford and Hyson Green and past Nottingham Trent University before reaching the city centre and terminating at Nottingham Midland Station. A spur runs to Phoenix Park, just off the junction 26 of the M1. Work on its construction began in June 2000; public tram services commenced 9th March 2004. NET will carry an estimated 11 million passengers and take an estimated two million car journeys off the conurbation's roads every year. Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council are undertaking detailed appraisal work before deciding whether to submit a Transport and Works Act Order application to Government for the powers to build two further tram routes. These lines to Clifton via Wilford and Chilwell via QMC and Beeston would link directly to Line One with through services. The feasibility of other longer term new routes or extensions to existing routes is also under constant review. |
| 5.9 |
The Nottinghamshire Structure Plan Review's principle transport objective relates to changing the modal split of journeys in order to reduce existing levels of congestion. The target is to increase public transport's share of morning peak period motorised movements into Nottingham's Inner Traffic Area from 27% in 1991 to 37% by 2011. Furthermore, the Local Transport Plan includes Road Traffic Reduction Act targets for the Greater Nottingham Area (1998-2011) for no growth of traffic entering the City Inner Traffic area and to limit traffic growth to 8% across the whole Area. |
| 5.10 |
In order to facilitate this change of modal split, it will be necessary to promote and improve bus and rail provision, walking and cycling as alternatives to the private car. Where possible public transport provision to sites which generate a high number of trips should be enhanced. Equally important is the accessibility and attractiveness of these sites to cyclists and pedestrians. The Council is therefore keen to promote improvements to cycle and pedestrian routes and facilities. In assessing the details of individual proposals in high trip generating locations, it is important that they be assessed in ways that the needs of cyclists and pedestrian users are fully understood and addressed. This not only means making the environment safe, but also attractive and interesting. The benefit of this approach will be that people may more easily choose to walk or cycle rather than travel by car. |
| 5.11 |
The City Council along with the participating bus operators have formed a ''Bus Quality Partnership''. 14 major bus corridors have been identified by the Bus Quality Partnership, five of which are partially located within the Borough. These are: |
| |
1. |
Mansfield Road (A60N) - services between the City and Arnold, Calverton, Mansfield, Worksop and Chesterfield |
| |
2. |
Woodborough Road (B684) - services from the City to Woodthorpe, Lambley, Woodborough and Calverton |
| |
3. |
Carlton Road (B686) - services from the City to Sneinton, Carlton, Gedling, Southwell, Burton Joyce and Newark |
| |
4. |
Daleside Road (A612) - services from the City to Colwick, Netherfield, Gedling, Southwell, Burton Joyce including the Racecourse Park and Ride site |
| |
5. |
Ring Road (A6514) - services linking Clifton, QMC, the University, Radford, Basford, City Hospital and Arnold |
| 5.12 |
Gedling Borough Council support the possible provision of Park and Ride sites, associated bus lanes and priority measures. Additional public transport information, car sharing and employer / organisation led travel plans (transport demand management measures) will also be promoted. The Council is also keen to promote proposals aimed at realising the transport potential of heavy and light rail services. |
| 5.13 |
In seeking to encourage alternatives to the private car there may be, from time to time, conflicts of interest. This may mean that in certain circumstances it is necessary to reduce the highway capacity in order to enhance the pedestrian environment. Another potential area of conflict is in relation to car parking. Studies have suggested that car parking restraint can be effective in influencing the choice of means of transport. Therefore, in areas of high transport demand, policies of car parking restraint should be considered as part of packages of measures to encourage higher public transport patronage, reduced car use and a safer and more attractive pedestrian environment. |
|
|
| |
| POLICY T1 NEW DEVELOPMENTS
- DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS |
| Objectives |
| Transport |
1, 5 |
| Sustainability |
5, 6 |
| Housing |
6 |
 |
|
|
|
| Contributions will be negotiated from developers of retail, housing employment and other significant developments to meet elements of the transport costs that arise from the additional demand for travel caused by their proposals. The contributions will be used to promote integrated transport measures that may include:- |
- public transport provision or enhancement;
- measures to assist pedestrians;
- highway safety measures;
- measures to assist cyclists;
|
| Where appropriate, the dedication of land within development sites will be negotiated to assist in providing public transport services. |
| In addition, developers will be expected to prepare and implement travel plans for developments that are likely to generate a significant number of journeys. Such green transport plans will include measures to reduce the level of car use arising from the development. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 5.14 |
In many cases, new commercial and residential development will have a significant additional effect on the surrounding highway network. However, the effects can be reduced by a range of measures designed to encourage less use of the private car. Improvements can often be introduced in ways which provide for safer and more convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport as well as making these more attractive modes within the wider transport network. |
| 5.15 |
The Government is moving towards a system where such transport measures are funded by a mix of public and private sector finance. Policy 5/4 of the NSPR already enables contributions (which may in some circumstances meet the full cost) to be negotiated from developers. In May 2002, the County Council in conjunction with the City Council adopted an Interim Transport Planning Statement (ITPS) on Integrated Transport Measures and Developers' Contributions (copies available from the Local Plans Section). This documents details the approach to major new development from an integrated transport perspective. It can be used by developers and planners to estimate what the maximum contribution could be for any given development over a specified threshold. The specific areas in which contributions will be required by the ITPS are defined in this Local Plan. All locations are identified in this Plan although the glossary sets out the definition of public transport corridors. Policy T1 will be implemented in accordance with current government guidance on developer contributions. Paragraph 23 of PPG13 states that Transport Assessments (TAs) should be prepared and submitted alongside the relevant planning applications for development which has "significant transport implications". The Government intends to publish good practice guidance relating to the content and preparation of TAs, which will need to be taken into consideration once published. The ITPS states that the purpose of the TA is to examine travel to and from the site by all modes of transport and identify the modal share targets it seeks to achieve and that such targets should work towards meeting the objectives of the Local Transport Plan. The purpose of the TA will be to identify the measures required to accommodate the travel movements associated with the development alongside aims to reduce traffic growth in line with the LTP. |
| 5.16 |
Appropriate levels of developer contributions will be based on the development size, location and type, to reflect the likely integrated transport costs required to serve the development. In linking the location of development to the level of contribution, the ITPS supports the approach to new development defined in National Planning Guidance, Structure Plan Policy and this Replacement Local Plan. |
|
|
| |
| POLICY T2 NEW DEVELOPMENTS
- SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT |
| Objectives |
| Transport |
5 |
| Sustainability |
7 |
| Housing |
6 |
|
|
|
|
| Permission will not be granted for significant retail, housing and employment proposals or other significant development, unless provision is made in the layout for facilities giving priority to, and enabling access by public transport, cycles and pedestrians. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 5.17 |
Both national and strategic guidance promotes the concept of providing alternative means of transport other than the private car. The Borough Council is conscious that in order to promote the concepts of "sustainability", a range of transport choices need to be encouraged. Therefore, development which solely concentrates on access by the private motor car will not be acceptable. Developers of significant retail, housing and employment land will need to demonstrate that they have paid sufficient regard to encouraging alternative modes of transport to access the site such as public transport, cycling and walking. 'Significant development' is that which is likely to have a material impact on transport. In order to encourage a change of modal split in accordance with Structure Plan targets and in the light of the 1991 Census which showed that more than 25% of the Borough's households do not have a car, it is important to provide specifically for improvements which will encourage sustainable transport choices. Within the context of Gedling Borough currently, this largely means bus transport. 16.16% of all work journeys within the Borough are by bus and a bus can carry the occupants of around 50 cars (given that many car journeys are single occupancy journeys), thereby considerably reducing road take. |
|
|
| |
| POLICY
T3 PROPOSED TRANSPORT SCHEMES |
| Objectives |
| Transport |
1, 3 |
| Sustainability |
6 |
|
|
|
|
| a. |
The following transport schemes are proposed:- |
| Rail |
| (i) |
New passenger rail-line and station(s) from the former Gedling Colliery to the Nottingham-Grantham rail line; (M/L) |
| (ii) |
New passenger rail line and station from the Robin Hood Line (near Bestwood) to Calverton; (M/L) |
| (iii) |
NET extension from Hucknall to Top Wighay Farm; (M/L) |
| Bus |
| (iv) |
Bus stations/interchanges at Arnold town centre and Carlton Square district centre; (S) |
| (v) |
Bus priority measures along the following corridors:- |
| |
- Mansfield Road (S)
- Mapperley Plains/Woodborough Road (S)
- Nottingham Road/Burton Road/ Carlton Road (S)
- Daleside Road; (S)
|
| (vi) |
A612 Gedling, Major Integrated Transport Scheme (Bus priority on A612 Burton Road between Shearing Hill and Whitworth Drive, and Stoke Lane between A612 Link Road and Emerys Road, see also T3 (xi)); (S) |
| Road |
| (vii) |
A612 Daleside Road/Colwick Loop Road improvements; (S/M) |
| (viii) |
B684 Woodborough Road (Porchester Road to Robinson Road) improvements; (M/L) |
| (ix) |
Woodthorpe Drive, Woodthorpe improvements and bend realignment; (M) |
| (x) |
A60/ B6020 Larch Farm crossroads, Ravenshead junction improvement; (S/M) |
| (xi) |
A612 Gedling Transport Improvement Scheme (includes a proposed new road link between A612 Burton Joyce and A612 Netherfield). (S) |
| |
(S) |
short term 0-5 yrs |
| |
(M) |
medium term 6-10 yrs |
| |
(L) |
longer term 11-20 yrs |
| |
source: Local Transport Plan for Greater Nottingham 2001/02-2005/06 and subsequent Annual Progress Reports |
| b. |
Where appropriate, land is shown on the proposals map as safeguarded for the construction of the principal rail and road schemes. Other development will not be permitted if it would prejudice the implementation of any of the above schemes. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 5.18 |
Notwithstanding that the Borough Council are promoting a series of policies which aim to reduce the need to travel and the overall length of individual journeys, it is still projected that the number of individual trips is likely to carry on rising. Therefore, it is necessary to promote more sustainable forms of transport utilising the train and the bus. The schemes listed in the above policy are County Council schemes but the Borough Council has an important role, both in controlling land-use to ensure no scheme is prejudiced and to ensure that the land use proposals in the Plan enhance the prospects for these transport schemes to prove their effective integration. One important qualification to this policy is the fact that the Gedling Relief Road is now proposed as a privately-funded road scheme necessary for the major development at the former Gedling Colliery. Other transport schemes may be promoted by the Borough Council within the Plan period but will be development related such as the extension of the Nottingham Express Transit Railway north of Hucknall. |
| 5.19 |
The schemes described in policy T3 are all identified in the Local Transport Plan (LTP) or subsequent Progress Reports. Government guidance (PPG12/ 13) states that only transport schemes that are far enough advanced to be included in the LTP should be included in the Local Plan. |
| |
Gedling Colliery & Calverton rail-lines
- The South Notts Rail Network (formerly known as GNARDS)
is a major initiative, which will improve passenger rail services
in the Nottingham Travel to Work Area by opening new stations and
operating new services across the City. The reopening of these routes
is likely to contribute significantly to modal shifts and make better
use of existing rail resources, with new stations proposed at Gedling
Colliery, Gedling Village and Calverton. The Gedling Colliery route
is also safeguarded as a potential tram route (future NET) and as
a rail or tram based Park and Ride route to the City Centre. |
| |
NET Extension, Top Wighay Farm
- This route is proposed to extend the NET northwards from
Hucknall, with contributions towards construction costs sought from
the developers of Top Wighay Farm, who will benefit from such an extension. |
| |
Arnold and Carlton MMAAs -
These sites are designated District Centre Mobility Management Action
Areas (MMAAs), with small-scale accessibility, environmental and infrastructure
improvements proposed. These key District Centres will be developed
with various facilities proposed, which could include disabled access,
comprehensive lighting, CCTV surveillance and toilets. |
| |
Bus priority measures -
See paragraphs 5.11-5.12. |
| |
Roads - Maintaining the
structural integrity of the principal road network an important element,
underpinning most components of the Access Aims a) - c). The highway
policy and strategy will reflect the needs of highway users, based
on the current condition of the network, other relevant strategies
and the likely availability of resources. The following road based
schemes are identified:- |
| |
- A612 Daleside Road/ Colwick Loop Road - This
scheme involves a series of minor improvements along this corridor
to deal with road safety issues and assist provision of integrated
transport measures. It is a requirement to complement bus
priority measures currently being considered by Nottingham City
Council on Daleside Road East.
- B684 Woodborough Road (Porchester Road to Robinson Road)
improvements - The Woodborough Road Improvement is a
junction improvement scheme designed to resolve localised congestion
problems and assist the provision of public transport priority
measures. The scheme will also be designed to improve facilities
for cyclists and pedestrians and should assist in the removal
of undesirable through traffic in adjoining residential streets.
- Woodthorpe Drive, Woodthorpe improvements and bend realignment
- The Woodthorpe Drive improvement scheme is, as the title suggests,
designed to rectify problems associated with deficiencies in both
the horizontal and vertical alignment of the road. The scheme
will bring the road up to modern design standard and thereby resolve
existing road safety issues.
- A60/B6020 Larch Farm crossroads, Ravenshead junction
improvement - The introduction of the Mansfield Ashfield
Regeneration Route (MARR) is expected to result in a significant
alteration to the traffic pattern at this junction (although not
necessarily any increase in overall traffic levels). The
County Council is monitoring the traffic impacts at this junction
arising from the opening of MARR (20/12/04) and will review both
the need for and nature of any necessary improvement.
- A612 Gedling Transport Improvement Scheme -
This scheme is designed to integrate bus-based public transport,
pedestrian and cycle improvements and includes specific road space
reallocation and priority for public transport on the A612 and
Stoke Lane. The scheme includes the construction of a new
section of road between the A612 at Burton Joyce and the A612
Colwick Loop Road at Netherfield to cater for the displaced road
traffic. Construction is programmed to commence in early
2006.
|
|
|
| |
| POLICY
T4 PARK AND RIDE |
| Objectives |
| Transport |
1, 3 |
| Sustainability |
6 |
|
|
|
|
| Planning permission will not be granted for development which would prejudice the implementation of the proposed park and ride sites at Gedling Colliery and land north of Hucknall, as identified on the Proposals Map. It is expected that the developers of the associated allocations at Gedling Colliery and Top Wighay Farm will incorporate and maintain or otherwise contribute to such facilities. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 5.20 |
Used as part of a wider approach to address specific traffic, parking or environmental problems, park and ride facilities can help reduce the amount of travel by car and encourage greater use of public transport, thereby assisting a change of modal split and reducing congestion and pollution within the Borough. PPG13 Annex E states that there may be cases where a Green Belt location is the most sustainable of the available options. The need for and feasibility of Park and Ride facilities at Gedling Colliery and Top Wighay will need to be reviewed in accordance with the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan. |
|
|
| |
| POLICY T5 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT |
| Objectives |
| Transport |
1, 3 |
| Sustainability |
6 |
| Town Centres |
1 |
|
|
|
|
| Within the District and Secondary shopping areas shown on the Proposals Map (being areas of high pedestrian activity); it is proposed that pedestrians, cycles and vehicles will be separated, wherever possible, by the introduction of traffic management schemes. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 5.21 |
A 'Health Check' produced for Arnold town centre by G L Hearn (1999) identified conflict between vehicular and pedestrian traffic and recognised opportunities to improve pedestrian access. A similar situation exists within the other District Centres. Possible future schemes are dependant upon the availability of resources and such schemes will include pedestrian improvements, surface treatment, limited vehicle access and other pedestrian priority measures in order to improve pedestrian safety and convenience. Full consultation will be undertaken with businesses, users and statutory undertakers etc, as appropriate, and consideration will be given to such matters as access and deliveries. |
|
|
| |
| POLICY
T6 PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS |
| Objectives |
| Transport |
4, 6, 7 |
| Sustainability |
7, 9 |
| Town Centres |
1 |
|
|
|
|
| Permission will not be granted for development which would prejudice the implementation of pedestrian improvement proposals in the locations identified in Policy T5. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| POLICY
T7 PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT |
|
| Planning permission will only be granted for development which does not have a detrimental effect on pedestrian convenience, safety, patterns of movement and the needs of people with impaired mobility. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 5.22 |
Other than motorcycling, walking has the highest fatality rate per kilometre travelled (16 times higher than car travel). In 1990 nationally, there were about 48,000 pedestrian casualties and 1,241 deaths, the rate being highest amongst children aged 5-14 and elderly people over 75. It is therefore important, both in terms of safety and as part of an overall strategy to facilitate a change in modal split and to promote a safer pedestrian environment. This environment should take account of the requirements of individuals with disabilities and the elderly. |
|
|
| |
| POLICY
T8 CYCLE FACILITIES |
| Objectives |
| Transport |
2, 6, 7 |
| Sustainability |
7 |
|
|
|
|
| The provision of safe, convenient and attractive cycle parking facilities will be sought in connection with major new development proposals in district, secondary and local shopping areas, at transport interchanges, at major public buildings and at other appropriate destinations. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 5.23 |
Cycling facilities, where provided, should be high quality and should accord with the technical standards laid out in the Gedling Borough Cycle Strategy (1997) and those suggested by the publications "Cycle Friendly Infrastructure" and Sustrans' "Guidelines and Practical Details". |
|
|
| |
| POLICY
T9 CYCLE ROUTES |
| Objectives |
| Transport |
2, 6, 7 |
| Sustainability |
7 |
|
|
|
|
| Planning permission will not be granted for development which would prejudice the implementation of the proposed cycle routes shown on the Proposals Map or the continuity of existing cycle routes, unless the proposal includes an alternative cycle route which is no less safe or convenient for public use. Where new developments are proposed in such areas, contributions will be sought for new cycle routes and facilities as either on or off sites works. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 5.24 |
National travel statistics indicate that approximately 75% of all trips undertaken are less than 5 miles in length. There is therefore considerable potential to increase the current modal share of total trips undertaken by cycling, above the 2% recorded at the present time, The National Cycling Strategy (published in July 1996) as well as Government Planning Guidance recognises this potential and seeks to encourage greater usage. The critical target set by the Strategy is to double the number of trips by cycle (on 1996 figures) by the end of 2002 and quadruple the number of trips by cycle (on 1996 figures) by the end of 2012. |
| 5.25 |
Within the built up parts of the Borough, census figures show that over 40% of work trips were under 5 km in length. The cycle was used for 2% of all work trips according to travel to work statistics. This is below the County average of 3.5% although part of the County demonstrates considerably higher rates of over 10%. The County Council and Borough Council both recognise the potential for cycling as an important mode of transport in overall provision. The County Council's Cycling Strategy approved in November 1997 has as its target an increase in cycling's modal share from 3.5% to 10% of all journeys to work in the County. The Gedling Borough Cycle Strategy (approved in 1997 and available from the Local Plans Office) sets out in detail ways in which cycling can be promoted within the Borough and seeks to identify policies which will encourage the extension of existing cycle routes and the provision of new routes - it therefore has recreational relevance as well as transport significance. The Borough Council target is to increase the number of journeys to work to 5% by 2002. The Local Plan can play an important part in helping to achieve the above targets. They will only be achieved if cycle routes and facilities are provided which make cycling a safe, attractive, convenient alternative to private car use. The cycle routes shown on the Proposals Map include a section of the National Cycle Network, which passes through the Borough. A new proposal ("The Green Swathe") close to Arnold Hill Comprehensive School is expected to commence sometime in 2006, to provide easier and safer cycle access up (and down) a major hill. |
| 5.26 |
In considering new development proposals, it is important to ensure that access by cyclists is improved. This policy therefore seeks contributions to new routes and facilities when these are directly related to the development proposed. Any new cycle provision incorporated within a new development must link to existing or proposed improvements beyond the site. |
|
|
| |
| POLICY
T10 HIGHWAY DESIGN AND PARKING GUIDELINES |
| Objectives |
| Sustainability |
2, 8 |
| Housing |
1 |
|
|
|
|
| In considering proposals for new development, reference will be made to the Highway Authority's highway design and parking guidelines. |
| However, developers will not be required to provide more parking spaces than they consider necessary unless failure to provide enough off-street parking would harm road safety or prejudice the flow and management of traffic in nearby streets. |
| The levels of parking provision outlined in Appendix 5 indicate the expected maximum amounts of parking that may be provided in association with broad classes of development, although lower provision may be made, especially in locations with good access to public transport. |
| In residential developments, car parking provision in excess of (on average) 1.5 off-street car parking spaces per dwelling is unlikely to be acceptable. Housing for single and elderly people, in particular, may provide substantially less parking. |
| Special attention will be paid to providing parking spaces reserved for disabled people in all non-residential development. In residential areas disabled parking spaces will be provided according to the need for them. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 5.27 |
The level of parking provision is a major determinant of modal choice, some studies suggesting that levels of parking can be more significant than levels of public transport provision in determining means of travel, even for locations well served by public transport. Car parking policies should therefore support the overall locational policies in the Development Plan. In the past, the density of new development has been determined by the amount of off-street parking provided in accordance with a minimum requirement. However, if the amount of land devoted to car parking is reduced, higher densities may be achieved and where mixed uses can be incorporated (creating less need to travel), more sustainable movement patterns can be encouraged. |
| 5.28 |
Current parking standards, set out in Appendix 5, constitute a reduction of previous standards and introduce the concept of maximum (as opposed to minimum) provision. In line with national guidance (PPG 13), the Borough Council will not require developers to provide more parking provision 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, or in the case of providing suitably designed parking spaces for disabled people. Provision of parking spaces for disabled people, cycles and motorcycles are the exceptions to a maximum standard of provision and the minimum standards are clarified in Appendix 5. Similarly, a flexible approach to road layouts and standards will assist in achieving high standards of design. |
| 5.29 |
In implementing the above policy, the Council will have regard both to highway safety and the need to ensure that urban areas are not made less attractive by the provision of reduced on-site parking. |
| 5.30 |
A flexible and imaginative approach should also be taken to the usage of parking spaces. Within the shopping centres, new non-operational parking provision should be made available and designed to serve the centre as a whole. Parking provision serving local facilities should be specifically designed and located to serve short term needs. This approach will ensure other objectives of the Plan are met and assist in making efficient use of the spaces available. Where a proposal has significant transport implications, measures taken to reduce the need for parking should be demonstrated, normally through the applicable Transport Assessment. |
| 5.31 |
In the case of residential development, it can be reasonably assumed that some types of occupiers are likely to generate less car ownership and use than others. For instance, affordable single person housing is likely to generate low car ownership rates as is sheltered accommodation and houses for the elderly. Government best practice advice identifies the advantages of encouraging the use of more sustainable methods of transport in areas currently well served by public transport. The Borough Council will therefore seek to maximise development potential in and around main radial roads and interchanges by encouraging higher densities in these locations. In considering proposals for residential development in locations such as town centres whereby services are easily accessible by walking, cycling and pubic transport, the Borough Council will consider significantly lower levels of off-street parking provision. |
|
|
| |
| POLICY
T11 TRENTSIDE PATH |
|
| A new footpath is proposed along the following route as shown on the Proposals Map from Colwick to Burton Meadows along the north bank of the River Trent. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 5.32 |
At present the public have riverside access to the Trent via public rights of way from Burton Joyce towards the urban area as far as Private Roadway No.5 on Colwick Industrial Estate as shown on the Definitive Rights of Way Map. The Borough Council consider it would be desirable for there to be a continuous riverside route linking these paths from the open country through to Colwick Country Park. This would complement the policy in the City of Nottingham Local Plan to create public access along the north Bank of the river from Trent Bridge to the Country Park and riverside planning policies in the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan. It would significantly improve footpath access from the urban area to the countryside, and increase access to the riverside for all. Furthermore it would accord with the Trent Valley Way as promoted by the County Council. The 1990 Local Plan identified this potential and included within its Recreation Chapter a policy which sought to create a footpath in this location. A number of improvements have been made to access along this stretch of the River Bank since the publication of the Plan, including the demolition of an old storage silo which has removed the major physical interruption on the route. The route would provide an important recreation and transport resource for the Borough and offers opportunities to be upgraded to form a joint recreational footpath, cycleway and bridleway. In implementing this proposal particular regard will be paid to the local wildlife and the importance of the river as a wildlife corridor. |
|
|
| |
| POLICY T12 PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY |
|
| Planning permission will not be granted for development affecting any existing or proposed public right of way unless the proposals include either the maintenance or diversion of the public right of way as a route no less attractive, safe and convenient for public use. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 5.33 |
The Structure Plan identifies the importance of the public rights of way network as a recreational resource. It is also an important movement resource in that the Borough Council has an extensive existing network within both the urban and rural areas. This network of public rights of way links residential, community and recreational facilities as well as providing access to the open countryside. It is therefore important to ensure that the future of these routes for public use is safeguarded. The extension of existing public rights of way will be supported. |
| |
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
| top |