Representatives from local authorities across London, developers representatives and a number of pressure groups and organisations with an interest in promoting sustainable travel recently gathered at City Hall to debate the proposed changes to London’s transport policy posed by the Mayor through Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP).
The issues under debate were whether the changes to car and cycle parking policies are supported by evidence and appropriate, whether the amendments will help deliver improved cycling provision and encourage growth in cycling, why the promotion of electric vehicle charging points has been removed and the question on everyone’s lips – ‘what is meant by pedestrian amenity?’
The debate on Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs) focused on the apparent omission of promoting new off-street EVCPs. TfL confirmed that they are still promoting new infrastructure, but the focus within the plan in terms of target setting will be on increasing on-street EVCPs as it is difficult to set targets for those provided within new developments. There are currently 1,400 on-street EVCPs and the current plan is to provide 6,000 by 2018. They also confirmed that Policy 6.13d remains unchanged with a requirement for developers to provide EVCPs in 20% of all new parking spaces. With regard to obtaining data on EVCPs within developments, TRICS surveys will now include a count of EVCPs and will be included within the database.
There was a feeling from some pressure groups that the FALP does not include sufficient levels of funding to achieve the target to increase the number of cyclists in London by 400% by 2026 compared to 2001 levels and that most funding focuses on Inner London schemes. TfL countered this by highlighting that current levels already represent a 172% increase and as well as committed funding outlined in the London Plan and elsewhere there are a number of other projects and guidance which will help improve cycling infrastructure outside of the London Plan including the forthcoming London Cycle Design Standards due to be published in late 2014 which seek to improve infrastructure and parking within London through targeted schemes and development-led investment.
The debate on cycle parking focused largely on the apparent disparity between parking at student accommodation and parking at universities and colleges, with accommodation requiring 1 space per 2 students opposed to 1 per 20 students long stay and 1 per 7 students short stay on campus. The argument was that greater parking availability at student accommodation will lead to an under-supply at campuses, however, I am not convinced that will be the case due to the varying study times of students. It was also suggested that B1 standards are too low if the cycling mode share increases as planned, however, part of the recent rise has been through the use of Boris Bikes, which do not require on-site parking.
The suitability of the car parking standards was raised by a number of Outer London boroughs who are keen to adopt minimum standards for residents, which a number of neighbouring County Councils have adopted, while the counter argument was given that greater flexibility in parking provision could undermine other sustainable travel policies. Outer London boroughs already have the flexibility to relax employment parking standards in low PTAL areas and TfL are content that the revised parking standards are appropriate.
The discussion on pedestrian amenity was comparatively brief and focused on contrary policies with one stating that new development should enhance pedestrian amenity and another that new development should not degrade amenity – the same intention, but one worded more positively than the other. More clarification is certainly needed on whether new developments should improve pedestrian amenity or simply maintain the status quo. TfL confirmed that Pedestrian Design Guidance is currently being developed, so watch this space…
Overall, TfL provided detailed justification in response to the questions discussed and I do not expect the Inspector to suggest many changes to the proposed transport policy amendments.
We shall report on the Inspector’s findings as soon as they are published later this year. Do contact your usual Iceni contact in the meantime if you have any questions.