Agenda item

Prior to consideration of the report Members received a presentation from  Mr White, Transport & Development Business Manager.

(1)       The publication of the “Manual for Streets (Department for Transport, Communities and Local Government & Welsh Assembly Government, March 2007)” had necessitated a review of the Kent Design Guide. Furthermore, the publication of Planning Policy Statement PPS3: “Housing (Communities & Local Government, November 2006)” heralded a shift in guidance concerning residential parking ‘standards’ such that local planning authorities were required to produce residential parking policies for their areas. Kent’s District Councils asked Kent Highway Services to use its considerable knowledge and growing evidence base on the subject to produce a response to PPS3.

(2)       The public realm arm of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, Space, facilitated an external review of the Kent Design Guide that gave it a relatively clean bill of health. However, the visibility guidance in the Guide had been superseded, the Quality Audit ‘concept to completion’ process needed to be enlarged upon and the guidance in respect of residential parking needed to be emphasised. The latter also satisfied the need to replace the residential parking element of Kent and Medway Structure Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG4 (Vehicle Parking Standards) to accord with PPS3.

(3)       The Kent Planning Officers Group (KPOG), as ‘client’ for the Kent Design Initiative, had overseen preparation of and consultation on the resulting Interim Guidance Notes. They had been approved by KPOG and were to be offered for adoption, for Development Control purposes, by Medway Council and Kent’s District Councils. Formal approval by Kent County Council would encourage such adoption.

Interim Guidance Note 1 – Quality Audits

(4)       The Kent Design Guide promoted collaborative working (“the Development Team approach”) on all developments involving the creation of new streets and places. Manual for Streets developed the idea into Quality Audits. These enabled the Development Team to balance a range of complimentary and competing factors to arrive at the best overall development.

(5)       The Quality Audit Note established the way that Quality Audits should work, with reference to the Building for Life standard that was being recommended for use by all those involved in designing, assessing and building new housing.

(6)       The Note also drew upon survey work conducted by Kent Highway Services, in conjunction with the Kent Design Initiative, into residents’ views on recently completed developments.

Interim Guidance Note 2 – “Visibility”

(7)       The ‘visibility standards’ contained in the Kent Design Guide had been superseded by the guidance contained in Manual for Streets. The Interim Guidance Note explained the changes and related them to good design.

Interim Guidance Note 3 – Residential Parking

(8)      Parking was by far the biggest cause of dissatisfaction among residents of recently completed developments. In spite of the guidance contained in the Kent Design Guide, discredited ideologies on the location, design and number of spaces were still being imposed. PPS3 sought a design-led approach that took account of expected levels of car ownership, having regard for the most efficient use of land and assisting with demand management at appropriate locations.

(9)       The Interim Guidance Note draws on national guidance on the design of and appropriate amounts of parking, interpreting both through the substantial evidence base gathered from residents in recently completed developments. It satisfied the aims of PPS3, offering development partners and elected members an opportunity to design, approve and build streets and places in which parking would not cause neighbour disputes, inconvenience to pedestrians and danger (perceived and actual) to all users.

(10)     Two aspects of the Note which might prove to be controversial were worth highlighting. Firstly, the growing evidence base showed that only about half of garages provided as part of the parking provision were used for that purpose, even when non-use results in inappropriate parking. The Interim Guidance Note recommended that where there were no on-street parking controls, garages should be additional to the appropriate amount of parking for vehicles. Secondly, where there were no on-street controls, the recommended amounts of parking were expressed as “minimum”. False limitations on amounts of parking had resulted in problems for residents, and had not always been in the interests of good design.   

(11)     It was important that new and updated guidance should be made known to all those who were expected to use it. Furthermore, training was often needed to help practitioners make use of new approaches to their work.  The Interim Guidance Notes would be the subject of training and awareness-raising within Kent Highway Services and among Kent’s District Councils as part of the ongoing partnership aimed at delivering design excellence and Putting Kent First. They would also figure in training that was being formulated by the Kent Design Initiative.

(12)     The preparation of the Interim Guidance Notes, their adaptation for inclusion on the Kent Design Guide website and the training and awareness-raising necessary to bring them into widespread use were part of the work of the Kent Design Initiative. No additional resources were needed.   

(13)     The Interim Guidance Notes satisfied the requirements of updating the Kent Design Guide to bring it in line with Manual for Streets and provided an evidence based response to PPS3. They maintained and enhanced the Kent Design Initiative’s commitment to design excellence.

(14)     Dr Eddy queried whether any part of the proposed recommendations to the Cabinet Members should first appear in the Forward Plan.  Officers undertook to look into the matter.

(15)     Subject to the outcome in paragraph (14) above, the Board:-

            (a)       agreed that the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence be informed that :-

                        (i)         the three Interim Guidance Notes were needed to reflect changes in national guidance since the Kent Design Guide was published in 2005;

                        (ii)        a thorough consultation had been undertaken using the Kent Design Initiative network. Representations had been embraced where appropriate; and

                        (iii)       the Notes had been approved by the Kent Planning Officers Group as updates to the Kent Design Guide and, in the case of Residential Parking, also as an appropriate response to Planning Policy Statement PPS3: Housing; and

(b)         supported the proposal for recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence that the Quality Audit and Residential Parking Interim Guidance Notes be approved for adoption by Kent County Council; and for recommendation for adoption by Kent’s District Councils;

(c) noted the “Visibility” Interim Guidance Note, which updated guidance contained in the Kent Design Guide.

A formal vote was not taken but Dr Eddy requested that his abstention be recorded.