South Petherton Neighbourhood			For Office Use Only				
			Ref:						
Plan								
			Date Received:				
Response Form										
										
			South Somerset District		
					
			Council		
·The South Petherton Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared by				
South Petherton Parish Council. It has now been formally submitted									
to South Somerset District Council who are legally required to		The Council Offices. Brympton Way,		
undertake public consultation.		Yeovil BA20 2HT		
·Please use this form if you wish to support or				
									
object to the South Petherton Neighbourhood Plan.		Telephone 01935 462462		
·Please return this form by 5.00pm on 31st January 2018				
Representations received  after this date will not be accepted.		Website www.southsomerset.gov.uk		

•	Completed Forms should be returned:
•	By post to:   Spatial Policy Team, South Somerset  District Council at the address above

•	By e-mail to: planningpolicy@southsomerset.gov.uk

•	By hand to:  the Council Offices in Brympton Way, Yeovil

Part A- Contact Details

	Personal Details		Agent’s Details* (if applicable)		
							
	Name:	Stewart Brock		Agent Name:		
						
	Organisation :  Public Health 		Company Name:		
	If Applicable	Somerset County Council					
							
	Address:	County Hall		Address:		
		Taunton					
							
	Postcode:	TA1 4DY		Postcode:		
	Email:			Email:		
		sbrock@somerset.gov.uk				
	Tel:	07788 350813		Tel:		
							
	Signature:	S N BROCK			Date:  15 Jan 2018		

*If an agent is appointed, please fill in your name and the full contact details of the agent. Where an agent is used, the agent will be the point of contact.

Please note that representations should be attributable to named individuals or organisations at a postal address. Any representation received will be published on the Council’s Website, including your name.

Future Progress of the Neighbourhood Plan for South Petherton

Please indicate if you wish to be notified about subsequent progress of the Neighbourhood Plan,	(  )		
			
including when the District Council makes a decision about ‘making’ the plan (under Regulation			
19), by ticking here. We will contact you by e-mail only unless you request otherwise.			

Part B – Your Comments

1.	To which proposed section or policy does your representation relate?

Please use a separate form for each section or policy you wish to comment on.

For Office Use Only

Ref:

Transport and Traffic

2.	Please outline your comments below (continue on an additional sheet if necessary)

It has been said that off-street parking is "like a fertility drug for cars." The community has a desire to reduce the impact of motor traffic and facilitate more walking and cycling trips, but the policy solutions suggested are at risk of having the opposite effect to that intended, by providing more, free, parking for cars while doing little to facilitate walking, cycling and bus usage.  The only exception to this is the emphasis on the need to improve the pedestrian environment, as the current deficiencies here mean that walking, even short distances, can be unpleasant or even impossible for some people.  Given that virtually all the village would fit within a 1km radius circle, a very large proportion of trips within the village ought to be by walking and cycling. Very few trips would require a car.  Trips from the smaller settlements are all also within a distance very suited to cycling, although the A303 forms a physical barrier from the south.

1.	There is now a substantial body of evidence which demonstrates that if there is low or no cost parking available at the start and finish of journeys, then car owners are highly likely to drive those journeys by default, even for very short distances that are readily walked or cycled.  Cars are parked for 96% of the time, and therefore take up large amounts of space, public and private. Parking of cars on public land, including the highway, should be priced. (That price may be zero if supply exceeds demand)  Storage of private property on public land at no cost is not generally permitted. Motor vehicles should not generally be exempted from this principle.
2.	Parking provision should always be at market prices and be explicit. For housing developments, the price of garaging and on plot parking should be explicitly stated separate to the house, with the option to only have the minimal provision eg one space. Parking requirements impose substantial additional costs on development, and are arguably not appropriate if high quality alternatives are readily available.  Travel plans and developers marketing efforts need to focus prospective purchasers on the opportunities for using other modes than their own cars for some trips, and that there will be a significant additional cost for parking above any minimum provision by the developer.
3.	Consideration should be given to making new developments controlled parking zones in their entirety, with resident parking permits, with strictly limited off plot parking available for privately owned cars, other than car club and car share vehicles, and visitors.  The expansion of controlled parking to much of the village should also be considered where there is insufficient capacity and/or antisocial parking, such as pavement parking, is taking place.
4.	“Community consultation responses highlight concern that limited access to parking
spaces in the village centre may affect the use and vitality of the village.”   In many communities it is the case that parking spaces that are most valuable for short stay shoppers are taken up by people who arrive early and park all day who work in those businesses that would benefit most from high turnover in parking spaces. 
On street and off street parking should be priced according to demand and whether the parking is best used for long or short stay.  The aim is to set and periodically review prices so that in any run of on-street parking spaces or car park around 85% of spaces are taken, thus largely eliminating circulating traffic in search of spaces, while maximising revenue.  Revenue so obtained should be earmarked for investment in other transport modes and public realm that benefits the areas concerned (parking improvement areas).  While recognising that the community has expressed a desire that parking should remain free, there is much to be said for market pricing with the proceeds reinvested to achieve the aims of the neighbourhood and parish plans.  Why should carless households, or those who use other modes appropriately, subsidise parking of cars on public land, including the highway, bearing in mind the investment required in other forms of transport for the community?  
5.	Given that cars are parked for 96% of the time, is there scope for car sharing or local car clubs, with preferential parking, to reduce car parking demand and perhaps shared use for journeys to work in Yeovil and Taunton in particular? This could reduce the perceived need for, and cost, of second and third cars for households.
6.	Many villages in parts of Europe that face similar car and parking pressures do not seek to accommodate more cars within the village.  Rather, they provide edge of village car parking, with bus stop and undercover cycle parking, as a simple transport interchange. With similar geography, such a facility might well be placed close to the off ramp of the A303. This arrangement has several beneficial effects:
a.	Reduced on plot parking requirements making housing more affordable.
b.	Prospective residents are made aware that parking for many vehicles will be off plot in an edge of village location.
c.	The default mode for local trips is less likely to be the car if a short walk or ride is required to reach the car.
d.	New and existing residents are more likely to consider seriously how many motor vehicles they will own and how they use them, and how they could use other modes.
e.	Increase in walking and cycling, and reduced motor vehicle pressure in the village.
f.	Drop on/off transport interchange for longer distance buses, and to Yeovil and Taunton for commuters.
g.	Commuters more likely to shift to buses, improving service viability, and car share.
7.	The above comments are all made in the context that our populations are not sufficiently active for good health, and dependence on car travel is a significant element of that context.  Building physical activity into daily life, not least journeys to work, shops and leisure, is the best way for most people to achieve healthy levels of physical activity.  Lack of physical activity has a profound effect on health, and risks of various chronic diseases. 
8.	These comments cover matters that are addressed in the neighbourhood plan and the parish plan in recognition that the community seeks to take a holistic view of the issues, while recognising that only some aspects can be dealt with through the NP.
3.	What Changes would you suggest should be made to the Plan?

Policy: Consider allocating land for edge of village car parking and transport interchange close to the A303, with undercover cycle parking, instead of the proposed additional car park allocations within the village, amend policy TT2 accordingly and delete policy TT3.  Ensure NP s106 & CIL funding can be used to provide such a facility.

Reason: Providing additional parking capacity within the village, both public car parks and on-plot for new residential development over and above county car parking standards is not in accordance with the community desire to reduce the impact of motor vehicles on the community, and in the latter case will make housing less affordable.