Royal Tunbridge Wells Urban Area Parking Strategy Strategy\Reports\Tunbridge Wells Parking Strategy...

$Page 1: Royal Tunbridge Wells Urban Area Parking Strategy Strategy\Reports\Tunbridge Wells Parking Strategy 200611 ... New Tariff Structure ... Development Plan Document ...$
Project Ref: 24799-001

Doc Ref: 2439

February 2011

Peter Brett Associates LLP

Calgarth House

39-41 Bank Street

Ashford

Kent

TN23 1DQ

T: 0123 3651740

F: 0123 3651741

E: [email protected]

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

Royal Tunbridge Wells Urban Area Parking Strategy

Urban Area Parking Strategy

Royal Tunbridge Wells Urban Area Parking Strategy Urban Area Parking Strategy

ii J:\24799 - APN - Tunbridge Wells Parking Strategy\001 - RTW Urban Parking Strategy\Reports\Tunbridge Wells Parking Strategy 140611 clean.doc

We print on 100% recycled paper from sustainable suppliers accredited to ISO 14001.


iii J:\24799 - APN - Tunbridge Wells Parking Strategy\001 - RTW Urban Parking Strategy\Reports\Tunbridge Wells Parking Strategy 200611 clean.doc

Document Control Sheet

Project Name: Royal Tunbridge Wells Urban Area Parking Strategy

Project Ref: 24799-001

Report Title: Urban Area Parking Strategy

Doc Ref: 2379

Date: February 2011

Name Position Signature Date

Prepared by: A Wilson Graduate Engineer

12/04/2011

Reviewed by: A Neve Associate

12/04/2011

Approved by:

For and on behalf of Peter Brett Associates LLP

Revision Date Description Prepared Reviewed Approved

1 14/06/2011 Update following comments from

TWBC A Wilson B Kemp B Kemp

2 21/06/2011 Update to Appendix 4 A Wilson B Kemp B Kemp

Peter Brett Associates LLP disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of this report. This report has been prepared with reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the Client and generally in accordance with the appropriate ACE Agreement and taking account of the manpower, resources, investigations and testing devoted to it by agreement with the Client. This report is confidential to the Client and Peter Brett Associates LLP accepts no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report or any part thereof is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk.


iv J:\24799 - APN - Tunbridge Wells Parking Strategy\001 - RTW Urban Parking Strategy\Reports\Tunbridge Wells Parking Strategy 140611 clean.doc

© Peter Brett Associates LLP 2011


v J:\24799 - APN - Tunbridge Wells Parking Strategy\001 - RTW Urban Parking Strategy\Reports\Tunbridge Wells Parking Strategy 140611 clean.doc


vi J:\24799 - APN - Tunbridge Wells Parking Strategy\001 - RTW Urban Parking Strategy\Reports\Tunbridge Wells Parking Strategy 140611 clean.doc

Contents

1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1

2 Parking Strategy Route Map.................................................................................................... 3 The Vision for Royal Tunbridge Wells ........................................................................................ 3 Aim.............................................................................................................................................. 3 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 3 The Parking Strategy.................................................................................................................. 4

3 Current Parking in Royal Tunbridge Wells ............................................................................ 6 Existing off-Street Car Parks ...................................................................................................... 7 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................... 9 On-Street Parking ..................................................................................................................... 11 Current Key Issues for Off-Street Parking ................................................................................ 12

4 Car Park Character Appraisals.............................................................................................. 14 Park Mark / KPI Assessment Comparison ............................................................................... 14 KPI Car Park Character Appraisals .......................................................................................... 14 Occupancy................................................................................................................................ 15 Accessibility and Environment – Qualitative Analysis .............................................................. 20 Revenue ................................................................................................................................... 22 Length of Stay........................................................................................................................... 30 Car Park Character Appraisal – Summary ............................................................................... 32 New Car Park Tariff Structures................................................................................................. 34

5 Where Do We Want to Be?..................................................................................................... 40 Overview................................................................................................................................... 40 Parking Standards .................................................................................................................... 40 Ownership and Management ................................................................................................... 42

6 What are the Options for Change? ....................................................................................... 44 Do Nothing................................................................................................................................ 44 Do Minimum.............................................................................................................................. 44 Do Something ........................................................................................................................... 44 ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario Assessment .......................................................................................... 48 ‘Do Minimum’ Scenario Assessment ........................................................................................ 48 ‘Do Something’ Scenario Assessment ..................................................................................... 49 Out of Town Parking ................................................................................................................. 50 Measures to Improve Existing and Future Parking Stock ........................................................ 51 Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 52 What Next? ............................................................................................................................... 58

7 Summary and Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 59


vii J:\24799 - APN - Tunbridge Wells Parking Strategy\001 - RTW Urban Parking Strategy\Reports\Tunbridge Wells Parking Strategy 200611 clean.doc

Tables Table 3.1 Key Facts............................................................................................................................... 10 Table 3.2 Key Messages ....................................................................................................................... 13 Table 4.1. TWBC Operated Car Park Occupancy ................................................................................ 17 Table 4.2. Accessibility and Environment.............................................................................................. 21 Table 4.3. 2008 / 2009 – 2009 / 2010 Revenue Comparison ............................................................... 23 Table 4.4 Revenue Potential – Existing Tariff Structure ....................................................................... 25 Table 4.5 Revenue Potential – New Tariff Structure............................................................................. 26 Table 4.6 Example Tariff Structure........................................................................................................ 27 Table 4.7 Revenue Potential – Adjusted Tariff...................................................................................... 28 Table 4.8 Existing and Amended Season Ticket Tariffs ....................................................................... 29 Table 4.9. Car Park Character Appraisal Summary.............................................................................. 33 Table 4.10Existing Car Park Tariffs....................................................................................................... 34 Table 4.11 New Car Park Tariffs ........................................................................................................... 36 Table 4.12 Comparator Parking Tariffs ................................................................................................. 38 Table 6.1 Recommendations................................................................................................................. 57

Figures Figure 1. Study Area................................................................................................................................ 1 Figure 2 Site Location Plan ..................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3. Car Park Location Plan ............................................................................................................ 8 Figure 4. Number of Publically Available on-Street Parking Bays ........................................................ 11 Figure 5. Numbers of Tickets Sold (TWBC Operated Car Parks)......................................................... 18 Figure 6. Number of Sellable Hours (TWBC Owned Car Parks) .......................................................... 19 Figure 7. 2009 / 2010 Annual Revenue – Existing Tariff Structure………………………………………..24 Figure 8. 2009 / 2010 Annual Revenue – New Tariff Structure ............................................................ 26 Figure 9. 2009 / 2010 Annual Revenue Potential – Revised Tariff Structure ....................................... 28 Figure 10 Season Ticket Income........................................................................................................... 30 Figure 11. Length of Stay (Hours) ......................................................................................................... 31 Figure 12. Existing Tariff Structure……………………………………………………………………………35 Figure 13. New Tariff Structure………………………………………………………………………………..36 Figures 14 & 15 - Heavy On - Street Parking in New Goods Station Road Residential Development 41 Figure 16. Zone Plan ............................................................................................................................. 47

Appendices Appendix 1 – Walking Isochrones Appendix 2 - Car Park Site Assessments Appendix 3 - KPI Assessment Appendix 4 – Demand / Supply Tables, Graphs and Car Park Plans


1 J:\24799 - APN - Tunbridge Wells Parking Strategy\001 - RTW Urban Parking Strategy\Reports\Tunbridge Wells Parking Strategy 140611 clean.doc

1 Introduction

1.1 In January 2011, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (TWBC) appointed Peter Brett Associates LLP (PBA) to prepare a Parking Strategy for the urban areas of Royal Tunbridge Wells and Southborough. The study has been commissioned by the Economic Development and Regeneration Department in a bid to improve the quality and approach to parking stock within both study areas. These are identified on the map below.

Figure 1. Study Area

1.2 Whilst the overall study area covers both Southborough and Royal Tunbridge Wells, a separate Parking Strategy for each area has been prepared. This report, whilst broadly touching on Southborough, therefore focuses on the parking stock located in Royal Tunbridge Wells.

1.3 This Parking Strategy aims to set out detailed options that are anticipated to transform the existing parking stock in Royal Tunbridge Wells into one which is fit for purpose, appropriately located and sufficient in quantum.

1.4 Through the development of this Parking Strategy, it is hoped that attractive solutions are brought forward which take into consideration the needs of the stakeholders, namely local shoppers, visitors, residents and employees.

1.5 This Parking Strategy report has been informed by a client / consultant working group who have jointly reviewed the existing issues associated with each car park within Royal Tunbridge Wells and Southborough. Preliminary research proposed a number of broad solutions to improve each one, which have been reviewed and progressed where appropriate. This document draws together the key findings of the project team’s research and data analysis.



Proposals are reviewed and refined with actions and remediation set out that can be taken forward as funding and local opinion allow.

Report Structure

1.6 This report will follow the structure set out below.

Section 2 –Sets out the Parking Strategy Route Map and includes the vision, aims, objectives of the Parking Strategy;

Section 3 –Provides a brief description of the current parking stock within Royal Tunbridge Wells;

Section 4 – Provides Character Appraisals for each of the car parks;

Section 5 – Provides an analysis of where we want to be;

Section 6 – Provides the proposed options for change; and

Section 7 – Provides the summary and conclusions.



2 Parking Strategy Route Map

The Vision for Royal Tunbridge Wells

2.1 The emerging Tunbridge Wells Town Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) Development Plan Document (DPD) and the emerging Allocations DPD state that the existing quality of the Royal Tunbridge Wells built environment makes the area particularly unique and an attractive place to live, work and visit and that over the next 15 years to 2026, Royal Tunbridge Wells is expected to continue to develop with the built environment and the towns natural assets being enhanced.

2.2 Within this period to 2026, sensitive regeneration and growth is expected within the town and will continue in order to ensure that Royal Tunbridge Wells is a centre of strategic importance. This will be achieved through opportunities for enterprise, higher skilled employment, increased quality and range of retail and employment floorspace and increased links to surrounding areas through the development of appropriate infrastructure. Through this development Royal Tunbridge Wells is anticipated to be a town of social and economic prosperity.

2.3 Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre is the key location for future retail, leisure, office and arts development within the area.

2.4 A particular vision for Royal Tunbridge Wells within the near future is to achieve a reduction in car based travel by ensuring sustainable travel options are available to all.

Aim

2.5 The aim of this Parking Strategy is to:

Provide for Royal Tunbridge Wells a robust Parking Strategy which seeks to manage and improve the existing parking stock within Royal Tunbridge Wells and create an appropriate level of well integrated, appropriately located attractive parking solutions to meet future needs.

Objectives

2.6 The key objectives that have been set to meet this aspiration are:

Objective 1: To provide sufficient parking to serve the vitality and viability of the regeneration needs of current and proposed development, appropriately in line with demands at that time.

Objective 2: To ensure parking places are suitably located to reduce movements across the town centres, reducing congestion and severance and improving air quality.

Objective 3: To help conserve and enhance the local setting by facilitating the continued sensitive improvement in parking quality across the study areas.

Objective 4: To improve access legibility for visitors accessing car parking and to provide ‘way-finding’ between car parking and key destinations in the town centre.

2.7 These objectives will be achieved through the implementation of the following actions:

1. Assessing the current and projected demand for public parking across the study area for the anticipated major development period to 2026;



2. Appraising the current standard of public parking provision on and off-street in the study area;

3. Analysing the form, location and quantum of public parking supply to meet the requirements of the anticipated major development proposals in the study area; and

4. Recommending interventions and actions to achieve an exemplar network of public parking places suitably managed for the benefit of the towns and the route forward to deliver the anticipated public parking stock.

The Parking Strategy

2.8 In order to allow for appropriate car based travel it is essential to provide suitable parking facilities for car borne shopping or leisure visitors to Royal Tunbridge Wells; for local employees; local residents and their visitors. This parking provision can be made across the general public parking stock, within private developments or at workplaces. These places should be provided in a carefully managed way to encourage the efficiency of non-car based travel and introduce appropriate restraint to non-essential car use.

2.9 The parking provision within Royal Tunbridge Wells must allow for the specific needs not only of able-bodied people but for those with mobility impairments including those with permanent disabilities and parents with small children or indeed adult carers. The strategic approach should consider both inward and outbound commuting; full and part-time workers and the needs of education, retail, leisure and residential based travel. Such provision might be through ensuring safe and secure access direct to facilities and appropriate pricing that does not disadvantage part-time workers.

2.10 Recognising opportunities for local change, the challenges between current and new parking must be reflected in a proactive plan for the emergent parking stock.

2.11 This Parking Strategy therefore considers all of the parking stock within Royal Tunbridge Wells that is available for public use. Separate Parking Strategies have been prepared to address the parking stock within Southborough and the Rural Areas of Tunbridge Wells.

2.12 In order to ensure this Parking Strategy is robust, two key strands will be explored and assessed.

2.13 The first will concentrate on the operational side of the parking stock reviewing the current standards, the way in which it is used and any matters associated with the operational systems undertaken by the parking services.

2.14 The second will concentrate on the correct quantum of parking over the next 15 years to 2026 by undertaking an assessment of relevant committed and anticipated development within the local area. The assessment will consider developments relevant to the study area and will predict the anticipated parking provision for each development and will assess how best to cater for and test the impact and possible magnitude of change for broader development changes – through the assessment of a range of development quanta.

2.15 This section will also consider ways in which TWBC can reduce the carbon footprint of the parking operation. This will include initiatives such as sustainable energy generation; energy saving lighting and machines and reducing the need to hunt for spaces which in turn will reduce fuel for users.



2.16 By taking this approach, PBA can start to predict the future parking patterns within Royal Tunbridge Wells and as a result, can ensure this Parking Strategy will guide decisions and actions over the life of the delivery of future development in the next 15 years.



3 Current Parking in Royal Tunbridge Wells

3.1 Royal Tunbridge Wells is located in West Kent approximately 39 miles south of London, on the Kentish boarder with East Sussex. A location plan can be seen below.

Figure 2 Site Location Plan

3.2 The urban area of Royal Tunbridge Wells is home to approximately 56,000 inhabitants. This figure rises to approximately 104,000 when including the surrounding Borough.

3.3 The emerging Area Action Plan (AAP) for Tunbridge Wells states that the South East Plan designated Royal Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge jointly as a Regional Hub and Royal Tunbridge Wells as a Primary Regional centre in terms of its town centre offer. The South East Plan remains in place but TWBC can take account of the fact that it will be revoked in the future. Even when the South East Plan is revoked, Royal Tunbridge Wells will still be the primary centre for a range of town centre uses.



3.4 The quaint shopping areas and brasserie style restaurants of Royal Tunbridge Wells have been attracting large numbers of visitors to the spa town for the past 400 years. Attractions include the Pantiles shopping area which comprises a range of specialist shops, bars and restaurants.

3.5 The emerging Tunbridge Wells AAP identifies seven defined quarters within Royal Tunbridge Wells, each with their own clear, distinct characteristics. These can be seen in figure 2 and are as follows:

� Mount Ephraim – Located to the north of Royal Tunbridge Wells, this quarter provides business / key employment on the edge of the main town centre and a number of smaller specialist shops;

� Camden Road – Located to the north east of the town, this quarter provides a local neighbourhood centre and individual retailers adjoining the main town centre;

� Retail Quarter – Located towards the south of Mount Ephraim and Camden Road, the retail quarter is the largest of the seven quarters and provides key retail, local employers (including the Borough Council, the Town and Country Housing Association) and bus transport interchanges. This central quarter also includes the leisure venues of the Assembly Halls and Trinity Art Centre.

� Mount Pleasant – Centrally located within Royal Tunbridge Wells, Mount Pleasant is the longest of the key retail streets in Royal Tunbridge Wells, providing a combination of both specialist and high street shops;

� Business Quarter – Also centrally located and sitting adjacent to the Mount Pleasant quarter, the business quarter includes a range of small and medium sized key local employers Reliance Mutual and a number of solicitor and accountancy firms. The largest single employer is AXA PPP who currently have a number of offices across the town centre.

� High Street / Village – Located towards the southern end of Royal Tunbridge Wells, the High Street / Village quarter provides small boutiques, higher end retail and restaurants, with many still retaining their original Victorian frontages;

� The Pantiles – Located to the south of Royal Tunbridge Wells, the Pantiles is a retail

area providing a range of quaint specialised shops, bars and restaurants and a colonnaded walkway. This quarter also provides a key tourist attraction and employment.

3.6 A wide range of restaurants, bars and public houses are distributed across the central quarters and provide a variety of evening trade and activity to complement the leisure focus of the Assembly Hall, Trinity Arts Centre and the town’s night clubs.

Existing off-Street Car Parks

3.7 There are 21 public car parks within the Royal Tunbridge Wells study area, giving a total parking stock of 4137 spaces. Of the 21 car parks:

� 7 are multi storey car parks / 14 are surface car parks;

� 7 are designated as short stay / 11 are designated as long stay / two provide for both and one is not specifically designated;

� 5 are free;



� 2 are ‘Saturday use only’ car parks; and

� 5 are privately operated (Ritz, Fairground, Hoopers, Tunbridge Wells Station and Tunbridge Wells Station Premier).

3.8 Whilst there are 21 car parks in total, three of the car parks are small and are primarily used by local residents (which are Stone Street North, Stone Street South and Warwick Road). These are important established facilities for their users and should be carefully reviewed on an individual basis. Whilst changes might be considered to their management and operation they have not been included in the appraisal of the general parking stock. Private Non-residential parking places (PNR) are not included within this appraisal. This includes parking such as at AXA PPP’s offices and the car park at Trinity Arts Centre.

3.9 The 21 car parks and their locations can be seen below.

Figure 3. Car Park Location Plan



3.10 Figure 3 shows the locations of the 21 car parks that are located within the study area. Only 16 of the car parks, however, are operated by TWBC. Due to the limited influence TWBC have over the remaining five car parks (Tunbridge Wells Station Premier, Tunbridge Wells Station, Ritz, Fairground and Hoopers), they have only been considered in broad terms within the future development section of this Parking Strategy as whilst they are not owned or operated by TWBC they still form part of the overall parking stock.

3.11 The car parks provide convenient parking for a range of key attractions within the study area such as the Pantiles, the High Street and the Civic Centre. Appendix 1 provides diagrams highlighting car parks within 2, 5, 10 and 15 minute walking distance of a number of key attractors within the study area.

Data Collection

Off-Street Data Collection

3.12 This Parking Strategy has been prepared based on data supplied by TWBC and from snapshot observations during site visits undertaken in January and February 2011.

3.13 Ticket sales information has been provided for car parks for the period April 2007 – December 2010. This is analysed in subsequent sections and helps to inform the type of use of each car park; the level of use; and the income for each location. This data is supplemented by season ticket information and, more recently by pay- by- phone cashless sales information.

3.14 Parking occupancy data has been established through beat surveys undertaken by TWBC Parking Services employees and supplemented by snapshot observations by PBA.

3.15 Information from both the existing data and the site visits increases the robustness of this Parking Strategy and provides a comprehensive and realistic base upon which initiatives and actions can be developed.

3.16 The table below shows the off-street car parks within the study area, their format, number of spaces and existing tariffs at each.

.



Prices

Car Park

Spa

ces

Dis

able

d B

ays

MC

Par

king

Leng

th o

f Sta

y

<1hr 1-2hr 2-3hr 3-4hr 4-5hr 5-6hr All Day

Beech Street 38 0 No Long

Camden Road 65 3 No Long £0.70 £1.40 £2.10 £2.80 £3.50 £4.20

Crescent Road MSCP 1085 24 Yes Long £5.20

Great Hall MSCP 205 6 Yes Short £1.00 £2.00 £3.00 £3.80 £4.60

£5.20 £10.00

John Street 90 0 No Long/Short Free

Linden Park Road 54 2 No Short £5.20 £10.00

Little Mount Sion 18 0 No Short £5.20

Meadow Road MSCP 440 10 Yes Short £5.20 £10.00

Mount Pleasant Avenue 60 0 No Short £5.20

36 Yes Short £10.00 Royal Victoria Place Levels 1-8 MSCP Royal Victoria Place Levels 8A+ MSCP

1230 0 No Long

£1.00 £2.00 £3.00 £3.80 £4.60

£5.20 £5.20

Torrington MSCP 243 8 Yes Short £0.30 £0.60 £1.00 £1.30 £1.60 £1.90 £8.00

Town Hall Yard MSCP 97 3 No Long £1.00 £2.00 £3.00 £3.80 £4.60 £5.20

TW

BC

Ope

rate

d

Union House MSCP 20 0 No Long £0.70 £1.40 £2.10 £2.80 £3.50 £4.20

Ritz 60 Long N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Fairground Car Park 170 Long £0.50 £1.00 £1.50 £2.00 £2.50 £3.00 £3.50

Hoopers 36 Short N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Tunbridge Wells Station 65 Long £4.50 Priv

atel

y O

pera

ted

Tunbridge Wells Station Premier 23

Unknown

Long £933.50 per annum Table 3.1 Key Facts



On-Street Parking

3.17 Since the decriminalisation of parking on 10th January 2000, TWBC is now responsible for the enforcement of on-street parking regulations within the Borough to complement their management of existing car parks. There are currently no Pay and Display parking places on-street in the Borough. Many streets have limited waiting bays and a number around the town centre have residents permit parking places which together contribute to the wider parking stock across the study area.

3.18 To create an integrated Parking Strategy, on-street parking has also been considered within this assessment; however the data available was at a higher level than that for the off-street parking stock. A general understanding of the demand for spaces is known but details are not available for all streets on the length of stay and the balance between residents’ use and the demand for non-residents’ use.

3.19 There are currently 6677 on-street parking bays within Royal Tunbridge Wells. Whilst public parking on-street is free, limited waiting restrictions are largely in place on streets close to key attractors. In general, defined bays are restricted to one hour stays and bays are shared with resident permit holders. The restrictions typically apply Monday to Saturday and between 08:00 and 18:00. Some alternative restrictions apply with edge of centre bays allowing two hour stays.

3.20 Figure 4 below shows the number of publically available on-street parking bays within the study area and the restrictions applied to those bays.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

No. of Publically Available On-Street Parking Spaces

No. of Publically Available On-Street Parking Spaces

Figure 4. Number of Publically Available on-Street Parking Spaces



3.21 Figure 4 shows that there are approximately 6677 available parking spaces within the study area, however, each parking space is subject to waiting restrictions. 60% (4033) of the bays are subject to a No waiting Mon - Sat 8am to 6pm restriction and so are unavailable for parking during much of the week but are available for residents and visitors on Sundays and during the evening. There is also a large proportion (18%) of 2hr limited waiting Mon - Sat 8am-6pm restrictions.

3.22 As the on-street restrictions only apply Monday – Saturday, it is understood that Sunday

visitors to the area often take advantage of the availability of free on-street parking. During these times the car parks have significant spare capacity as off-street parking charges are applied throughout the week, Monday – Sunday 8am-6pm, with the exception of Bank Holidays.

3.23 A review of the usage of on-street parking places was carried out by Alpha Parking Ltd in July 2008 (and repeated in January 2009). This has informed considerations on the operational aspects of this parking stock moving forward. The usage observations contained in the Alpha Parking Ltd report illustrates the balance between permit holder and non-permit holder parking and indicates possible spare capacity and options for increased bay provision. The data contained in the report does not express the typical length of stay but it should be assumed that for non-permit holders this would be the one hour stay as allowed within the restrictions. The desired length of stay and the trip purpose are not known. The report further explored the suitability for implementing paid-for-parking in these streets. In most circumstances there appeared to be suitable space to locate the necessary parking equipment but no research or stakeholder consultation has been carried out at the time of writing as to the suitability of these controls.

3.24 TWBC have recently produced a new Residents Parking Policy document which sets out the

procedures for implementing new or amending existing residents’ parking schemes within the Borough. At the time of writing this report the policy is still emerging but as stated within the policy document, all schemes consulted on or after 1st April 2011 will use this policy.

3.25 The Residents’ Parking Policy will therefore play a large part in the consideration for future

available on-street parking stock within Royal Tunbridge Wells. Whilst on-going reviews of on-street controls are undertaken by the Parking Services, there are known areas of commuter parking on the outskirts of the Study are including Major York’s Road/Hungershall Park, Bayhall Road, Broadwater Down and Ferndale. These locations can cause some minor disruption to through traffic but are largely not currently impacting on residential parking. Future reviews will monitor their impacts and judge if the levels of parking are increasing.

Current Key Issues for Off-Street Parking

3.26 The emerging DPD documents for Royal Tunbridge Wells state two particular issues with the existing parking stock;

� The existing distribution of car parks makes it difficult to access when travelling into the town from the west; and

� There are more car parks located in the north of the town than the south.

3.27 Each of these issues contributes to the existing congestion within the town centre as vehicles travelling from the west or south need to travel across the town to access a large number of the car parks.

3.28 Through PBA’s review of the existing stock, a range of other localised issues have been highlighted. These are expressed through the car park review sheets which can be seen at appendix 2. The key messages are shown in the table below.



Table 3.2 Key Messages

Car Park Key Messages Beech Street Poorly signed, poorly located ticket machine, convoluted / restricted access Camden Road In need of surface upgrade, limited understanding over use Crescent Road MSCP Bay widths are tight, poor visibility, not very attractive Great Hall MSCP Weak pedestrian links to main retail area, poor bay finding and confusing internal circulation John Street Poorly maintained, poorly defined links to St. Johns Road, remote from main study area, no identity Linden Park Road Poor access, no direct vehicular connection between upper and lower floors, conflict with coach drop off Little Mount Sion In need of surface upgrade, poorly signed, lack of footway to Warwick Road shops Meadow Road MSCP Severance from retail centre, complex floor designation, poor access for vehicles and pedestrians Mount Pleasant Avenue Not conveniently located, not attractive or welcoming Royal Victoria Place Confusing internal circulation, poor connections to shops, obscure parent & child bay locations Torrington MSCP Poor image, unwelcoming stairwell, poor pedestrian links to station and high street Town Hall Yard MSCP Constrained vehicle access, poor pedestrian links, access not from strategic road network Union House MSCP In need of surface upgrade, poor lighting and unattractive environment, confusing controls



4 Car Park Character Appraisals

Park Mark / KPI Assessment Comparison

4.1 Park Mark is a nationally recognised award given by the Police and British Parking Association to car parks that achieve a defined level of excellence. The aim of the Park Mark award is to recognise and publicise to users, car parks where the design and introduced measures reduce crime and fear of crime. In order to achieve the award “a parking facility must achieve an effective combination of active management procedures and commensurate preventative security measures” (Park Mark Assessment Guidelines – British parking Association).

4.2 Four of the TWBC operated car parks within this assessment have been awarded the Park

Mark certificate. These are Crescent Road, Royal Victoria Place, Torrington and Town Hall Yard.

4.3 The KPI Car Park Character Appraisal used by PBA in this strategy differs from the Park Mark award assessment as it is based on different criteria to understand how a car park sits within the wider parking stock now and in the future; and how it functions within the local study area. That information can then be used to compare it to other car parks in the area. In this section only those car parks operated by TWBC have been assessed. The KPI results can be seen in appendix 3.

KPI Car Park Character Appraisals

4.4 Derivation of character is fundamental to creating a comprehensive and comparative picture of a car park and can be established through the use of a character chart.

4.5 PBA have designed an approach which appraises a range of criteria to create a picture of the form of a car park.

4.6 As part of the appraisal, the character chart considers five Key Performance Indicators (KPIs):

Occupancy - The percentage of the car park taken up by parked vehicles at a given time;

Accessibility - A standardised assessment based on a range of criterion including how close the site is to key attractions and how useable the car park is;

Environment - A standardised assessment based on a range of criterion of how safe and pleasant the site is;

Revenue - An estimation of the proportion achieved of the maximum daily income per

space based on the peak revenue tariff (normally the tariff for a one hour stay); and

Length of Stay - The observed peak length of stay of the car park.

4.7 The character chart helps to illustrate the way that a car park is performing and can provide a useful assimilated evidence base to support change and investment. For example, prior to analysis it might be assumed that a car park functions as a vibrant effective shoppers’ car park. The character chart might, however, reveal that there is little recorded revenue per space for the car park and a large proportion of those using the site are long-stay customers with the site being judged to be poorly accessible with a poor environment.

4.8 There are many key factors influencing people’s decisions about parking. The relative significance of each of these factors will, however, vary in turn according to trip purpose or



seasonality or a multitude of other influences and will be entirely different for each person. Experience has also shown that some uniformity does exist. For instance, a key influence for outward commuters will be proximity to existing public transport facilities where access time is critical. Commuters are likely to be concerned about price of parking but much less concerned about the quality of the car park. As can be seen in the example of the Fairground car park in Royal Tunbridge Wells, commuter car parks are often located on spare or undeveloped land where the concern lies with quantity of space rather than quality. Commuters are happy to accept a low quality offer on the basis that it is moderately cheap; acceptably located (up to around a 15-20 min walk to the station); and they can be sure of a space. Security is important but not fundamental.

4.9 A typical character chart for a car park intended for outward commuting use would therefore exhibit:

� High length of stay;

� Moderate accessibility – primarily on access criteria;

� Often very high occupancy;

� Often low environment; and

� If the pricing structure is set correctly, a high revenue index.

4.10 For inward commuters location and accessibility are important but ticket price is more critical where the cost of parking is a larger proportion of journey cost. Retail centre shoppers are primarily influenced by convenience and are less price sensitive. The character charts for these car parks should, therefore, exhibit different balances in indices.

4.11 Proposed remedial action for the car parks will therefore be informed by the intended purpose

of the car park and the observations of their character. The targeted actions might be to increase space provision and reliability within the core retail area for shopper trips; raise the long-stay tariffs to discourage commuter use and encourage short term turnover and enhance revenue per space. This would have to be balanced with acceptable provision elsewhere for essential car based commuting. The strategy for each car park approach is considered in detail later in this Plan.

4.12 The challenge is where a car park is required to cater for a range of uses and the balance of

character traits differs for each use. For example, the balance in the Torrington car park for use by outward commuters; inward commuters to key local employers; and for local shoppers. Furthermore the balance between daytime and night-time use is important such as at the Crescent Road car park.

Occupancy

2010 Car Park Surveys

4.13 The first indicator of a car parks character is its occupancy. Occupancy survey data provides an understanding of the peak demand of each car park. The results of the occupancy survey data can inform the Council as to whether the demand exceeds effective capacity or perhaps whether the car park is significantly under utilised.

4.14 In order to provide a measure of car park occupancy, a car park can be categorised under one of three headings – under utilised, effectively utilised, highly utilised. The appropriate bands are set out below. A car park which has an occupancy level of less than 60% is said to be ‘poor’. A car park which has an occupancy level of between 61% - 80% is said to be ‘good’



and a car park which has an occupancy level of between 81% - 100% is said to be ‘very good’.

� <60% = Under utilised;

� 61% - 80% = Effective utilisation;

� 81% - 100% = High utilisation – optimum usage.

4.15 The peak occupancy data for Royal Tunbridge Wells has been informed through two means, which are:

1. Beat Survey Occupancy Data; and

2. Snap Shot Vehicular Counts.

4.16 The beat survey occupancy data has been provided by TWBC. The data was gathered using surveys carried out over a 1 week period covering 5 different days of the week (weekends not included), between June and October 2010. Data for the following car parks was provided:

� Crescent Road;

� Great Hall;

� John Street;

� Torrington.

4.17 Additional surveys in the following three car parks were also carried during March 2011:

� Little Mount Sion;

� Linden Park; and

� Union House.

4.18 The surveys were carried out three times a day over a three day period (excluding weekends) and the results were then averaged.

4.19 In order to complete the dataset, snap shot vehicular counts were undertaken by PBA in February 2011. The counts were taken between 10:00 - 11:00 (approximately), which is understood to be the normal peak period of demand. The counts were undertaken at the following car parks:

� Beech Street;

� Camden Road;

� Meadow Road MSCP; and

� Royal Victoria Place

4.20 Mount Pleasant Avenue and Town Hall Yard have been excluded from this assessment as they are Saturday only car parks and were not in use to the general public at the time the surveys were taken.



4.21 From observation of the beat survey data the normal peak occupancy for the parking stock is around 11:00. This occupancy has been used through the analysis to represent the weekday peak level of demand. This does not represent the actual peak which would typically occur around the Christmas period. The variation in demand would be reflected by the trend in ticket sales which is discussed later in this report. The results of the surveys can be seen below.

Car Park Name

Total Parking Spaces Occupancy

Current Usage

Beech Street 38 79% 30 Camden Road 65 25% 16 Crescent Road MSCP 1085 74% 803 Great Hall MSCP 205 64% 131 John Street 90 95% 86 Linden Park Road 54 62% 33 Little Mount Sion 18 91% 16 Meadow Road MSCP 440 36% 158 Royal Victoria Place MSCP 1230 57% 701 Torrington MSCP 243 60% 146 Union House MSCP 116 95% 110 Total 3584 67% (avg) 2231

Table 4.1. TWBC Operated Car Park Occupancy

4.22 The results show that the majority of the car parks are well occupied during the peak hours, with the average being 67% occupied.

4.23 The largest occupancy was seen at John Street with 95% occupied at the time of the survey. This car park is therefore listed under the ‘High utilisation – optimum usage’ category.

4.24 Camden Road and Meadow Road car parks were occupied the least, at 25% and 36% respectively. These car parks are therefore listed under the ‘Under Utilised’ category.

4.25 The data shows there is no associated link between occupancy and type or size of car park (surface / MSCP).

Ticket Sales

Number of Tickets Sold

4.26 Ticket sales data for Royal Tunbridge Wells has been provided by TWBC. The data, which has been collected over a three year period (April 2007 – December 2010), gives an indication of the income from ticket sales for each car park; details of the trend in ticket sales across the year and year on year; information on the types of tickets sold; an idea of the length of stay; and a proxy for the amount of sellable hours sold and hence, an approximation of car park occupancy. It is considered that this data therefore represents a realistic view of car park use across the study area and due to the duration of time over which it was collected, any anomalies that may have occurred during this time, whilst still relevant, will be less likely to obscure the trends.

4.27 This analysis is based on ticket sales and so free car parks have not been included within this assessment. The data, therefore, is inclusive of the following car parks:

� Beech Street;

� Camden Road;



� Crescent Road;

� Meadow Road;

� Royal Victoria Place;

� Great Hall;

� Torrington;

� Little Mount Sion;

� Linden Park Road;

� Union House;

� Mount Pleasant (Saturday only);

� Town Hall Yard (Saturday only).

4.28 The ticket sales data analysis for the individual car parks can be seen in Appendix 2. The combined quantum of tickets sold across the review period can be seen in figure 5 below.

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

220,000

240,000

No.

of T

icke

ts

Ticket Sales

2007/2008

2008/2009

2009/2010

Apr 10 - Dec 10

Figure 5. Number of Tickets Sold (TWBC Operated Car Parks)

4.29 Figure 5 shows that across all four years there were between approximately 160,000 and 240,000 ticket sales for the majority of the year, with a large peak (for the three full years) in the December months which is likely to be attributed to Christmas shoppers.

4.30 Unusually, no peak occurs in each year in either January (which would normally be seen due to January sales), nor in the summer months when an influx of tourists might be anticipated.



4.31 Figure 5 shows that 5 out of the 9 months worth of data for 2010 received lower ticket sales than any other year during the same months. The 2010 data also shows a slight drop in ticket sales during December when compared with the previous three years, however, this is likely to be a result of very bad weather experienced during this month.

4.32 Overall, figure 5 shows that over the four year period, whilst there is a relatively sharp peak during December for three of the years, there is no other real trend across the year. However, the data does indicate that there has been a general decline in overall car park use since 2007.

Sellable Hours

4.33 Based on the same ticket sales data noted above, for the same time period, the number of sellable hours sold can be calculated. In this assessment, ‘sellable hours’ is a calculation of the number of hours a parking space is sold (not necessarily occupied). The maximum number of sellable hours is derived by multiplying a space by the amount of time the car park is open for paid-for-parking (generally annually Mon-Sat 08:00-18:00 and Sun 10:00-16:00 excluding Bank Holidays). The actual ‘sellable hours’ have been calculated by combining the total number of tickets sold per month, multiplied by the number of hours the tickets were paid for. The results are shown in figure 6 below.

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

Hou

rs

Sellable Hours

2007/2008

2008/2009

2009/2010

Apr 10 - Dec 10

Figure 6. Number of Sellable Hours (TWBC Owned Car Parks)

4.34 Figure 6 shows that the number of sellable hours sold across the four year period varies between 394,910 and 866,076, however, the number of sold sellable hours has decreased year on year from 2007 / 2008 – 2009 / 2010, but has begun to show a slight increase since May 2010.

4.35 The largest number of sellable hours for each year is seen in December, with the exception of the current financial year where the peak was seen in November. As stated in paragraph 4.31, the latter could be attributed to the very bad weather that was experienced in December 2010, resulting in fewer overall shopping days and a number of employees not being able to get to work.



4.36 The month with the lowest number of sellable hours sold differs for each year and therefore, it can be said that there is no associated pattern for these decreases.

Individual Car Park Ticket Sales

4.37 The individual ticket sales data presented in Appendix 2 shows that Beech Street appears to have the most consistent use as the data shows that it maintains ticket sales of between 1000 and 1500 per month for the majority of the year, with a peak demand seen between November and December where ticket sales are shown to exceed 4000.

4.38 The individual data also shows that the most inconsistent use appears to be at Camden Road where the trend is different for each year. In 2007/2008, the ticket sales, whilst starting and finishing the year at approximately 3500, have a number of large peaks and troughs. In 2008/2009 the ticket sales have a steep trend starting the year at less than 500 sales and finishing at around 3500. In 2009/2010, ticket sales remained in a relatively steady state throughout the year, around 3500 sales. Whilst ticket sales in the latter years declined slightly in January (in line with the general parking stock within Royal Tunbridge Wells), no December peak was seen.

4.39 It should be noted that whilst the data for Camden Road did experience a minor anomaly in December 2008 due to machine vandalism, does not significantly affect the overall results.

4.40 A number of individual car parks also experienced minor anomalies in their ticket sales data, with the reasons being attributed to machine vandalism and the ticket machines having technical faults and being out of order. The fact that these anomalies are rare, together with the fact that the data shows a general trend across a large amount of time, suggests that they have not had a significantly negative affect on the observations.

Accessibility and Environment – Qualitative Analysis

4.41 The review of each car park derives a detailed qualitative analysis of the parking area which is used to inform two of the indices of the character chart for each site – Accessibility and Environment.

4.42 By way of assessing the general “quality” of each car park an assessment is made of each site against a range of sub-criterion. These inform the Accessibility and Environment axes of the car park’s character analysis and include an assessment of:

� The general cleanliness and maintenance;

� The feeling of security;

� Ease of access and egress by vehicle and on foot;

� The form of ticketing; and

� The proximity to key attractions, such as the retail centre.

4.43 Using the criteria above, a detailed assessment has been undertaken for each car park. The assessment is carried out through personal observations. For example, an observation is made of the form of personal security equipment provided within the car park and also whether there are dedicated bays for the disabled.

4.44 Whilst it is recognised that the assessment contains an element of subjectivity which could influence the assessor’s perceptions of the car park, it is reasonable to suggest that this methodology provides a thorough method of assessment.



4.45 Within the Accessibility analysis, a ‘transaction time’ is calculated using the formula below to assess driving to and from the parking space; paying for parking and the degree of occupancy. The formula used is:

((A/S) + (B/S) +(C*T) + ((D*2)/W) +E) F

Where: A = Distance to the centre of the car park (m);

B = Distance from centre of the car park to the exit (m); C = Number of turns on the circulatory when going to/from the centre of the car park; D = Distance from the centre of the car park to the ticket machine (m); E = Time taken to get a ticket (s) (based on machine type); F = Occupancy (%); S = Vehicle speed (assumed to be an average 3mph); W = Walking speed (assumed to be 1.2m/s); and T = Turns allowance within the car park (5 seconds per turn).

4.46 The results for the individual car parks can be seen in the KPI sheets in Appendix 3. A summary of the results can be seen below and note whether the car parks have been awarded Park Mark certification.

Car Park Accessibility Environment Park Mark Awarded?

Beech Street 75% 55% No Camden Road 66% 57% No Crescent Road 77% 62% Yes Great Hall MSCP 51% 57% No John Street 48% 38% No Linden Park Road 60% 52% No Little Mount Sion 60% 47% No Meadow Road MSCP 63% 64% No Mount Pleasant Avenue 78% 57% No Royal Victoria Place MSCP 68% 74% Yes Torrington MSCP 80% 54% Yes Town Hall Yard MSCP 78% 52% Yes Union House MSCP 63% 45% No

Table 4.2. Accessibility and Environment

4.47 The results of the assessment show that the car parks which received the highest overall score are Royal Victoria Place with 68% for ‘accessibility’ and 74% for ‘environment’; and Crescent Road with 77% for ‘accessibility’ and 62% for ‘environment’. The car park which received the lowest score is John Street with 48% for ‘accessibility’ and 38% for ‘environment’.

4.48 Three of the car parks achieved a score of less than 50% in either the ‘accessibility’ or ‘environment’ category, which were John Street, Little Mount Sion and Union House.

4.49 The low scores for John Street were due to a combination of lower scoring attributes but were in part due to:

� Catchment and walking distance to key attractors within wider Royal Tunbridge Wells Study Area;



� Decoration and surface; and

� Lack of pedestrian walk ways and specialist access such as a lack of parent & toddler and disabled parking bays.

4.50 All the factors listed above achieved a score of 0.

4.51 The low scores for Little Mount Sion were attributed to a number of lower scoring attributes, such as:

� Circulation; and


4.52 The low scores for Union House were again attributed to a number of lower scoring attributes, such as:

� Walking distance to primary destination / anchor;

� Information on parking space availability; and


4.53 Again, each of the factors noted above achieved a score of 0, but it should be noted that the Little Mount Sion car park is a small local car park.

4.54 As a result of the assessment, John Street should be considered for comprehensive change to its existing format (which is explained in more detail in table 6.1 ‘Recommendations’ located in section 6); and appropriate investment should be made at the Little Mount Sion car park.

4.55 A score of between 61% - 80% is reasonably typical for a moderately maintained car park, however, the results of the assessment showed that 10 out of the 13 car parks achieved a score of less than 60% in either the ‘accessibility’ or ‘environment’ category.

4.56 Whilst the ‘accessibility’ and ‘environment’ criteria in the character appraisal differs from that of the Park Mark criteria, the results show that all the car parks which have achieved this award were in the top 50% of the character appraisal results. Three car parks which do not have this award which were in this group, which were Beech Street, Crescent Road, Meadow Road and Mount Pleasant Avenue. None of the car parks within the bottom 50% of the character appraisal have achieved the Park Mark award.

Revenue

4.57 Revenue is a key indicator as to the financial health of a car park and therefore plays an important role in this assessment.

4.58 The table below shows the on and off-street parking associated revenue for 2008 / 2009 and 2009 / 2010, which has been provided by TWBC. The annual financial data for the parking operations reflects the position for the entire Borough and not just the current study area.



2008 / 2009 2009 / 2010

On-Street Enforcement

Employee Costs £404,365 £368,608

Transport Costs £8,528 £8,686

Premises Costs £72 £75

Supplies & Services £78,978 £67,795

Income -£685,511 -£544,616

Capital Charges £30,299 £5,784

Support Services £118,818 £94,478

Sum: -£44,452 £808

Off-Street Parking

Premises Costs £1,382,339 £1,273,347

Supplies & Services £79,593 £63,133

Income -£4,550,488 -£4,405,464

Capital Charges £7,300,489 £280,226

Support Services £489,477 £398,584

Sum: £4,701,410 -£2,390,174

Total £4,656,958 -£2,389,365 Table 4.3. 2008 / 2009 – 2009 / 2010 Revenue Comparison

4.59 The table shows that in 2008 / 2009, there was an overall loss of £4,656,958 across the total parking operations for the Borough, whilst in 2009 / 2010, there was a surplus of £2,389,365. This is a significant difference, however, it is understood that this difference was due to adjustments in capital assets. Leaving aside the Capital adjustments, the financial figures for the operation are reasonably stable with an annual cost reduction being achieved as required in accordance with Gershon Efficiency Review.

4.60 Through the Borough Council’s agreement with Kent County Council (as Parking Authority), the Borough Council is entitled to reapply surpluses from their on-street parking operations to transport and travel infrastructure within the Borough. Surpluses from the off-street parking operation are not governed by that agreement and are therefore invested in the Borough as the Council sees fit.

4.61 Whilst TWBC have provided PBA with the total annual income and expenditure parking information for 2008 / 2009 and 2009 / 2010, it is important to understand the revenue for each individual car park.

4.62 Therefore, based on ticket sales data from April 2009 – March 2010, an assessment has been undertaken to assess the amount of revenue generated per space for each car park within the Royal Tunbridge Wells study area. The assessment methodology is shown in the example below.

4.63 In order to understand how much revenue the car park could potentially generate, the assessment is based on the tariff which could generate the most income, which in the case of Beech Street is for a one hour stay. The assessment therefore assumes that each space is occupied for each of the 10 available hours per day and that each hour is used by a different



person, each paying for a one hour ticket. The worked example does not include season ticket sales for the car park.

Example Revenue Character Calculation

Beech Street Surface Car Park

Actual Revenue Analysis

Ticket sales in 2009: £30,229.50

Total parking spaces: 38 spaces

Averaged revenue per space: £30,229.50 / 38 spaces

£795.51 per space per year

The assessment shows that each parking space within Beech Street car park generates on average £795.51 per year.

Revenue Potential

Hours of operation (10hr Mon- -Sat, 6hr Sun, 365 days) 3432 hours

Maximum potential revenue (3432 x 1hr tariff): 3432 x £0.70

£2402.40 per space per year

Beech Street has a revenue score of: £795.51 / £2402.40 = 33%

4.64 The results show that Beech Street car park is currently gaining 33% of the potential revenue that the car park could generate, excluding any season ticket use. To achieve closer to the maximum revenue potential the tariff structure would need to be reviewed to reflect the type of ticket sold or turn-over in the car park would need to increase.

4.65 The total revenue for each individual car park can be seen on the graph below with details of each car park’s revenue analysis in Table 4.4.

Figure 7. 2009 / 2010 Annual Revenue – Existing Tariff Structure



Car Park Revenue

per Space

Potential Revenue

per Space Revenue

Score Beech Street £796 £2,402 33% Camden Road £748 £2,402 31% Crescent Road MSCP £927 £3,432 27% Great Hall MSCP £1,312 £3,432 38% Linden Park Road £1,676 £3,432 49% Little Mount Sion £1,859 £3,432 54% Meadow Road MSCP £1,082 £3,432 32% Mount Pleasant Avenue £197 £832 24% Royal Victoria Place £1,646 £3,432 48% Torrington MSCP £650 £1,030 63% Town Hall Yard MSCP £210 £832 25% Union House MSCP £830 £2,402 35%

Table 4.4 Revenue Potential – Existing Tariff Structure

4.66 The results of the assessment show that the two car parks currently generating the highest revenue are Royal Victoria Place and Crescent Road with annual revenues of £2,025,064 and £1,005,363 respectively. This is to be expected as they are by far the largest of the car parks within the study area with 1230 and 1085 spaces. However, whilst these two car parks generate the most revenue they only achieve revenue scores of 48% and 27% respectively.

4.67 The car park with the highest revenue score is Torrington, with 63%. The car park with the lowest revenue score is Mount Pleasant Avenue with 24%, albeit this car park is only open to the paying public on Saturdays.

4.68 Overall, the results show that there is a significant gap between the existing and potential revenue that can be gained from each car park. The most probable reason why some car parks will not be achieving close to their potential revenue is likely to be that people are parking for longer than the optimum revenue period of time, which in most cases is shown to be one hour, where longer term parking is proportionately cheaper. As it is highly unlikely that a car park would reach 100% of its revenue potential due to this issue, it is likely that the revenue score could be greatly improved by changing the tariff structure or by promoting shorter stays in certain car parks.

4.69 TWBC have recently issued a new tariff structure which will be implemented in April 2011. In order to estimate the potential revenue for next year, the assessment has been re-run using the existing ticket sales (April 2009 – March 2010) but with the new tariff structure. The results can be seen below.



£0

£400,000

£800,000

£1,200,000

£1,600,000

£2,000,000

£2,400,000

Be

ech

Str

ee

t

Ca

md

en

Ro

ad

Cre

sce

nt

Ro

ad

MS

CP

Gre

at

Ha

ll M

SC

P

Lin

de

n P

ark

Ro

ad

Litt

le M

ou

nt

Sio

n

Me

ad

ow

Ro

ad

MS

CP

Mo

un

t P

lea

san

t A

ve

nu

e

Ro

ya

l V

icto

ria

Pla

ce

To

rrin

gto

n M

SC

P

To

wn

Ha

ll Y

ard

MS

CP

Un

ion

Ho

use

MS

CP

Annual Revenue

Annual

Revenue

Figure 8. 2009 / 2010 Annual Revenue – New Tariff Structure

Car Park Revenue per Space

Potential Revenue

per Space Revenue

Score

Difference in Revenue Score from Existing

Tariff Beech Street £858 £2,746 31% -2% Camden Road £1,115 £2,746 41% 9% Crescent Road MSCP £966 £7,207 13% -14% Great Hall MSCP £1,360 £7,207 19% -19% Linden Park Road £1,735 £7,207 24% -25% Little Mount Sion £1,945 £7,207 27% -27% Meadow Road MSCP £1,121 £7,207 16% -16% Mount Pleasant Avenue £204 £1,747 12% -12% Royal Victoria Place £1,707 £7,207 24% -24% Torrington MSCP £1,163 £15,444 8% -56% Town Hall Yard MSCP £218 £1,747 12% -13% Union House MSCP £891 £13,042 7% -28%

Table 4.5 Revenue Potential – New Tariff Structure

4.70 The results of the assessment show that under the new tariff structure, when applying the same ticket sales as the previous year, there is an increase in annual revenue of £308,588 as would be expected. The largest increase in revenue, however, from the existing tariff structure is at Torrington where a 79% increase is seen. The second largest is at Camden Road which achieves an increase of 49% over the existing tariff structure. Seven of the car parks showed an increase in revenue of 4% from the existing tariff structure.



4.71 Despite the increase in revenue, the score for all but one of the car parks reduces from that under the new tariff structure, with the exception being Camden Road which has increased its revenue score by 9%. This is due in part to the fact that the higher tariffs mean there is a higher revenue potential per space. Furthermore, the revenue score from the existing tariff will have been affected by the fact that there was more than one period which achieved the highest revenue potential per space at a number of the car parks, yet the 0 – 1 hr period was used where this occurred.

4.72 Whilst this change in tariff structure is shown to be beneficial to the revenue stream for the majority of the car parks, there is now a large deficit between the projected revenue and the potential revenue that could be achieved for the parking stock. Reviewing the proportion of types of tickets sold and adjusting the tariff banding accordingly would lift the degree of potential revenue. This assessment would need to be balanced against any changes proposed in the wider parking stock, such as a strategy to change the balance and location of short and long stay parking.

4.73 Additionally, amending the period which achieves the most revenue per space (in cases where this results in more than one period) will also change the revenue score of the existing tariff.

4.74 Whilst the assessment noted above has been provided to reflect the new tariff structure, it is important to understand how the revenue would be affected by future amendments to the tariff.

4.75 An assessment has therefore been undertaken in order to provide an example of future potential revenue under a revised tariff structure. The revised tariff contains adjustments to the Beech Street, Camden Road, Little Mount Sion and Torrington tariffs in order to try to better reflect their intended length of stays. The revised tariff structure is set out in table 4.6 and the revenue results can be seen in figure 9 and table 4.7 below.

Revised Tariff

Car Park 0-30 mins

30 mins -

1hr 1-2hr 2-3hr 3-4hr 4-5hr 5-6hr All

Day

Beech Street Camden Road

£0.00 £1.80 £2.50 £3.40 £4.00 £5.00

Crescent Road MSCP N/A £5.50 Great Hall MSCP N/A

£1.00 £2.10 £3.10 £4.00 £4.80 £5.50

£10.00 John Street Free Linden Park Road £5.50 £10.00 Little Mount Sion £10.00 £10.00 Meadow Road MSCP £10.00 Mount Pleasant Avenue

£5.50

£10.00 RVP Levels 1-8 MSCP RVP Levels 8A+ MSCP

N/A £1.00 £2.10 £3.10 £4.00 £4.80 £5.50

£5.50

Torrington MSCP N/A 40p 70p £1.20 £3.00 £3.80 £5.00 £10.00 Town Hall Yard MSCP N/A £1.00 £2.10 £3.10 £4.00 £4.80 £5.50 £5.50

TW

BC

Op

erat

ed

Union House MSCP N/A 80p £1.50 £2.20 £3.00 £3.80 £4.50 Table 4.6 Example Tariff Structure



Figure 9. 2009 / 2010 Annual Revenue Potential – Revised Tariff Structure

Table 4.7 Revenue Potential – Adjusted Tariff

4.76 The results of the assessment show that by revising the tariff structure to perhaps better suit the intended length of stay, the annual revenue has increased by £10,981. In the majority of cases (9 / 12) the potential revenue score has either increased or stayed the same, with the largest increase being seen at Little Mount Sion (11%). As noted above, reviewing the proportion of types of tickets sold and further adjusting the tariff banding accordingly would continue to lift the degree of potential revenue.

Car Park Revenue

per Space

Potential Revenue

per Space Revenue

Score

Difference in Revenue Score from New Tariff

Beech Street £846 £3,432 25% -7% Camden Road £804 £3,432 23% -17% Crescent Road MSCP £966 £7,207 13% 0% Great Hall MSCP £1,360 £7,207 19% 0% Linden Park Road £1,735 £7,207 24% 0% Little Mount Sion £2,772 £7,207 38% 11% Meadow Road MSCP £1,121 £7,207 16% 0% Mount Pleasant Avenue £204 £1,747 12% 0% Royal Victoria Place £1,707 £7,207 24% 0% Torrington MSCP £1,232 £34,320 4% -4% Town Hall Yard MSCP £218 £1,747 12% 0% Union House MSCP £891 £13,042 7% 0%



Season Ticket Revenue

4.77 Season tickets are available for purchase for the following car parks:

� Beech Street;

� Meadow Road;

� Camden Road;

� Crescent Road;

� Union House;

� Warwick Road (Residents only – not included within this assessment).

4.78 In order to estimate both existing and future revenue generated from season ticket purchase, both the existing and future tariffs (as of April 2011), have been calculated. The tariffs are as follows:

1 Year 1 Month

Car Park Current Tariff

Future Tariff

Current Tariff

Future Tariff

Crescent Road / Mt Pleasant Av / Meadow Road £910 £950 £86 £89

Crescent Road / Mt Pleasant Av - Residents Rate £455 £485 £48 £50

Beech Street / Camden Road / Union House £785 £810 £75 £78

Warwick Road (Residents only) £320 £350 £37 £39 Table 4.8 Existing and Amended Season Ticket Tariffs

4.79 For Crescent Road and Mount Pleasant Avenue, the income has been based upon season ticket sales between March 2010 – February 2011. Income for the remaining car parks has been based on the assumption that a 12 month season ticket has been purchased for each space of each car park.

4.80 It is noted that whilst Warwick Road car park has generally not been included within this Parking Strategy, the income generated from this car park has been included within this revenue assessment.

4.81 The results are as follows.



£0

£50,000

£100,000

£150,000

£200,000

£250,000

£300,000

£350,000

Revenue from tickets sold at residents rate

Revenue from ticket sold at full

rate

Combined revenue

Season Ticket Revenue (Mar 2010 - Feb 2011)

Existing Tariff

New Tariff

Figure 10 Season Ticket Income

4.82 Figure 10 shows that under the existing tariff, season tickets sold at the residents’ rate generated an income of £3,640 and season tickets sold at the full rate generated an income of £297,110 – a combined income of £300,750. If the same number of tickets were sold next year under the new tariff structure, the income generated from season tickets sold at the residents rate would be £3,880 and income generated from the season tickets sold at the full rate would be £310,000 – a combined total of £313,880. The change in tariff structure would therefore generate a total additional income of £13,130.

On-Street Revenue

4.83 There are currently no on-street paid-for-parking spaces within Royal Tunbridge Wells, but many areas are subjected to limited waiting periods. Whilst no revenue from ticket sales is therefore generated, financial data provided by TWBC, as set out in table 4.3 above, states that in 2009 / 2010, on-street parking management and enforcement within the Borough generated £544,616. This income is due to such things as Penalty Charge Notices (PCN), and resident’s permits. However, the data also stated that during the same year, on-street parking enforcement cost TWBC £545,425, for such things as premises costs, transport costs and supplies & services.

4.84 In 2009 / 2010, the management and issuing of on–street PCNs cost the Council £22,117, which was due to such things as printing costs, PCN debt registration and parking adjudication service. The income generated from on–street PCNs in the same period was £444,960, giving a net receipt for PCNs of £422,843. The final surplus for that year for the on-street parking operations was reported as £808, when taking account of other operational costs. This compares to a previous year’s operating deficit of £44,452.

Length of Stay

4.85 The final index of the character assessment is to give an indication as to the form of parking act that occurs in that car park. For instance, if the most popular tariff for a car park returns a short to medium length of stay value it is probable the car park is predominantly used for retail activity, a medium to long stay would be local employment activity, whilst long stay suggests largely commuter based activity.



4.86 Length of stay data for Royal Tunbridge Wells has been obtained through two forms. Firstly, parking beat surveys undertaken over several days has been obtained for the following car parks:

� Crescent Road (surveyed over 5 weekdays between October and November 2010);

� Torrington (surveyed over 15 weekdays between June and July 2010); and

� Great Hall (surveyed over 5 weekdays between September and October 2010).

4.87 As no parking beat data was available for the remaining car parks, length of stay data has been calculated using ticket data collected during October 2010, which is considered to be a neutral month. Season ticket data has not been included within this assessment, which is particularly relevant to Town Hall Yard as no staff parking will have been included within the assessment and is instead based on weekend ticket sales.

4.88 John Street has not been included within this assessment as no length of stay data was available for this free car park.

4.89 The results of the survey and data analysis can be seen in figure 11 below.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Bee

ch S

tree

t (LS

)

Cam

den

Roa

d (L

S)

Cre

scen

t Roa

d (L

S)

Mea

dow

Roa

d (S

S)

Roy

al V

icto

ria P

lace

(LS

/SS

)

Gre

at H

all (

SS

)

Tor

ringt

on (

SS

)

Littl

e M

ount

Sio

n (S

S)

Lind

en P

ark

Roa

d (S

S)

Uni

on H

ouse

(LS

)

Mou

nt P

leas

ant A

venu

e (S

S)

Tow

n H

all Y

ard

(LS

)

Hou

rs

Peak Hour Length of Stay

Peak Hour Length of Stay

Figure 11. Length of Stay (Hours)

4.90 Figure 11 shows that the majority of the car parks (8 / 12) are being utilised for their intended long or short stay use (where four hours or under is classed as ‘short stay’). The data for Beech Street and Town Hall Yard, however, shows that these car parks are intended for long stay purposes but are instead being favoured by parking acts of one and two hours respectively. This is also true of Torrington and Little Mount Sion which are intended for short stays but the majority of parking acts associated with these car parks are occurring for around 10 hour periods.

4.91 These queries could be due to a number of reasons. For Beech Street, this could be due to the fact that the car park is located close to local retail which would encourage shorter stay parking; it is also located close to Camden Road where the majority of the parking acts



occurred for 10 hours, suggesting that local employees tend to use this car park for all day parking.

4.92 For Town Hall Yard, whilst it is designated as a long stay car park, the majority of the parking acts were for two hours. The reason for this is likely to be attributed to the fact that this car park is a weekend only car park so ticket sales will only represent those people using it on either a Saturday or Sunday and are therefore more likely to be for shopping or leisure use which would generate shorter terms parking acts. On weekdays the car park is used for long stay staff parking which does not require a ticket from the machine and therefore, these acts have not been included within the assessment.

4.93 With regard to Torrington, the reason that there are a large majority of long stays when the tariff is set to dissuade this is due to the existing lease which does not allow the tariff to be changed at this time.

4.94 For Little Mount Sion, the reason that the parking acts do not support the intended duration of stay could be due to the fact that the tariff structure reflects long stay parking, or could also suggest that this car park is being used by local residents.

4.95 Figure 11 shows that the majority of the parking acts tend to have a length of stay of either 0 – 2 hour or 10 hour periods, with a distinct lack of parking acts occurring between these periods. This could suggest that the majority of people using the car parks are travelling into Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre for either work or leisure / retail purposes.

4.96 TWBC have advised that they would class a short stay car park as being designated for use up to four hours and a long stay car park is designated for use over four hours. Based on these designations, the results of the length of stay assessment show that there is a relatively equal balance of short and long stay parking acts across the study area with 7 / 12 of the car parks being favoured for short stays and 5 / 12 of the car parks being favoured for long stays.

4.97 Based on the results of the length of stay assessment, it is proposed that further investigation should be undertaken at Beech Street and Little Mount Sion car parks in order to achieve the desired length of stay. This could be through such things introducing restrictions or assessing whether the new tariff structure (introduced April 2011) achieves this desired goal or whether further revision of the tariff is required.

Car Park Character Appraisal – Summary

4.98 The car park character appraisal has assessed each individual car park based on each of the five KPI assessment criteria. The detailed results can be seen in Appendix 3 and a summary is provided below.



Rev

enue

(e

xc. S

easo

n T

icke

ts)

Car Park

Occ

upan

cy

Acc

essi

bilit

y

Env

ironm

ent

Existing New

Leng

th o

f Sta

y (h

ours

)

Ove

rall

Sco

re

Beech Street 79% 75% 55% £16,609 £32,585 1 65%

Camden Road 25% 66% 57% £48,602 £72,483 10 61%

Crescent Road 74% 77% 62% £1,005,363 £1,048,365 10 69%

Great Hall 64% 51% 57% £268,866 £278,759 1 54%

John Street 95% 48% 38% N/A n/a 43%

Linden Park Road 62% 60% 52% £90,491 £93,667 2 56%

Little Mount Sion 91% 60% 47% £33,460 £35,002 10 54%

Meadow Road 36% 63% 64% £476,184 £493,160 2 63%

Mount Pleasant Avenue 82% 78% 57% £11,799 £12,244 2 67%

Royal Victoria Place 57% 68% 74% £2,025,064 £2,099,969 2 71%

Torrington 60% 80% 54% £157,902 £282,502 10 67%

Town Hall Yard 80% 78% 52% £20,349 £21,114 2 65%

Union House 95% 63% 45% £96,314 £103,362 10 54%

Table 4.9. Car Park Character Appraisal Summary

Key Characteristics

4.99 The character appraisal has provided the following key characteristics for each car park.

� Beech Street: High occupancy levels, well located with good accessibility, adequately maintained, used as a short stay, poor revenue.

� Camden Road: Low occupancy levels, good accessibility, adequately maintained, poor revenue but will improve under new tariff structure, long stay.

� Crescent Road: High occupancy levels, good accessibility, well maintained, high revenues, long stay.

� Great Hall: High occupancy levels, relatively poor accessibility, reasonably maintained, adequate revenues, short stay.

� John Street: High occupancy levels, poor accessibility and environment, length of stay is unknown due to the fact that it is a free car park and so no ticket sales data is available.

� Linden Park Road: Relatively high occupancy levels, good accessibility, adequately maintained, high revenue, short stay.

� Little Mount Sion: Well used, good accessibility, poorly maintained, high revenue, long stay.



� Meadow Road: Under utilised, good accessibility and environment, poor revenue, short stay.

� Mount Pleasant Avenue: Well used, good accessibility, adequately maintained, poor revenue, short stay.

� Royal Victoria Place: Under utilised, good accessibility from the front but poor for those travelling from Victoria Road and confusing internal circulation, relatively well maintained, high revenue, short stay.

� Torrington: Well used, good accessibility, well maintained, high revenue, long stay.

� Town Hall Yard: Well used, good accessibility, adequately maintained, relatively poor revenue, short stay.

� Union House: Well used, good accessibility, poorly maintained, relatively poor revenue, long stay.

New Car Park Tariff Structures

4.100 The existing tariff structure of each of the car parks within the study area are shown below. The tariffs are current as of March 2011.

Existing Tariff

Car Park <1hr 1-2hr 2-3hr 3-4hr 4-5hr 5-6hr All Day

Beech Street

Camden Road £0.70 £1.40 £2.10 £2.80 £3.50 £4.20

Crescent Road MSCP £5.20 Great Hall MSCP

£1.00 £2.00 £3.00 £3.80 £4.60 £5.20 £10.00

John Street Free Linden Park Road £5.20 £10.00 Little Mount Sion £5.20 Meadow Road MSCP £5.20 £10.00 Mount Pleasant Avenue £5.20


£1.00 £2.00 £3.00 £3.80 £4.60

£5.20 £5.20

Torrington MSCP £0.30 £0.60 £1.00 £1.30 £1.60 £1.90 £8.00 Town Hall Yard MSCP £1.00 £2.00 £3.00 £3.80 £4.60 £5.20

TW

BC

Ope

rate

d

Union House MSCP £0.70 £1.40 £2.10 £2.80 £3.50 £4.20 Table 4.10Existing Car Park Tariffs

4.101 Under the existing tariff, the cheapest car park to park in for short stays is Torrington, where parking for up to one hour costs 30p. The car parks with the cheapest all day tariff are Beech Street, Camden Road and Union House, which all have a cost of £4.20.

4.102 The occupancy levels shown in table 4.1 suggest that the lower tariff at Torrington is successfully attracting people to this car park. Additionally, the tariff at Beech Street and Union House are also attracting high numbers of people to these car parks. The low occupancy figure for Camden Road, however, suggests that whilst the long stay tariff is low, the car park is still being largely under utilised.

4.103 Based on the tariffs set out in the table above and the existing revenues set out earlier within this section, a number of the car parks within the study area are generating revenue levels well below their potential.



4.104 Figure 12 shows the variation in parking charges across the study area for the existing tariff structure.

£0.00

£1.00

£2.00

£3.00

£4.00

£5.00

£6.00

£7.00

£8.00

£9.00

£10.00

£11.00


Existing Tariff Structure

Beech Street, Camden Road, Union House

Great Hall, Linden Park Road, Meadow Road, RVP Levels 1 - 8

Crescent Road, Little Mount Sion, Mount Pleasant Avenue, RVP Levels 8A+, Town Hall Yard

Torrington

Figure 12. Existing Tariff Structure

4.105 Figure 12 shows that there is a gradual increase in the majority of the tariffs across the study area, although five of the car parks show a sudden steep rising limb in the 5– 6hr and All Day brackets. It is clear from this steep rise that these five car parks are considered to be short stay and are priced to discourage long stay use. However, the fact that this steep rise occurs at the 5–6hr period rather than the 4-5hr period (which would also be classed as long stay), could encourage short stay use for a longer period than is necessary, reducing the turn over of the car park.

4.106 From looking at figure 12, the car parks which could be considered to be in conflict with their proposed purpose are Little Mount Sion and Mount Pleasant Avenue as the tariff structure suggests they are long stay but they are promoted as short stay car parks.

4.107 TWBC have revised their parking tariffs as of April 2011, to those shown in the table below.



Proposed Tariff Car Park

<1hr 1-2hr 2-3hr 3-4hr 4-5hr 5-6hr All Day Beech Street Camden Road

80p £1.50 £2.20 £3.00 £3.80 £4.50

Crescent Road MSCP £5.50 Great Hall MSCP

£1.00 £2.10 £3.10 £4.00 £4.80 £5.50 £10.00

John Street Free Linden Park Road £10.00 Little Mount Sion £5.50 Meadow Road MSCP £10.00 Mount Pleasant Avenue £5.50


£1.00 £2.10 £3.10 £4.00 £4.80 £5.50

£5.50 Torrington MSCP 40p 70p £1.20 £3.00 £3.80 £4.50 £9.00 Town Hall Yard MSCP £1.00 £2.10 £3.10 £4.00 £4.80 £5.50 £5.50

TW

BC

Ope

rate

d

Union House MSCP 80p £1.50 £2.20 £3.00 £3.80 £4.50 Table 4.11 New Car Park Tariffs

4.108 Figure 13 shows the variation in parking charges across the study area for the new tariff structure.

£0.00

£1.00

£2.00

£3.00

£4.00

£5.00

£6.00

£7.00

£8.00

£9.00

£10.00

£11.00


New Tariff Structure

Beech Street, Camden Road, Union House

Crescent Road, Little Mount Sion, Town Hall Yard, RVP Levels 8A+

Great Hall, Linden Park Road, Mount Pleasant Avenue, RVP Levels 1-8, Meadow Road MSCP

Torrington

Figure 13. New Tariff Structure

4.109 Figure 13 shows that there is a much steeper rising limb for the majority of the car parks under the new tariff structure when compared to the existing tariff.



4.110 One of the biggest changes is seen at Torrington where the tariffs have risen earlier than in the existing tariff, making this car park more obviously tailored towards shorter stays.

4.111 Table 4.12 provides the tariff structure of car parks within comparator towns, on which the new tariff structure implemented at Royal Tunbridge Wells can be compared.



30mins up to 1hr 1-2hr 2-3hr 3-4hr 4-5hr 5-6hr 6-7hr 7-8hr +8hr

Bromley Tariff 1 90p £1.80 £2.70 £3.60 £4.50 £5.40 £10.00

Tariff 2 £3.50 £4.00

Tariff 3

Tariff 4

70p £1.40 £2.10 £2.80

Tariff 5 60p £1.20 £1.80 £2.50

Tariff 6 80p £1.60 £2.40 £3.20 £4.00 £6.00

Maidstone

Tariff 1 £1.40 £1.80 £2.00 £5.50

Tariff 2 £0.30 £0.50 £1.00 £1.80 £2.00

Tariff 3

Tariff 4 £0.40 £1.80

Tariff 5 £1.80

Tariff 6

Tariff 7

Tariff 8

Tariff 9

Tariff 10

Tariff 11

Tariff 12

Tariff 13

Tariff 14

Tariff 15

Tariff 16

£0.70 £1.80

£2.70

£4.50

Tariff 17 £0.80 £1.60 £4.60

Crawley Tariff 1 £0.80 £1.80 £3.00 £3.50 £4.00 £5.00

Tariff 1 £1.80 £2.00

£3.00

Tariff 3 £2.00 £5.70

Tariff 4 £3.00 £3.00

Tariff 5

Tariff 6 £3.00

£5.00 £15.00

Tariff 7 £1.20 £2.20 £4.20 £6.20 £7.50

Tariff 8 £3.00

Table 4.12 Comparator Parking Tariffs



4.112 The table shows that the tariffs applied in Royal Tunbridge Wells for both shorter and longer stay parking are slightly higher than those in Bromley, broadly in line with those for Maidstone and generally lower than those at Crawley. The tariffs set for both Royal Tunbridge Wells and the comparator towns all have some extent of general commonality across the parking stock, however, the former has a defined tariff for each hour, whereas a number of the tariffs for the comparator towns are the same across a number of hours,. One obvious difference across all of the comparator sites is that Maidstone is the only one to have car park where charges are implemented for 30 minutes rather than for 0 – 1 hr, although this only applies to two out of the 17 car parks.

4.113 Overall, the new parking tariff set for Royal Tunbridge Wells is generally in line with the tariffs set for comparator towns.

4.114 Since TWBC are implementing the new tariff as of April 2011, it would be impractical to suggest any immediate changes to the tariff structure. However, TWBC should consider the introduction of a low cost or free 30 minute tariff in some of the local centres’ car parks (where appropriate), such as Camden Road. This would allow local residents and visitors access to local shops resulting in a quick turnover in the car park whilst possibly removing disruptive on-street parking.



5 Where Do We Want to Be?

Overview

5.1 When developing a Parking Strategy for a particular area it is important that all aspects of the parking stock are considered. For example, on and off-street parking, primary user needs, tariff structures and potential new development impacts and infrastructure. In order to achieve the objectives of the Parking Strategy, each element must be coordinated to create a sustainable parking stock that at the same time provides enough parking in appropriate areas which fully serves the needs of the users.

5.2 As new development comes forward within the local area, the availability of and use of the existing parking stock will inevitably change. TWBC must therefore take on a collaborative approach with developers and be pro-active in informing development in order to look at the parking stock in a holistic way rather than by considering sites on an ad-hoc basis. This way the Council can continue to provide a sufficient and effective parking stock as the area develops.

5.3 In addition to the appropriate provision of car parking within developments and the management of impacts on the wider public parking stock, through a collaborative approach with developers, the Council will play a fundamental role in helping to ensure that the future developments meet the defined Objectives set out at Section 2. This approach will:

� Successfully reduce the impacts of car trips on connectivity within Royal Tunbridge Wells by capturing trips which would otherwise travel across town and by encouraging the use of more sustainable modes of transport;

� Facilitate the creation of attractive places; and

� Provide parking places in appropriate locations.

5.4 The emergent development designs will thus provide legible, attractive and appropriately sited vehicular and pedestrian connections for new and occasional visitors to Royal Tunbridge Wells and for regular shoppers and workers.

5.5 In line with objective two of this Parking Strategy which seeks to reduce movements across

the town centre, through new development, opportunities should be taken to change the focus of parking places within the area to ensure that short stay parking is concentrated on central car parks and longer stay parking provided for on the outskirts of the centre or at other suitable locations.

5.6 Predicting future development growth scenarios and their associated parking needs is fundamental to the success of Royal Tunbridge Wells. Whilst this Strategy provides broad predictions of development impacts, as new development comes forward, detailed analysis should be undertaken by the developers to ascertain the appropriate parking needs and solutions, but this must also be balanced with the goal to enhance sustainable connections and to deliver an attractive vibrant environment.

Parking Standards

5.7 Parking provision for new developments is usually based upon the local Borough or County Council parking standards. Historically, these standards have favoured the use of designated parking at each facility dedicated specifically to the building users, but more recently they have recognised the benefits of encouraging shared parking across a number of developments



which not only complement each other but can significantly reduce the overall number of parking spaces required.

Residential Parking in New Developments

5.8 Where earlier planning policy guidance has tried to restrict parking at the point of origin, Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) Housing recognises that this is often not the most appropriate solution to reducing car based travel. Where standards have enforced these restrictions, the result is often a surplus of vehicles with insufficient parking stock and heavy on street parking in the surrounding areas.

5.9 PPS3 therefore recognises that whilst it is important to still apply a certain restraint to parking

provision at the points of origin, more restraint should be applied at the trip destination (such as offices, retail outlets and leisure facilities). Each development based assessment should adopt this new approach and should also be coupled with a first principles assessment of the specific location and a census ‘output area’ analysis for such things as existing car ownership levels and tenure etc. The method of provision must then reflect the individual design of the development and might include undesignated, shared or remote parking provision. This is especially important in tight town centre developments where space is of a premium and inappropriate levels and location of parking will rapidly erode the design qualities of a development.

5.10 It is important to ensure that the correct quantum of parking is provided for residential

development in Royal Tunbridge Wells. Provision should reflect the location of the development and could include a reduced provision if located close to key local facilities (such as within the town centre boundary) and alternative travel options. The level of provision should be designed so as to not exceed demand (resulting in failure to restrain car based travel and / or car ownership), nor should it be so restrained that ad hoc and heavy on street parking results (see figures 14 and 15 below). A correct balance needs to be struck to ensure a sustainable, viable and successful development can be created.

Figures 14 & 15 - Heavy On - Street Parking in New Goods Station Road Residential Development

Non Residential Parking in New Developments

5.11 Where PPS3 has moved towards this approach, the emphasis in Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4) Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, continues to be one of locally specified restraint. This is set against the background of national policies and local initiatives to reduce the need to travel by car.



5.12 Parking Standards are no longer to be set nationally or regionally but should be determined by local agreement. Where local levels are not set, PPS4 advocates that the maximum standards in PPG13 should apply.

5.13 It is suggested that whilst parking provision within Royal Tunbridge Wells should generally adhere to relevant parking standards, the following factors should also be considered:

� What the Applicant perceives the future demand to be (including visitor, employee and operational parking);

� The adjustment applied for a reduction in car based trips due to Travel Plan measures if the development meets the appropriate gross floor area thresholds to trigger the requirement for a Travel Plan which are set out in the Kent County Council Guidance on Transport Assessments and Travel Plans;

� Whether there is any opportunity to provide shared parking with other uses; and

� Good design.

5.14 To inform this process and ensure uniformity, a Supplementary Planning Guidance for parking assessments should be established by the Council to guide developers.

5.15 As part of the framework, developers should be encouraged to use public parking stock where

appropriate in order to reduce the amount of parking required for new developments, to ensure that the public parking stock is being used to its maximum potential, to free up land and to allow TWBC to keep control over the majority of the parking stock within the study area and the wider Borough. This could include both on and off-street parking. In these instances, the use of public parking for new developments should consider:

� The development’s location including connectivity to local public transport or other

public parking places; � The mix of uses and their potential for shared parking provision; and

� The appetite for restraint by the developer and acceptability by the Council.

5.16 Whilst this approach should make efficient use of both available land and parking stock within

the Borough, it is important that TWBC strikes a balance between this and ensuring there is appropriate provision for visitors who wish to use the public car parks.

5.17 In terms of non-residential developments, parking at trip destinations should be provided at a level which does not hinder the success of the development, but at the same time is restrained enough so as not to promote car based trips. Opportunities to provide shared parking with other facilities or to utilise available public parking stock should always be explored. The use of the Town Hall Yard and Mount Pleasant car parks for office staff during the weekdays and by the public out of office hours are good examples of this working well. These locations could be more widely advertised to maximise their use as pressure grows on other public parking places. Any such measures that are implemented would need to be complemented by management mechanisms such as review of season ticket prices.

Ownership and Management

5.18 All of the principal car parks within this assessment are operated by TWBC. This means that there is generally a consistent pricing structure and quality across the study area. Adopting the approach outlined above in which developers are encouraged to use public parking stock (where appropriate) will help TWBC to maintain this consistency and will help the Council to plan for the future.



5.19 Individual business cases for use of public parking stock should be presented to TWBC in order for the Council to assess whether it is financially and operationally viable for them to operate and maintain the increase use.

5.20 The on–going operation of the parking stock should be reported in the annual parking report produced by TWBC.



6 What are the Options for Change?

6.1 This Parking Strategy considers three scenarios before promoting an action plan for change. The scenarios are:

1. Do Nothing;

2. Do Minimum;

3. Do Something.

Do Nothing

6.2 Under the ‘do nothing’ scenario, TWBC would continue to maintain the existing parking stock in its current state but would not react to coming changes to resolve increasing pressure on parking places and a consequential move away from Royal Tunbridge Wells by visitors, employers and employees due to unsatisfactory access opportunities and a general downward cycle of car parking age and quality.

6.3 PBA advise that TWBC do not adopt this approach as it is considered that this would not be

enough to provide an acceptable quantum and quality of parking stock. As the parking stock gradually declines, it will become unattractive and will not complement the new development in the local area. As new development comes forward, if TWBC do not consider parking provision within the total parking stock, the use of public parking will not be maximised.

Do Minimum

6.4 Under the ‘do minimum’ scenario the parking demand requirements of a range of development opportunities are assessed in order to provide an indication of the likely surplus or deficit in parking provision as a result of the development and parking stock changes currently envisaged. This option does not propose any alternative mitigation measures to address any excess surplus or deficit.

Do Something

6.5 Under the ‘do something’ scenario, the parking provision within Royal Tunbridge Wells is looked at in a holistic way in order to maximise parking stock provision within the study area. A small surplus is sought to be maintained, to ensure effective provision and to provide TWBC with appropriate solutions to future demand and supply issues.

Development Proposal Assessments

6.6 In order to provide the correct quantum of parking over the next 15 years to 2026, an assessment of relevant committed and anticipated development within the local area has been undertaken. The assessment predicts in broad terms the anticipated parking provision for each development and assesses how best to cater for and test the impact of possible magnitude of change for broader development changes – through the assessment of a range of development quanta. In order to be robust, 30% linked trips have been assumed within this assessment. A proportion of linked trips for retail uses are highly likely to occur where some existing visitors are anticipated to remain in the town centre for longer periods rather than each development attracting wholly new trips.

6.7 The assessment has taken the assumption that new residential development outside of the study area will derive greater public parking demand within the study area than residential development within the study area. This is based on the assumption that those in the centre will not drive to park in the centre but a varying proportion of those outside of the centre



(varied largely in relation to the distance to the study area) will drive and seek to park in the study area. The proportion used has been based on Journey to Work census information where an average of 50% of residents will have a destination within the study area. Again this assumption is a coarse assessment as the proportion will vary significantly across the local area due to a constantly varying range of criterion.

6.8 As a number of different development proposals could be considered within this assessment, assumptions have been made relating to the development type and quantum. Whilst the development assumptions are not fixed, they represent the most appropriate and robust projections at this time.

6.9 The development assumed under the scenarios, therefore consists of the following:

� Completion of the extant local residential, retail and business development;

� Closure of the Ritz Car Park;

� Redevelopment of the old cinema site;

� Reconfiguration of Crescent Road car park;

� Reconfiguration of John Street car park;

� Reconfiguration of parking to the south of the Pantiles; and

� Opening of the Pembury parking facility.

6.10 A range of other major development options in indicative outline have been supplied for the study area for broad assessment purposes only. These consist of a variety of uses including retail, residential, business and leisure.

6.11 The development proposals and timetable for delivery for this assessment have been

developed in line with TWBC and accord with the outline development options for the study area as known in March 2011. The developments have been assigned to development zones in line with those used for the local strategic transport model. For the purposes of this assessment zones have been grouped together where parking characteristics are aligned – such as routes into the study area and trip generation propensity. A plan of the assumed zoning system is at figure 16.

6.12 Parking provision for each of the development proposals has been based on a TRICS assessment. TRICS is an internet-based database of traffic count surveys which is used to calculate trip generation characteristics for new developments within the UK and Ireland. The database allows a number of parameters to be set in order to generate appropriate comparator sites and subsequent trip generation figures. The TRICS surveys are largely based on individual sites and so are not able to reflect the interaction between sites for such things as linked and diverted trips. For this reason the assessments of trip generation are very robust. For example the assessment of trips to a shop will observe a number of movements as will the review of an office development. This could be used to base assumptions for parking and travel demand but this will not take direct account of those that move between the two sites without re-parking their vehicles. In order to reflect this trip linking a typical rate of 30% reduction has been applied across the residential development scenarios.

6.13 The results of the parking demand and supply assessments are set out below. A table of the public parking provision and associated development changes, a graph illustrating the balance between parking supply and predicted demand and a plan highlighting the number of spaces



at each car park at the ‘end state’ can be seen at appendix 4. These assessments do not assume any change in the quantity of parking spaces provided by on-street bays. It is understood from the preliminary report prepared by Alpha Parking that few additional spaces could be provided within the current parking bays on streets within the study area. The wholesale transfer of residential parking places to paid-for-parking, which would be accessible to the general public during the day, would add significant additional parking spaces across the study area.

6.14 Furthermore there is an assumption that none of the prospective developments provide any private non-residential parking within the development plots. All future parking demand would therefore be taken up by public parking provision.



Figure 16. Zone Plan



‘Do Nothing’ Scenario Assessment

6.15 The ‘do nothing’ scenario is represented by all development proposals that are currently permitted but not built together with those developments for which indicative development mixes have been provided by TWBC. Within this scenario, where developments subsume existing car parks these are only replaced by known parking quanta if details have been provided. An indicative sequence of developments has been adopted that accords with advice provided by TWBC – either through known planned delivery programmes or early indicative sequences.

6.16 This scenario assumes the closure of the Ritz site (old cinema) and is not replaced by any alternative public parking.

6.17 Finally within this scenario the current 1085 space multi-storey car park at Crescent Road is assumed to be replaced by a moderately smaller car park providing 1000 spaces. This is through a development within that area.

6.18 The results show that at the beginning of the assessment

6.19 At the beginning of the scenario, effectively the current day, a total of 3938 parking spaces are provided across the study area, resulting in a surplus in supply of approximately 1237 spaces. Through the scenario window this surplus is eventually eroded to derive a final net deficit of approximately 1155 parking spaces, an under-provision of approximately 30% of total demand.

6.20 Without further provision of public parking there would need to be a significant move away from car based travel to ensure effective use of the parking stock and to continue to encourage local trade and commerce. Alternatively other approaches such as unattractive parking charges would need to be implemented to dissuade use and maintain turnover.

‘Do Minimum’ Scenario Assessment

6.21 The ‘do minimum’ scenario considers the same development assumptions but introduces some new parking provision to seek to reduce the predicted future deficit. In addition to the development assumptions further parking places are provided to the outskirts of the town to add to the wider town stock. The proposed 320 space parking area at Pembury is introduced along with an enlarged offer to the south of the town, possibly around the existing parking near the Union House area.

6.22 These changes help to reduce the gap between the predicted demand and the potential supply and delay the on set of deficit for a short period.

6.23 As with the ‘do nothing’ scenario the initial parking supply is 3938 parking spaces. Under this scenario the end state parking provision is estimated to be approximately 4397 parking spaces following the various removals and replacements. This is 112% of the original level of provision.

6.24 The increase in parking demand across the scenario, however, outstrips the rise in provision. Whilst background demand is assumed to stay level, the increase in demand from new development results in a predicted net parking deficit of approximately 11% (495 spaces), with a peak of -17% (692 spaces) part way through the scenario.

6.25 This is an improvement on the ‘do nothing’ scenario but would still rely on significant alternative interventions to address the shortfall in provision. With the natural inefficiencies in car park operations the effective end state deficit could be as high as 25-30%.



6.26 Re-profiling of the prospective developments either in phase and/or quantum could assist with reducing eventual deficits but this would require detailed and individual analysis.

‘Do Something’ Scenario Assessment

6.27 To respond to the predicted end state deficit of the ‘do minimum’ scenario, a revised scenario has been prepared that seeks to remove any damaging supply deficit and ensure effective realisation of the prospective developments.

6.28 Again, retaining the development assumptions of the previous scenarios, this scenario considers what parking provision would need to be made to meet the anticipated demand.

6.29 As is shown by the scenario table and associated demand /supply trend graph in appendix 4, a small final surplus of 1% (74 spaces) is projected at the end state.

6.30 Through a range of interventions the end state parking stock is projected to be 5022 parking spaces. This is 128% of the initial 3938 but provides a small surplus of 1%. As mentioned this could result in a marginal actual deficit when taking account of the effective operation of car parks. To complement this, alternative interventions could be employed through the period to maintain a workable surplus and hence an effective parking stock.

6.31 The implications of the ‘do something’ changes are to provide a significant increase in the level of parking provision notional to the south of the town, perhaps around the Union House and Sainsbury area – with options such as new decked structures being considered. The indicative change is for parking provision to rise from the current 116 parking spaces at Union House to around 700 in the local area. This would of course need to be fully reviewed in relation to the suitability of the locations and supporting infrastructure. The actual level of increased provision would similarly need to be comprehensively assessed through the emerging development appraisals.

6.32 The provision on the outskirts of the town should be focused at inward commuting so as to reassign more central parking to shorter stay parking. The outer lying parking should be priced accordingly and supported by complementary travel options from the site into the town centre, such as enhanced bus interchange and potentially reviewed service provision.

6.33 Further to the changes to the south of the town, this scenario assumes a sizeable uplift in the quantum of parking within the core of the town centre. An increased parking supply at the Crescent Road multi-storey car park, as part of a wider comprehensive redevelopment, and a possible decked structure around a development on Grove Hill Road would provide 1450 parking spaces along the Mount Pleasant Road corridor.

6.34 An alternative location to be reviewed would be an option for the redevelopment of the Meadow Road car park. Under this option the existing car park would be re-provided and enlarged. This could provide spaces on the same site or similar as part of the wider redevelopment. The spaces would be constructed to a higher standard than the existing and could provide a more attractive and integrated car park as a result of the development upgrade.

6.35 A further option could also be to redevelop the Great Hall car park, however, any spaces that are removed as part of the redevelopment will need to be re provided elsewhere in order to accommodate the deficit.

6.36 Moving to the edge of the study area the potential to provide some public parking within a redevelopment of the current Arriva depot should be reviewed.



6.37 This ‘do something’ scenario assumes a change to the parking provision at the current John Street car park, perhaps as part of a small development. The proposed smaller car park, assumed at 30 spaces, would continue to provide a short stay car park for the local centre but would seek to remove parking that is not focused on the local area. It would be essential to supplement this change with a full review and monitoring of the impact on the surrounding residential streets.

6.38 Other alternative locations for additional parking provision should be explored including further parking on the northern outskirts such as at Knights Park. The comprehensive redesign of the current privately operated Fairground car park could provide additional spaces but would need fully to reflect the sensitive and protected location.

6.39 As with the ‘do minimum’ scenario whilst the assumed parking places are unlikely to meet the predicted parking demand in isolation, more comprehensive analysis of the prospective developments and an informed phasing and mix could dramatically reduce overall demand and derive a workable effective surplus. This will be particularly true if supported by alternative non-car travel initiatives to reduce the background and derived demand for parking. The introduction of on-street paid-for-parking would further assist with reducing the strain on off-street parking places.

Out of Town Parking

6.40 The town centre currently experiences heavy congestion, particularly at peak times, which makes connections across the town difficult and results in unreliable journey times. Increases in future development opportunities will only add to the existing congestion in the town centre and will result in heavy competition for public parking places.

6.41 In order to cater for this extra demand for spaces, to try to reduce town centre congestion and to help reduce the area’s carbon footprint, a new parking facility at Pembury is to be provided as part of the expansion of the current Tesco store due to open in 2012. This should be co-ordinated with the main study area parking stock and promoted for use for long stay parking, to facilitate the use of more central parking by short stay visitors.

6.42 The new Pembury parking facility will provide a safe and attractive alternative parking facility to those within the town centre. The site, previously identified in the emerging Tunbridge Wells 2010 Transport Strategy is located close to key strategic routes resulting in a quick and attractive journey into the town centre.

6.43 It is hoped that through the introduction of this parking facility, town centre congestion can be reduced and future demand for parking spaces can be managed effectively.

6.44 Further to the Pembury parking facility, a site on the Knights Park area was identified in the recent Transport Strategies and the Local Plan due to its links to key strategic and arterial routes. The Strategy stated that a Park and Ride facility would be suited to the Knights Park site as it is “located on the outskirts of the town and at locations already serviced by retail and employment activity”. Whilst a traditional Park and Ride facility might not continue to be appropriate options for additional parking provision in this area to assist regeneration of the town centre should not be overlooked.

6.45 In parallel with a review of network operations around the Longfield Road area a parking

facility at Knights Park could help to relieve congestion in and around the town centre and also in the car parks themselves through a reduction in private car use. The reduction in use of town centre car parks would make way for use by new developments in and around the town which might otherwise struggle to find available public parking stock.

6.46 In the past, two further sites were considered for the construction of Park and Ride facilities. These are Langton Green and Frant Road, both of which are located to the west of the town



centre. Whilst at the time both sites were deemed to be unacceptable, changes in constraints and in a bid to move forward, these sites can now also be considered as possible Park and Ride sites.

Measures to Improve Existing and Future Parking Stock

6.47 Whilst realisation of the development opportunities presented under the scenarios will provide significant upgrades to a number of the existing parking locations, there are a number of complementary initiatives and refurbishment measures that could be implemented to improve the quality and operation of the remaining parking stock.

6.48 There are a number of operational ‘quick wins’ that could be achieved in a range of car parks to help visitors. These include defining car park levels by duration of stay where provision for shoppers is of particular importance. In that case long stay spaces should be located on the upper levels and short stays on the lower levels, closer to the shops. This has been successfully employed in Royal Victoria Place and through the timed sub-division at Torrington. The measure could work equally as well in Crescent Road and should increase the vibrancy and turn over of the lower levels of the car park and assist those wishing to stay for shorter periods in finding an available bay.

6.49 In conjunction with refurbishment or remodelling works, upgrading stairwells would improve the quality of a number of the car parks and make them appear more attractive, improve visibility between the parking areas and the pedestrian areas and generally modernise the surroundings. This has been employed to good effect at car parks such as County Mall, Ashford and by Q-Park in their Croydon car park. This could be equally as effective in Royal Victoria Place, Torrington and Crescent Road. This could consist of installing glass doors and panels to allow more light into the stairwells and enable greater view-through, alleviating potential fears.

6.50 When developing a parking strategy it is important to recognise that existing local policy guidance should play a role in shaping the parking stock within a town. The Royal Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy for example, is striving to reduce environmental impacts through the promotion of greener energy.

6.51 In line with this objective, PBA propose that where there is current under utilisation of car parks such as Crescent Road, a section of the roof/surface parking area could be set aside or a roof/canopy structure built and allocated to energy saving uses such as solar panels or modern efficient turbines. It is not anticipated that these energy saving initiatives would provide sufficient power to feed back into the national grid but could help to reduce the carbon footprints of the parking stock.

6.52 The solar panels could help to reduce energy consumption whilst at the same time utilising current vacant space. In addition, in other car parks where there is no apparent spare capacity, other energy saving techniques could be introduced such as kinetic energy plates, although these would need to be considered in more detail through a cost – benefit analysis, taking account of any increased maintenance burden. Car parks, especially multi-storey car parks with fixed circulation routes are well suited to this form of sustainable energy solutions.

6.53 As ticket machine replacements come forward low energy and solar powered devices should be recommended and fewer machines provided where opportunities allow. Similarly low energy lighting should be used for replacements and upgrades. Lighting initiatives should always be informed by a full safety risk assessment to ensure suitable lighting levels are maintained.

6.54 Less significant measures such as seeking to source maintenance and support services and operational materials and sundries from local suppliers would further help towards reducing the indirect environmental impact of the parking operations, where the cost benefit is not



prohibitive. This would help to reduce the product and personnel miles travelled and if, for instance, bailiff services are provided by companies located closer to the area their travel will be similarly reduced.

6.55 When considering refurbishment and replacement materials should be sourced to limit the embedded carbon as far as possible, such as using recycled products for surfacing or decoration.

6.56 Further to these approaches, TWBC could further reduce the indirect carbon footprint of the parking operation in the town by providing a number of electric charging parking bays in off-street parking or on-street parking places to encourage and facilitate the use of electric vehicles. Funding assistance for this could be achieved through the “Plugged in Places” initiative and through developer contributions. To echo this scheme, as replacements come forward for the parking services fleet the lowest emission models should be sourced where practicable and these should be shared with other services – potentially also with groups outside the Borough Council – if feasible to maximise the efficient use of that resource.

6.57 Introducing bay guidance at some of the larger car parks, whilst providing useful information to users the systems, could reduce access times saving drivers from searching for parking places. Although energy would be required to power the system a review should be undertaken to research the net energy reduction through any reduced queuing and delays which could significantly improve the internal circulation for vehicles. The system could take a variety of forms from electronic signing either en route to a car park indicating the number of available spaces in a particular car park, such as the current VMS signs, and / or at the entrance to a car park indicating the number of available parking spaces on each floor through to individual bay guidance at each parking space. With regard to the former, this could reduce unnecessary trips across town where car parks are full; and with regard to the latter, could reduce queuing and improve the vehicular flow within the car park. A VMS strategy should complement existing fixed message signs and respect the strategic and appropriate route network.

6.58 It has been noted that the bay width in Meadow Road is quite narrow. This is very efficient from the point of view of capacity but can cause some difficulty for visitors, particularly as vehicle widths are generally on the rise. Whilst at odds with the pressures on the quantity of available spaces opportunities to widen parking bays in relevant car parks making it easy to manoeuvre in, out and around the car park should be taken. This should only be implemented where there have been significant concerns over the available width of bays or if there is spare capacity. The optimum opportunity to increase bay sizes should be taken in conjunction with re-modelling during redevelopment.

6.59 If on-street parking charges are introduced ticket machines should be low energy or renewable energy powered. The option to require full pay-by-phone for on-street should be assessed. This would remove the need for any on-street payment machines and should reduce contraventions leading to a more efficient service.

6.60 The review of on-street paid-for-parking should include a review of the need or otherwise to extend other on-street parking controls to Sundays so as to ensure that general on-street public parking does not cause delays or disruption to the local road network. The option to introduce carbon-metered parking charges should be reviewed taking account of the experiences of other local authorities including standard ticketing and permit parking.

Recommendations

6.61 The following table provides an indication of the actions and initiatives that should be pursued within Royal Tunbridge Wells. Where possible, short term quick wins are identified which are intended to be relatively uncontroversial and reasonably low cost.



6.62 The interventions are sub-divided into policy driven or development led; area-wide actions and site specific proposals. All actions are intended to combine to derive an effective and co-ordinated approach to parking provision in Royal Tunbridge Wells. Delivery timescales are indicative and would need to be reviewed to align with other local proposals, investments and developments.

Group A

Policy-Based & Development Led Interventions

Initiative Description Reason Timescale

A1 - Changes to Parking standards for new development

Update parking policy as part of LDF processes.

Inform development decisions and ensure suitable parking provision at new developments in line with current thinking and Parking Plans.

0-2 yrs

A2 - Flexible Parking Provision

Through developer parking assessments encourage and pursue flexibility in parking provision to minimise the impact of parking areas on new development. Seek to reduce proportion of dedicated and private parking through flexible and innovative provision.

Ensure the right quantum of parking is provided for the right use and maximising innovative use.

On-going

A3 - Carbon metered parking

Consider options to introduce emissions based parking tariffs and residents’ and business permits in paid-for parking areas. Reflect on current best-practice and inform decision with theoretical analysis prior to implementation. Ensure suitable monitoring systems are in place to inform publicity and review.

Complement wider sustainability initiatives. Encourage transfer to lower emitting vehicles.

1-2 yrs

A4 Electric Charging Points

Introduce electric charging points across the study area (which could be on- and off-street)

Encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport and contribute to energy reduction targets

1-5 yrs

A5 – Parking Facility and Strategic Delivery

Consult on options for further permanent Parking Facility provision. Deliver stock along side central development.

Improve and encourage sustainable access to Royal Tunbridge Wells

2-10 yrs

A6 – Parking Facility and Strategic Delivery

Monitor and review strategic development delivery and revise delivery needs and phasing in accordance with evolving development needs.

Ensure sufficient and suitable parking is provided across Royal Tunbridge Wells

2-15 yrs

A7 –On-Street RPZ Reviews

Analyse current on-street controls to reflect emerging developments. Review shared use of bays to optimise use of on-street parking in under occupied areas.

Ensure suitable on-street controls within critical areas and provide preferential parking where needed. Optimise revenue from

2-10 yrs



on-street spaces.

Group B

Generic Area-wide Interventions


B1 - Introduce “Loyalty Card”

Consider options for a loyalty card for residents and visitors. Review national Best Practice – such as HillingdonFirst Privilege card

Increase options for payment, encourage local investment and travel and optimise revenue

2-5 yrs

B2 - On-street usage survey – update of Alpha Parking Study

Undertake comprehensive analysis of the use of current on-street bays affected by the operation of the study area.

Justify future changes 0 yrs

B3 - Data collection and Processing

Ensure full implementation and maintenance of data collection and processing through improved automated data storage and recall. Increase sub-division in ticketing information and consider analysis by machine and time period to support annual reporting, monitoring and revenue predictions.

Inform better on-going monitoring and reporting. Assist with understanding usage and hence future revenue protection.

0-15 yrs

B4 - Ticket Machine Renewals and Upgrades

Create an upgrade strategy for payment machines across the entire parking stock. Seek reduced energy installations where feasible and ensure compatibility with data collection and analysis processes.

Ensure effective and efficient payment collection. Provide reliable and comprehensive data for on-going monitoring.

0-5 yrs

B5 - Refreshed Pricing Strategy

Consider amendments to proposed tariff structure to maximise revenue for reinvestment for refurbishment etc. Ensure differential re-banding responds to defined needs within car parks – such as restraint to long stay in town centre car parks and incentives to local travel.

Ensure appropriate pricing in line with wider Transportation initiatives and optimise revenue.

2 yrs and on-going

B6 - Cashless payment Investigate implementation of credit card and proximity reader systems at all sites. Implement as appropriate.

Reduce cash handling and provide further options for payment.

2-5 yrs

B7 - Improve pedestrian links – in car parks

Provide pedestrian walkways along isles where appropriate as part of design upgrades.

Enhance overall user experience and feeling of safety on-site.

0-5 yrs

B8 - Improve pedestrian links – between car parks and destinations

Provide improved way-finding and footways between car parks and key attractors. Undertake as part of refurbishments and developments.

Enhance overall user experience and guide people appropriately

0-5 yrs

B9 - Seek ParkMark status for those car parks which are yet to

Consider achieving BPA ParkMark status for all parking stock as renovations and

Enable effective marketing of parking stock and enhance

1-10 yrs



achieved this award and refreshed parking stock

renewals are made. user experience and optimise revenue

Group C

Site Specific Interventions – TWBC Operated Car Parks


a) Provide clear signs from Camden Road

b) General improvement through repainting of bay markings, introduction of landscaping and relocation of ticket machine to more accessible location. Provide solar powered ticket machines

C1 - Beech Street

c) Possible redevelopment if sufficient capacity in Camden Road

Enhance user experience and optimise revenue, realise asset value if appropriate.

0-5 yrs

a) Enhance “visibility” from Camden Road

Enhance user experience and optimise revenue

1-2 yrs

b) Through revising parking tariff structure, provide free first half hour parking to reduce on-street parking disruption to flow.

Discourage on-street parking

0-1 yrs

C2 - Camden Road

c) Provide solar powered ticket machines.

Complement wider sustainability initiatives

1-2 yrs

a) Split levels into length of stay with long stays /permit holders on upper level

Improve desirability for short stays.

2-5 yrs

b) Widen existing parking bays and refresh facades

Enhance user experience and optimise revenue.

2-5 yrs

c) Use under occupied roof for energy generation

Help to achieve core strategy targets for renewable energy.

5-10 yrs

d) Provide bay guidance Reduce circulation, enhance user experience and optimise revenue.

2-5 yrs

C3 - Crescent Road

e) Develop out frontage and relocate access

Enhance user experience and optimise revenue.

5-10 yrs

C4 - Meadow Road a) Review options for redevelopment Allow new key attractors to come forward

10-15 yrs



b) Provide options for energy reduction Help to achieve core strategy targets for renewable energy

2-5 yrs

a) Improve frontage onto Victoria Road. Improve access for residents and new development to the north

2-5 yrs

b) Provide bay guidance Reduce circulation, enhance user experience and optimise revenue

2-5 yrs

c) General improvement through repainting and decoration, improve pedestrian circulation zones and clarify and improve circulation on ground floor (further investigation required).

Meet retail centre quality, enhance user experience and optimise revenue

0-2 yrs

C5 - Royal Victoria Place

d) Improve pedestrian links from car park to main shopping area


0-5 yrs

a) Improve pedestrian access to Mount Pleasant


2-5 yrs

b) Consider use of CCTV or other methods to address concerns of out of hours anti-social behaviour.

Enhance feeling of security.

2-5 yrs

C6 - Great Hall

c) Strive to achieve Park Mark award Enhance user experience, feeling of security and image

2-5 yrs

C7 – John Street a) Review existing operation and associated affects, consider introduction of parking charges and resurfacing / refurbishment.

Understand current true operation and complement the wider parking strategy

0-3 yrs

b) Review possible opportunity for appropriate development – consider particularly the impact on local streets and retail.

Provide fully for local people and maximise public assets

0-3 yrs

C8 – Linden Park Road a) Remove parking stock as part of redevelopment and replace by alternative well located public parking.

Provide valuable local development opportunity and clarify parking opportunities for Pantiles area.

10-15 yrs

a) Rejuvenate surface and layout Enhance user experience and optimise revenue

5-10 yrs C9 - Little Mount Sion

b) Improve signing from main access and promote as a High Street car park


0-1 yrs



C10 – Mount Pleasant Avenue (off–street)

No change subject to any future re-development.

n/a

a) Review opportunities to replace parking as part of wider redevelopment.

10-15 yrs

b) Consider enhancements to pedestrian accesses, including access to Vale Road, to increase user confidence and feeling of security.

C11 - Torrington

c) Increase “visibility” from London Road.


0-2 yrs

C12 – Town Hall Yard a) Seek opportunities to co-ordinate fully with adjoining Crescent Road MSCP – perhaps as part of a wider development changes.

Maximise efficiency of parking area and minimise impact on town centre streets.

5-10 yrs

C13 – Union House a) Consider opportunities to enhance local provision as part of a possible wider redevelopment or through significant amendments to parking arrangements.

Provide valuable local development opportunity and clarify parking opportunities for Pantiles area and wider town.

10-15 yrs

C14 - Stone Street North and South

a) Consult on proposals to convert parking places to Permit Holder only parking. Implement as appropriate

Protect parking stock for local residents

0-2 yrs

C15 - Warwick Road a) Maintain status quo Fit for purpose n/a

C16 - Coach Park adjacent to Sainsbury’s store

a) Review current operation and use Seek new opportunities for use where alternative coach parking available

0-1 yrs

Group D

Site Specific Interventions – Privately Operated Car Parks


Working with partners

(Fairground Car Park Operator, Hoopers, Network Rail/TOC)

Suggest general upgrades to surface and access where required, consider proposals to increase parking provision through decked structures and perhaps as part of wider development opportunity

Provide valuable local development opportunities and clarify parking opportunities

On-going

Table 6.1 Recommendations



What Next?

6.63 Whilst this Parking Strategy has presented a robust action plan for the future parking stock within Royal Tunbridge Wells, it is important that the work is consistently updated on a regular basis to reflect changing circumstances and provide the most appropriate parking solutions. As a result, the following bullet points provide a list of regular monitoring and review actions that should be carried out.

� On-street parking occupancy surveys should be carried out within the study area to determine the existing levels of use. This would further inform TWBC of the availability of the parking stock and could also be used to calculate potential revenue streams.

� Whilst Stone Street North and Stone Street South car parks are considered by many as unofficially for local residents, they technically form part of the public parking stock and can therefore be used by all members of the public. PBA suggest that user surveys should be carried out in these car parks to determine the actual level of use by local residents and the consequential impact of transferring them to residents’ only classification and control. The method of permitting and enforcement needed to be fully consulted on.

� As no data is currently available, a user survey should be undertaken in John Street car park in order to determine its purpose and any opportunities for change – be that paid-for-parking or development/partial development. Options for change should be fully consulted on.

� TWBC should continue to seek out new ways to reduce energy usage from car park operations and potential methods to reduce annual costs. This could be done in co-ordination with the wider South East Parking Managers Group and through membership of the British Parking Association.



7 Summary and Conclusion

7.1 In January 2011, TWBC appointed PBA to prepare a Parking Strategy for the urban areas of Royal Tunbridge Wells and Southborough. The study was commissioned by the Economic Development and Regeneration Department.

7.2 The aim of this Parking Strategy was to provide for Royal Tunbridge Wells a robust Parking Strategy which seeks to manage and improve the existing parking stock within Royal Tunbridge Wells and create an appropriate level of well integrated, appropriately located attractive parking solutions to meet future needs. In order to achieve this aim, a number of objectives and actions were set.

Objective 1: To provide sufficient parking to serve the vitality and viability of the regeneration needs of current and proposed development, appropriately in line with demands at that time.

Objective 2: To ensure parking places are suitably located to reduce movements across the town centres, reducing congestion and severance and improving air quality.

Objective 3: To help conserve and enhance the local setting by facilitating the continued sensitive improvement in parking quality across the study areas.

Objective 4: To improve access legibility for visitors accessing car parking and to provide high quality ‘way-finding’ between car parking and key destinations in the town centre.

7.3 There are 21 public car parks within the Royal Tunbridge Wells study area, giving a total public parking stock of 4137. Three of the car parks are small and are primarily used by local residents and have therefore not been included within this assessment. As these car parks are important established facilities for their users PBA have recommended these should be carefully reviewed on an individual basis. This results in an existing parking stock of 4095 spaces. Private Non Residential parking has not been included within this appraisal.

7.4 This Parking Strategy has been prepared based on data supplied by TWBC and from snapshot observations during site visits undertaken in January and February 2011.

7.5 The existing on and off-street public parking provision within the study area has been assessed based on the KPI Car Park Character Appraisal which assesses the following five issues:

� Occupancy

� Accessibility

� Environment

� Revenue

� Length of Stay

7.6 The results of the KPI assessment showed that whilst the majority of the car parks (8 / 13) achieved an overall score of between 61% and 71%, there were a number of issues across the parking stock relating to such things as poor surfaces and accessibility. In particular, the



revenue assessment showed that the majority of the car parks are generating revenues well below their potential.

7.7 An assessment of the existing and new parking tariffs was undertaken and was assessed against three comparator sites. The results showed that the tariffs applied in Royal Tunbridge Wells for both shorter and longer stay parking are slightly higher than those in Bromley, broadly in line with those for Maidstone and generally lower than those at Crawley. One notable difference was that there were two car parks in Maidstone which had 30 minute tariffs that TWBC could consider when the tariffs are reviewed next year. Overall, the tariffs set for both Royal Tunbridge Wells and the comparator towns all have some extent of general commonality across the parking stock.

7.8 The preparation of a comprehensive parking policy for development control is to be led through the completion of the Local Development Framework. That process will define appropriate and agreed parking policy and standard for the local area. PBA have commented on the key considerations that should inform the basis for policy and standard derivation. It is PBA’s view that parking standards and parking provision for Royal Tunbridge Wells should not exceed demand (resulting in failure to restrain car based travel and / or car ownership), nor should it be so restrained that ad hoc and heavy on-street parking results. Opportunities to provide shared parking with other facilities or to utilise available public parking stock should also always be explored.

7.9 Three scenario options for change have been assessed and have been presented as:

� Do Nothing;

� Do Minimum;

� Do Something.

7.10 Under a Do Nothing approach, TWBC would continue to maintain the existing parking stock in its current state and would not proactively respond to development and background change. PBA would not advise TWBC to adopt this approach and have provided a prediction of the impact of this approach on local parking supply and demand for that space.

7.11 Under a Do Minimum approach the parking provision within Royal Tunbridge Wells is looked at in a slightly more holistic way in order to raise the quantum of local parking stock as currently envisaged through possible development change in the study area. A range of development opportunities are assessed in order to provide TWBC with an understanding of when any parking deficit might occur across an event based timeline. No appropriate solutions to any future demand and supply issues are promoted under that scenario. The development opportunities consist of the following:

� Completion of the extant local residential, retail and business development;

� Closure of the Ritz Car Park;

� Redevelopment of the old cinema site;

� Reconfiguration of Crescent Road car park;

� Reconfiguration of John Street car park;

� Reconfiguration of parking to the south of the Pantiles; and

� Opening of the Pembury parking facility.



7.12 It is anticipated that through the development of individual proposals, this approach would leave Royal Tunbridge Wells with significant deficit in parking stock within the next ten years or so.

7.13 Under the Do Something approach, a number of public parking place amendment options were discussed with the aim of reducing the parking deficit. These included:

� Increasing the number of spaces at Crescent Road;

� Providing additional parking provision to the south of the study area, including possibilities at Union House, the Fairground, Grove Hill Road or the Sainsbury’s store; and

� Providing a new parking facility at Knights Park.

7.14 It is anticipated that providing additional parking provision through one or more of these means would reduce the deficit in available parking provision within Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre to a more manageable level. Alternatively re-profiling the delivery of development or their constituent sizes and land use mixes would achieve a better balance of public parking and supply.

7.15 A table of recommendations has been provided for each car park as well as for the wider area, which outlines actions to enhance or even redevelop the existing parking stock. It is considered that through the implementation of these actions, TWBC will provide an attractive, accessible and manageable parking stock which will not only cater for the existing demand but will enable TWBC to cater for future development.

7.16 On-going monitoring of progress to achieving the desired regenerative development within Royal Tunbridge Wells in association with the appropriate quantum of public parking should be carried-out through the life of this Parking Strategy.

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hahanh
View:	216 times
Download:	1 times

Royal Tunbridge Wells Urban Area Parking Strategy Strategy\Reports\Tunbridge Wells Parking Strategy...

Documents