Minutes:
The Highway Development and Adoption Team Leader had been invited to outline her team’s role as the Highways statutory consultee on planning applications, particularly in relation to parking matters, to help Members in providing more informed responses.
The officer advised that the team provided the statutory highway responses on new developments to the Planning Authority on highway matters. This function had previously been undertaken by eight separate teams, but following Local Government Reorganisation it was now delivered by a single team operating across three geographic areas within the County. It was explained that a ‘highway’ referred to a route maintained at the public’s expense, for which the authority was the custodian. The team also looked at access and considered wider transport issues, as these were closely interconnected with highways matters.
When assessing a planning application from a highway’s perspective, the officer explained that safety was the primary consideration, followed by whether the proposal would be maintainable without placing an undue burden on the public purse. This included assessing whether it could be supported within existing budgets or whether a commuted sum was required. Assessments were guided by national specifications and relevant guidance which had been made into North Yorkshire’s suite of highways standards, this set out requirements for road widths, footpaths, junction design and location. The officer also highlighted the increased focus on active and sustainable travel, which informed how neighbourhoods were planned to improve connectivity and reduce reliance on the car where possible, while recognising that car use remained essential in rural areas such as North Yorkshire.
The officer advised that while the highways team provided a recommendation on planning applications, the final decision rested with the Planning Authority. Once permission was granted, the scheme progressed through road safety audits, including external design verification and site visits, to ensure that what was delivered on the highway network was safe.
In relation to parking, Members heard that although there was a common assumption that vehicles may park on an unrestricted highway, this was only tolerated where it did not pose a danger to the public.
When a planning application was received, in terms of the parking provision, the Highways Authority sought appropriate off‑street parking provision proportionate to the size of a property, this was guided by established design standards that set out expected parking levels in urban and rural areas. As an example, for a four‑bedroom dwelling the expectation was typically three parking spaces, although developers often challenged this. The officer stated that while minimum bay dimensions were defined, proposals frequently come under scrutiny as developers sought to maximise housing numbers on a site, and therefore assessing parking demand could at times become a judgement call, as the eventual occupancy of a property cannot be known with certainty. In planning terms, unless a parking shortfall was clearly inappropriate, the Authority must be prepared to defend its position, recognising the broader housing need and the application of the ‘tilted balance’ by Planning Inspectors where impacts were not considered severe.
Members noted that planning conditions must be enforceable under the Town and Country Planning Act and should not be used where matters could be addressed through the Highways Act or other enforcement routes. The officer explained that parking obstruction was enforceable by North Yorkshire Police, which was separate from parking provision, though the two were inter‑related. It was stressed that inadequate parking provision could lead to unsafe parking on the highway. The Highways Authority did not wish to impose Traffic Regulation Orders or residents’ parking schemes retrospectively, and therefore sought to ensure appropriate provision at the planning stage.
The officer explained that as policy moves toward active and sustainable travel, some developers use this to justify reducing parking provision, and while this may be reasonable in urban areas, it was not appropriate in rural North Yorkshire, where residents remained dependent on cars. Even where homes were within ten minutes of a supermarket, households would still require cars for commuting and leisure, meaning parking demand remained high and the argument for reduced provision was flawed.
The officer highlighted that Senior Transport Planners were currently revising the parking guidance. While the core principles would remain broadly unchanged, the updated guidance would introduce greater flexibility to reflect areas with good public transport provision or access to rail services. The officer confirmed she would be happy to share the draft guidance with the LAF for comment prior to publication.
The Chair asked whether, when considering a planning application affecting the Rights of Way network, the Highways team would deal with the matter directly or consult other Council departments. The officer confirmed that such cases would be referred to colleagues in the Public Rights of Way team, and that any subsequent recommendations to the Planning Authority would depend on the impact on the publicly maintainable highway.
A query was raised regarding whether the provision of green open space on developments was a firm requirement or simply desirable, the officer advised that this matter fell within the remit of the Planning team and would need to be referred to planning colleagues.
A Member informed the officer that the LAF
had submitted a response to the Local Plan consultation and asked whether the
priorities for enhancing public access, as set out in the LAF’s response to
that consultation, would be taken into account by the
Highway Authority. The officer replied that the Local Plan sat with the
Council’s Planning team and that the Highways team only commented on planning
matters from a technical highways perspective and focused on what was
appropriate for the Highway Authority’s interests. She confirmed, however, that
she was happy to keep the LAF updated and to note the points raised.
A member commented that, in his experience, parked cars could help slow the flow of traffic. He asked whether some on‑street parking could be provided where safe, and whether yellow lines might be applied where necessary. The officer explained that on street parking was a tolerated behaviour not a formal right and that, under current development specifications, the Highways Authority would not accept on‑street parking as a planned element of new developments. While parked cars could slow traffic, most residential roads were not designed with sufficient width to accommodate this safely. Introducing on‑street parking could also create additional issues, such as difficulties with bin collections and access. The officer noted that traffic‑calming and parking considerations should be addressed through the original design of new estates, rather than relying on subsequent traffic regulation orders.
The Chair thanked the Highway Development and Adoption Team Leader for attending the meeting.
Resolved - That the officer attends a future meeting of the LAF to share the draft parking guidance for comment prior to its publication.