1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188 
Parking or profit
Page 24
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Councils in Suffolk have realised that drivers in the county need overnight parking but some truck park plans are still getting the thumbs down.
Words: Chris Tindatt
PLANS TO BUILD truck parks that provide drivers with secure overnight facilities in Suffolk are being bogged down by concerns over their commercial viability because of their small size.
Despite the UK's largest deep sea container terminal being in Suffolk, lorry drivers in the county are no better served with parking facilities than those in much of the rest of the UK.
However, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal Mid Suffolk District Council (MSDC) and Suffolk County Council (SCC) are now engaged in attempts to reverse this situation — "in the absence of a government policy to provide or encourage the development of new sites", as SCC claimed in one letter to MSDC in January.
Ambitious plans
Proposals include the building of truck parks every 20 to 30 miles alongside the trunk road network.
But what has also emerged is that local authorities are reluctant to give the green light to developers' plans unless they offer at least 250 spaces, as truckstop operator Nightowl claims this is the minimum needed to make the business financially viable. This decision has left SCC and MSDC struggling to balance the needs of the road freight industry with concern over the financial viability of developers' plans. The situation is compounded by the government's refusal to subsidise truckstops.
In the meantime, drivers are doing what they can to keep to the drivers' hours rules, by seeking out spaces at the county's limited numberof truck parks or parking elsewhere. Hundreds of Suffolk residents have complained to the council since 2005 about trucks parking overnight on industrial estates and in lay-bys.
A countywide parking survey in 2007 showed a demand for almost 650 parking spaces in Suffolk, 500 of them along the A14. SCC said it had a need for 172 spaces., MSDC required an extra 95 HGV parking spaces. But these figures are now being drastically altered due to local authorities' concerns over financial viability, as well as an expected 75% increase in the movement of goods vehicles by 2021 due to regeneration in south Felixstowe.
SCC and MSDC deny they are taking into account the financial business model of a developer's plans, insisting that a potential truck park's commercial viability is a matter for the individual developer, not the planning authority.
Insufficient number
But a letter dated 28 January 2008 from a senior engineer in SEC's integrated transport group to the planning policy officer at MSDC, which discusses plans to build a 39-space truckstop along the A14 at Creeting St Peter, states: "This is not a sufficient number to cater for the current demand, and will be unable to accommodate the expected growing demand... I would also query the site's commercial viability given its proposed size."
An e-mail from MSDC to SCC three weeks later highlights the growing unease within the councils regarding developers' plans to offer small-scale yet secure overnight parking facilities. It admits that the developer WI-I Jardine might question why SCC claimed less than four months earlier that there was a need for 95 truck spaces in Mid Suffolk. which it planned to provide, but that had now increased to 250.
"If I were Jardines, my first question would be, 'is this a change in the strategy/policy and what is the evidence to support it?'. Incidentally, Jardines has been promoting their site for more than 10 years and are unlikely to roll over either for an allocation or an application unless the evidence is clear-cut."
Another e-mail, heavily censored but thought to have been sent from the Highways Agency (HA) to one of the Suffolk councils on 14 February this year, refers to land in Trirnley that a client of property consultant Strutt & Parker wants to turn into a truck park. Highlighting the authorities' concerns about developers not considering the long-term financial implications, the e-mail says: "I can formally set out the HA's position, which is no objection in principle. But I did say think seriously about viability. There is no point in having parks which fold within a few years, or if there are too many sharing a limited market in a particular area."
The MSDC e-mail admits it is now "playing catch-up", presumably because of its realisation that truck drivers are suffering due to a lack of parking areas.
Asked why the council is struggling with this policy reversal, a spokesman says: "The council has previously prevented development of this sort in its open countryside because of protective policies in the structure and local plans. Now we must develop a fair and equitable process to agree which of the sites suggested are appropriate to build into the local planning documents — but these must also respect the need for other sites to be developed beyond Mid Suffolk."
No requirement
The spokesman adds: "We don't do financial matters when it comes to deciding planning matters. Operators may see 250 as a tinancial threshold. and wish to submit proposals at that scale, but we will not require it or deny it because of that reason."
For now, both MSDC and SCC say they are engaged in regular meetings and briefings on the availability of truck park land. MSDC says a "number of sites will need to be properly assessed," hut that "this remains to be commenced".
SCC says it set up an 1-IGV steering group in 2005 and, since then, it "has been working with its district councils, freight and haulage groups and private developers to look at potential areas for development as lorry parks along the network. Ultimately, these would need to be taken forward by developers."
When SCC was asked if its official view was that the government has no policy for providing or encouraging development of truck parks, a spokeswoman quoted a Department for Transport circular: "The full cost of any works within the motorway or trunk road boundary, including traffic management, will be met by the developer."
But how many more plans for smallscale, vital overnight truck parking sites will be cast aside on the grounds of potential commercial failure before the government changes this policy'? •