A new draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) unveiled by Prime Minister Theresa May yesterday urges local authorities in England to make provision for cycling and walking within their planning policies.
As Carlton Reid reports on BikeBiz, the media’s attention was grabbed by May calling on house-builders to prioritise constructing more homes rather than focusing on profits.
But the NPPF, which guides councils on planning-related matters relating to issues as diverse as housing, communications and the natural environment, could provide support for local authorities looking to promote active travel.
According to paragraph 105 of the draft document, “Planning policies should [inter alia] provide for high quality walking and cycling networks and supporting facilities such as cycle parking – drawing on Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans.”
Under paragraph 110, “applications for development should give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas,” as well as ease of access to public transport links.
Another provision of the same paragraph is that such applications should “create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards.”
As Reid, author of the books Roads Were Not Built For Cars and Bike Boom: The Unexpected Resurgence of Cycling, points out, the draft document, which is open for consultation until 10 May, is not entirely positive when it comes to active travel.
There is no longer any reference to ‘Garden City Principles’ designed to encourage the development of sustainable communities, while other provisions may be less stringent on issues such as health and compliance with the Climate Act 2008 than the previous version of the NPPF was.
The draft NPPF applies to England only, with responsibility for planning guidance in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland devolved to those countries’ own legislatures.
7 thoughts on “Proposed new government planning guidelines urge councils to prioritise cycling and walking”
Brief summation for those of
Brief summation for those of short attention span; this news is greenwash and won’t change a thing.
This looks like good news, but for those of us rather longer in the tooth, it’s just so much greenwash. The government has been pushing pro-cycling policies for many years, and almost all, if not a totality, of local authorities already have extremely good cycling and walking policies, policies that live on a shelf and gather dust. They are purely decorative and are dragged out only when the government has another bidding war for scarce resources, so that they can bid for sustainable transport funding which they spend on more roads.
My local authority, SGlos, decided to bid for some of this money about three years ago, and decided that it needed a cycling strategy; apparently neither officers nor councillors were aware that they already had one, and they didn’t bother asking the cyclists. So they hired consultants, and decided all the important stuff before they even mentioned anything to their own cycle forum. When everything was pretty much already decided, they told us. When I pointed out that they already had a cycling strategy and that they had never implemented, it went a bit quiet, but they shrugged it off and carried on. Having decided almost everything, they held lots of meetings with cyclists, giving us nice coloured crayons so that we could draw in where we’d like the cycle routes; strangely identical to the existing proposals in the existing strategy. The only thing we managed to change, despite considerable opposition, was something about actually implementing it this time.
I wish I could say it’s made a difference, but they just carry on building more roads with cycling very much an afterthought, if they think of it at all. The new strategy probably cost more than what they’ve spent on cycling in years.
They have won awards for transport planning. I kid you not.
burtthebike wrote:
You’ve confirmed my worst fears.
It sounds like most councils, including Shropshire, who are desperate to build another bypass around Shrewsbury at great expense despite being in deficit and the fact that another road won’t solve the issues as they claim it will. They have repeatedly spent millions on plans, consultants and so on. Meanwhile they continue to cut back health & social services, public transport, libraries and so on.
It’s so f**king depressing.
Simon E wrote:
It does seem to be pretty universal, with lots of really good strategies which have absolutely no effect on the ground, and I blame the councillors, who are almost all car drivers. I have stood twice for SGlos council, doubled my vote last time but still didn’t get in, with the sole aim of actually making the council implement the transport policies it’s had for the past 22 years. I think that is probably the only way to get change, have cyclists on the council, otherwise it’s all empty promises.
SGlos has just consulted on a massive new motorway junction, which its own report said would make congestion worse, cost £400m at least, on the grounds that it will cure congestion. All its own policies say that if you want to cure congestion, you invest in walking, cycling and public transport, and only when they’ve failed do you build more roads; in practice they do the literal opposite.
Sometimes I despair, but I keep on trying.
Round these parts in
Round these parts in Oxfordshire, the councillors normally make the right noises. But when the engineers design the roads, they are useless for cyclists. We have a transport strategy that already supposedly prioritises cycling. We have council standing orders that require all transport activity to consider cycling.
But when it comes to the build environment, it is designed for car and buses.
If I am generous, I think it is because the engineers were all trained at a time when their job was to maximise the traffic flow of motor vehicles.
Edgeley wrote:
You are probably right, but these policies have been in place for many years, more than twenty in my area, with the council’s transport executive member telling us all that time ago that cycling was embedded in the council. All officers were aware of council policy and considered cycling wherever it was relevant. Many of the officers are relatively young so should have received appropriate training, and shouldn’t just have the windscreen perspective of their peers. That said, when I did my MSc in Transport Planning eight years ago, we had to ask for cycling to be included, so we still have a long way to go.
Officers have had over twenty years to get the message about cycling, so either they are grossly incompetent for failing to follow council policy, or the councillors really have no intention of implementing their own policies. Frankly, it seems to be a mixture of both, and as I know from bitter experience, there is no redress whatsoever for the council failing to follow its own policies.
Same in hertfordshire, Urban
Same in hertfordshire, Urban Transport Plan going back to at least 1999 and repeated several times and basically fuck all on the list of very basic things to do haven’t been done. It’s not as if even those things highlighted are actually of much use.
When I addressed it to a local councillor he basically pushed an email to county and they said it isn’t a priority and that was the end of the story.
Same shit, different year, nobody accountable and no-one gives a fuck even when shown that investing in cycling actually pays dividends in so many facets.
I know it won’t do much good but I vote Green Party, our locality will vote Cons even if they were to gang rape their daughters/grandaughters live on TV.
same with Suffolk county
same with Suffolk county council, Im not sure what the point of their cycling/pedestrian strategy is when theyve just rubber stamped a road scheme in Ipswich (http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/plans-to-be-approved-for-ipswich-s-felixstowe-road-to-get-three-lanes-1-5422905) which removes a set of on road cycle lanes,and turns them into glorified sign on a pavement cycle lanes, just so as to create the space necessary to make a 2 lane road into a 3 lane road to “aid congestion” ie make the queues of car traffic seem shorter.
they seem to think as long as you have a day of pro cyclists rolling through the county every year, that ticks the promoting cycling strategy box for them