New National Planning Policy Framework for England

[mjr]

As part of Burnham's drive to solve the housing crisis, this month they've published an updated National Planning Policy Framework for England at https://gov.uk/nppf

In a country with a postcode lottery of Local Plans, Neighbourhood Planning Documents, Site-Specific Development Policies and other bland names, the NPPF is a baseline which we should be able to use anywhere to encourage cycle-friendly developments and prevent dangerous rider-manglers. When objecting to or supporting development planning applications, we're meant to concentrate on "material planning concerns" and the NPPF is basically "material" everywhere.

There's an introductory video at

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSXPXFyTBCA

but I think it's not correct to equate "settlement" with "town/city" like they do. Settlements could also be villages where there is undeveloped/underdeveloped space inside the official built-up boundary (known as the "red line" or "village fence", in some places).

At first glance, the old Chapter 9 "Sustainable Transport" has been replaced by Chapter 15 titled "Promoting sustainable transport". Chapters 4 "Achieving sustainable development", 5 "Meeting the challenge of climate change", 8 "Ensuring the vitality of town centres", 14 "Achieving well-designed places", 16 "Promoting healthy communities" and 17 "Pollution, public protection and security" may also have useful points.

I'll summarise them when I have more time, unless someone else does it first. It's a big change.

 

[Drago]

Itll all be crap anyway. Implementation will be left thr LA's who talk a good fight but in reality pay only lip service to all aspects of active travel.

 

[Oldhippy]

As above I fear in the same way that new housing estates are bound by law to have a percentage that are 'social housing or affordable' it's so simple to sidestep that obligation though.

 

[MontyVeda]

As above I fear in the same way that new housing estates are bound by law to have a percentage that are 'social housing or affordable' it's so simple to sidestep that obligation though.

and with 'affordable' being 80% of the average house price, they'll still be way out of reach of the people who need housing they can actually afford.

 

[mjr]

Itll all be crap anyway. Implementation will be left thr LA's who talk a good fight but in reality pay only lip service to all aspects of active travel.

It probably won't all be crap. There probably will be some fine words in there. It just won't be enough to save areas with crap local authorities, or even good councils with crap officers who agree to any old rubbish. But without it in the framework, even the good local authorities would be stuffed when faced with big developers who don't want to build anything more than the bare minimum that they can sell for maximum profit, whether homes or commercial.

I'm not touching the "affordable" argument here. That seems like something for NACA, not related to cycling advocacy.

 

[Drago]

I admire your optimism, but history has thus far shown us that in the majority of instances the provision will be sub optimal, to put it very politely.

I would genuinely likely the be wrong, but multiple legislative and policy changes in this regard have to date been not been transformational in practice. I see no evidence that this will do anything to remobe or override the plethora of vested interests and conflicting priorities that serve as obstacles to delivery.

 

[katiewlx]

we have a national policy or framework for cycling infra, LTN 1/20

does it ever get used ? allegedly so as its supposed to form the basis of all the stuff Active Travel England funds with government (taxpayers) money, yet I saw another dogs breakfast of infra delivered under this banner in the local news recently that I cant believe anyone who designed it, signed it off, let alone tried to ride a bike for it, has ever had LTN 1/20 pass under their eyes.

so what difference will yet another set of words in another document do ?