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At first glance, the old Chapter 9 "Sustainable Transport" has been replaced by Chapter 15 titled "Promoting sustainable transport".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 ?

 

[mjr]

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

No, that's a design manual. This policy framework is one thing that could require people to use that manual.

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.

Yeah, that's the problem with crap councils and an overstretched Active Travel England who now seem mostly just to send out their Standing Guidance for council officers not to read, understand or implement. In the rare cases that ATE actually get involved, they're pretty good, but they still seem to be relying on councils to do as they're told and they're very reluctant to issue any financial penalties or even public rebukes to councils that fail.

Is any person or group complaining about that dogs breakfast and taking it as far as reasonably possible? As if we don't even use the few tools we've got, then it's difficult to say they don't work. Of course, we'd like a government agency like ATE to be doing that, not volunteers with little power, but that's the case in sooooo many things.

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

No idea. Far too soon to tell. I've not read these words yet, much less seen if they make any difference in practice. But if we don't even have good words in these legislation-required documents, we'll be pretty much farked before we start in most of England. That's why the 2023(?) "Plan for Drivers" was so dangerous and could have undermined the whole legal framework if they hadn't botched it.

 

[MontyVeda]

There's a new ill-conceived bit of cycling infrastructure just been installed on the A6 south of Lancaster.

instead of just riding a straight line going north along the A6, they want us to do this...

cycles will re-join the carriageway at the top of the image. Pointless!

 

[Oldhippy]

The thought and skill that goes in to cycle infrastructure in this country is just rubbish.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

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

Mod note:

As per the above.

Please leave the affordable housing conversation for NCAP.

Thanks in advance.

 

[mjr]

There a new ill-conceived bit of cycling infrastructure just been installed on the A6 south of Lancaster.

instead of just riding a straight line going north along the A6, they want us to do this...
View attachment 819875
cycles will re-join the carriageway at the top pf the image. Pointless!

Yeah, that's totally non-compliant with the design manual, which gives the following options:

You'll note that none of them have the cyclist turning into the side road and crossing the road with motorists approaching from over their right shoulder.

However, the National Planning Policy Framework won't prevent this sort of thing. The NPPF applies to development plans, whereas most of the worst cock-ups are now built under Highways Act powers, either directly in the case of road improvement projects (including cycle route construction projects not linked to any development), or by using Highways Act 1980 section 135 or 278 to alter development plans after they've been approved, without public consultation or most councillor scrutiny.

The way to fix these is probably to update the Network Management Duty Guidance issued under section 18 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. Shapps as part of the Boris government did that on 9 May 2020, but then Sunak's transport minister withdrew the change on 2 October 2023 and I don't think it's been changed since.

So it's interesting, but controlling clueless highway authorities is probably its own topic, different to planning applications.

 

[katiewlx]

Is any person or group complaining about that dogs breakfast and taking it as far as reasonably possible? As if we don't even use the few tools we've got, then it's difficult to say they don't work. Of course, we'd like a government agency like ATE to be doing that, not volunteers with little power, but that's the case in sooooo many things.

there appears to be alot of local complaining about it, more that it seems a waste of money whilst there are potholes, and its difficult explaining to them it comes from a different budget.

but who do you complain to, the MP, not interested, local councillors too busy doing other things and rarely that interested in cycling infra and its a county council led decision not parish/district, the highways dept who did the work ? they think theyve done top work so will just ignore you.

Id like to think ATE would review this stuff, they get given plans, sign off money, and then the stuff that gets delivered doesnt match anywhere near the plans but nobody seems to care.

 

[Mike_P]

In terms of new developments cycling matters are:

CC2 - should where relevant take opportunities to improve cycling

HO9 locates student and large scale shared accommodation where frequently used services can be easily and safely accessed by cycling

DP3 - should as appropriate provide good connection prioritising cycling and (as a for example) provide high quality clear and legible cycle routes

TR3 - located where it can support more cycling and opportunities taken to improve cycling in rural areas.

TR4 - should give priority be given to non vehicular movements, should incorporate or contribute towards segregated cycle facilities, and should minimise conflicts between pedestrians cyclists and vehicles

TR8 - should take opportunities to extend link or improve existing routes allowing new direct ahd circular routes and connections between local and long-distance cycle routes.

So beyond locating student accommodation everything is a should and not a must.