New planning rules could cut car dependency – but only if transport comes first

The Government’s new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) marks a significant change in how England’s future development will be planned.

At Transport Action Network, we have consistently argued that new homes should be built where people can get around without having to rely on a car. For too long, developments have been built on the edges of towns and villages, often with poor access to public transport and inadequate walking and cycling connections. The result is predictable: more motor traffic, greater pressure on local roads, more pollution and emissions, and communities where young people and others who cannot drive can struggle to get around.

The new NPPF puts greater emphasis on development around ‘well-connected railway stations’. It introduces a default ‘yes’ in principle for homes within a reasonable walking distance of well-connected stations and expands this approach to the top 80 Travel to Work Areas by Gross Value Added.

This might sound like the right direction of travel but the devil is in the details.

Building near stations is only part of the solution

Simply putting homes next to a railway station does not automatically make development sustainable from a transport perspective.

A station may be physically close but difficult or unpleasant to reach on foot. There may be no safe cycling route, while buses may be infrequent or unreliable. Indeed, most developments are still designed around the assumption that most residents will own and use a car. We therefore need to move beyond simply measuring distance from a station.

The NPPF recognises that well-connected locations can reduce the need to travel, require less land for parking and road infrastructure, and support walking, cycling and public transport. The challenge now is making sure those principles are applied in practice.

The Department for Transport’s Connectivity Tool could help councils, developers and communities assess whether proposed developments are genuinely well connected to the places people need to reach. But there needs to be clarity about how this tool should influence local planning policies and decisions, and how councils can distinguish developments that will reduce car dependence from those that will simply generate more motor traffic.

The NPPF also needs to state much more clearly that the latter should not be permitted. That would really focus developers’ attention on building the right homes in the right places, rather than continuing to scatter them all over the countryside.

Vision-led planning needs transport at its heart

The NPPF retains the principle of a vision-led approach to transport planning. This is important. For decades, transport planning has too often followed a simple formula: predict how much traffic a development will generate, then build enough road capacity to accommodate it.

That risks creating a vicious cycle. More road capacity makes driving easier, which encourages more motor traffic, creating pressure for yet more road capacity.

A vision-led approach starts somewhere different. Instead of asking “How many cars will this development generate?” planners should ask: “What sort of place do we want this to be?”

If the answer is a healthy, attractive and accessible community where people can walk, cycle, wheel and use public transport for everyday journeys, then the transport system needs to be designed around that vision from the outset. That means safe walking routes, connected cycle networks, reliable buses, good access to railway stations and streets designed for people rather than through-traffic.

Transport should not be an afterthought added once the houses have already been designed. It needs to shape the master plan from the beginning.

The problem with the default ‘yes’ around stations

Giving a default ‘yes’ to development around well-connected stations is intended to remove barriers to housing delivery. But councils must retain the ability to ensure that development is properly planned and that developers contribute towards the infrastructure needed to make it work.

Station-led development should not mean developers get planning permission while local communities are left to deal with the consequences. Councils need to be able to secure investment in walking and cycling routes, bus services, public realm and other local transport infrastructure. They also need to be able to ensure that developments are designed to make sustainable travel the easiest option.

We fear the Government’s policy could force councils to say ‘yes’ to the first proposal they receive for development at these valuable sites, rather than being able to think about how they could best be used, and to negotiate for improved walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport connections. We could therefore end up with high-density development near stations that still generates large amounts of car traffic, because there are no schools or shops within easy walking distance, while train services are infrequent and bus services non-existent. That would clearly undermine the objectives of the new NPPF. Using the Connectivity Tool instead would be a far better way to achieve the outcomes the Government says it wants.

Parking is also part of the problem

If the Government genuinely wants station-led development to reduce car dependence, planning policy must support low-car and car-free development where alternatives to driving are available.

Large amounts of parking make developments more expensive, take land away from green space, and encourage car ownership and use. This does not mean pretending that everybody can give up their car. Different communities have different needs, particularly in rural areas. But it does mean designing new places around a wider range of transport choices, including car-sharing schemes, rather than assuming every household needs to own one or more cars.

Transport must be planned alongside housing

People need to get to work, education, healthcare, shops and leisure. Children need to get to school safely. Older people need access to services. Businesses need reliable transport connections.

That means transport infrastructure must be planned alongside housing – not after it.

We welcome the new NPPF’s recognition of the need to concentrate development in well-connected locations, as part of a more ‘vision-led’ approach to transport planning.

But the Government now needs to match this policy ambition with investment in public transport, walking and cycling, while maintaining the roads we already have and making better use of existing infrastructure. It should not mean defaulting to expensive new road building whenever new development is proposed.

Low Traffic Future has long campaigned for more investment in active travel, however funding allocated for active travel schemes has been steadily cut with each new 5-year Roads Investment Strategy (RIS) period. As we reported on recently, the RIS3 active travel budget represents a massive cut in real terms. It can only be expected to deliver around 100 active travel projects, i.e. around one or two per county over the next five years. Without central government investment in active travel links along or across the corridors of the motorway and major ‘A’ road network that National Highways manages, it is hard to see how local councils can be expected to plan joined-up walking and cycling networks for their areas.

The Government must ensure that its new planning rules lead to developments that are genuinely better-connected, accessible and with less car-dependency – not just developments that happen to be close to a station.