#planning-process — Public Fediverse posts

The curious case of the Selwood Garden Community

https://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk/the-curious-case-of-the-selwood-garden-community/

Over in South Bristol a developer submitted plans for a 23 storey tower block. Tallest in the south of the city.
Majority wanted to reject this and councillors wanted to reject but officers said it "had" to be approved or the developer would sue the council.
so local residents are crowd funding an appeal.
I've donated.
https://gofund.me/73ccc52f1
#bristol #PlanningProcess

Over in South Bristol a developer submitted plans for a 23 storey tower block. Tallest in the south of the city.
Majority wanted to reject this and councillors wanted to reject but officers said it "had" to be approved or the developer would sue the council.
so local residents are crowd funding an appeal.
I've donated.
https://gofund.me/73ccc52f1
#bristol #PlanningProcess

Over in South Bristol a developer submitted plans for a 23 storey tower block. Tallest in the south of the city.
Majority wanted to reject this and councillors wanted to reject but officers said it "had" to be approved or the developer would sue the council.
so local residents are crowd funding an appeal.
I've donated.
https://gofund.me/73ccc52f1
#bristol #PlanningProcess

Over in South Bristol a developer submitted plans for a 23 storey tower block. Tallest in the south of the city.
Majority wanted to reject this and councillors wanted to reject but officers said it "had" to be approved or the developer would sue the council.
so local residents are crowd funding an appeal.
I've donated.
https://gofund.me/73ccc52f1
#bristol #PlanningProcess

Over in South Bristol a developer submitted plans for a 23 storey tower block. Tallest in the south of the city.
Majority wanted to reject this and councillors wanted to reject but officers said it "had" to be approved or the developer would sue the council.
so local residents are crowd funding an appeal.
I've donated.
https://gofund.me/73ccc52f1
#bristol #PlanningProcess

https://www.europesays.com/dk/39220/ Plans unveiled for new central Tallinn real estate quarter | News #CityOfTallinn #construction #DetailedPlan #Estonia #LandUse #PlanningProcess #PropertyDevelopment #RealEstate #ReidiTee #Tallinn #TallinnCityGovernmen

The Best Time to Start a Landscaping Project, According to Design Pros https://www.allforgardening.com/1651062/the-best-time-to-start-a-landscaping-project-according-to-design-pros/ #construction #CourtneyOlander #garden #GardenDesigner #gardening #hardscaping #JanJohnsen #LandscapeDesigner #PlanningProcess #planting

The Best Time to Start a Landscaping Project, According to Design Pros https://www.allforgardening.com/1651062/the-best-time-to-start-a-landscaping-project-according-to-design-pros/ #construction #CourtneyOlander #garden #GardenDesigner #gardening #hardscaping #JanJohnsen #LandscapeDesigner #PlanningProcess #planting

Ten years of Transport for New Homes

https://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk/ten-years-of-transport-for-new-homes/

Ten years of Transport for New Homes

https://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk/ten-years-of-transport-for-new-homes/

Ten years of Transport for New Homes

https://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk/ten-years-of-transport-for-new-homes/

Ten years of Transport for New Homes

https://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk/ten-years-of-transport-for-new-homes/

Ten years of Transport for New Homes

https://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk/ten-years-of-transport-for-new-homes/

Is it really planning when the Treasury decides if a new station opens?

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, published on 11 March 2025, introduces strategic planning to all of England. We think this a positive step that we have called for over many years, but we have some ideas about how this could work better in practice.

All strategic plans must be accompanied by a strategic transport plan

One of the things we’ve identified going wrong with planning of new homes is the choice of location. We think planning over a wider area, taking into account existing transport and trip generators like employment, is a way to pick better sites.

We know this system works well in London where the London Plan spatial strategy is produced in lockstep with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. Improvement in transport gets better matched to new housing as a result.

Funding for sustainable transport still needs to be resolved

The reforms leave out the question of funding for infrastructure. The Government has made some promises about public transport and local amenities. It looks like the new system is very much like the old system in terms of what gets built. Is it really planning if the Treasury makes these decisions on a case-by-case, station-by-station, basis?

We know from our research that the Housing Infrastructure Fund, intended to unlock housing, and Section 106 contributions from developers have failed to provide sustainable transport. Some direction to Homes England to prioritise sustainable transport would help here.

But developers and local authorities might like a bit more certainty about funding. Many areas of the country are still not charging a Community Infrastructure Levy which would provide a fixed charge based on size of development and provide income for wide-area strategic projects.

Not big enough to be strategic?

The bill introduces strategic planning boards for areas of the country not yet part of a devolution settlement. The practical effect this will have is it will be possible to pick better locations for housing over a wider functional region and more funding can be pooled for wide-area sustainable transport.

Early indications about potential strategic authorities coming out of the reform however show that some areas will be too small to be effective and convenient for this kind of strategic planning. We think in some cases it will be more appropriate to create strategic planning boards for several, smaller combined authorities in order to create strategic plans over wider areas. The Bill should enable this where appropriate.

This new focus on strategic planning is definitely a positive step forward with the potential to improve decisions about where new homes are located. But as one problem is solved, another has not gone away. Sustainable development will not happen unless certainty around funding of new infrastructure is provided.

#CarDependency #Cycling #Location #Planning #PlanningProcess #PublicTransport #Walking

Three recommendations for planning reform

These recommendations come from our most recent report What is being built in 2025?

1. Transit-oriented development serving residents from day one of occupation

We believe, above all else, that transit-oriented development is the way forward

This means new towns planned around better public transport, connected with metros, tram systems and comprehensive bus networks. There are a number of expanding city regions in England that consist of an urban centre and a hinterland of fast-growing satellite towns and new outer suburbs.

These places need to be connected by building public transport infrastructure and coordinating the construction of new homes with this. Public transport must be available to residents on day one

2. New homes must be built in better locations

The planning system must encourage building in more sustainable locations

Local authority housing targets and developer-led choices of where to build new homes are central to our current planning system. Decisions of where we build new homes needs a more evidence-based approach. The site selection process must be driven by strategic plans that go across local authority boundaries with a public transport accessibility test to discover where is best to build. Places must be selected that will work with new transport infrastructure investment to promote regeneration, economic growth and good access to services.

The process of plan making enshrined in the National Planning Policy Framework needs to be revised to make this kind of wider area planning possible.

3. Deliverable masterplans that create delightful walkable places

Larger sites for housing need a masterplan and funding to deliver it

Mayoral strategic authorities must be able to govern, manage, plan and develop the rail and bus networks in order to integrate them with new homes. But just as important, the layout, density and type of housing in a new area must be planned by local authorities so it best makes use of these transport networks.

Transport and land use planning must be tied together at the local authority level. The current planning system needs to change to make this new emphasis possible. Adequate funding must be made available to fully realise masterplans for delightful walkable places.

#Built25 #CarDependency #ClimateChange #Cycling #Design #Location #Planning #PlanningProcess #PublicTransport #Walking

‘Jigsaw puzzle’ developments are creating car-dependent estates

Our latest report, out today, has confirmed what we had long suspected; new housing estates being built in England resemble a jigsaw puzzle with some of the most important pieces missing – the stations, the mass transit systems and on-site community provision and services.

What is being built in 2025? In search of the station, reveals that housing targets aimed at rural parts of the country and a developer-led choice of location are creating car-dependent estates far away from major urban areas and isolated from good public transport, and that car-based suburban sprawl is now the default model of development.

It concludes that unless we start to build differently we will end up with more and more of this ‘doughnut effect’, whereby everything ends up on out of town greenfield sites whilst brownfield sites lie unbuilt and derelict, and high streets are dying.

What is being built in 2025? In search of the station, looked at nearly 40 new housing developments, including four in Europe (Germany and Sweden), and explored a number of themes, including: whether the development was ultimately designed around the car; traffic generation and its consequences; public transport connections including bus, local rail and trams; and whether there are a range of amenities to walk or cycle to. The report also includes a section on why the planning system fails to deliver sustainable transport.

Volunteers visited each development and looked at the type and mix of housing, transport links, layout and on-site facilities, and concluded that nearly every greenfield development was oriented around the car. None of the large-scale housing greenfield developments visited for the report were on metro or tram systems, buses were in many cases infrequent or insufficient and went to limited destinations, and safe and convenient active travel options did not connect the development to places people wanted to go to. The report only identified one large-scale greenfield development, Poundbury in Dorset, which it considered to be a vibrant ‘self-contained’ community on account of being genuinely mixed use and built from the start for walking rather than driving.

To accomplish a different model of delivering new homes and avoid more car-dependent sprawl, Transport for New Homes makes three recommendations:

• Build transit-oriented developments serving residents from day one of occupation: New developments should be planned around better public transport, connected with metros, tram systems and comprehensive bus networks, available to residents on the day they move in to avoid entrenching car dependency. 
• New homes must be built in better locations: The planning system needs to direct building in more sustainable locations, with decisions on where we build new homes taken with more of an evidence-based approach. Places must be selected that will work with new transport infrastructure and promote regeneration, economic growth and good access to services. A revised National Planning Policy Framework needs to make this kind of wider area planning possible. 
• Deliverable masterplans that create delightful walkable places: Chosen sites for housing need a masterplan designed to deliver walkable places with well connected public transport and the funding to realise the plan. To achieve this, transport and land use planning must be tied together at the local authority level with changes to the current planning system to make this possible.

Read What is being built in 2025? In search of the station in full.

#CarDependency #Cycling #Design #Planning #PlanningProcess #PublicTransport #Walking

‘Jigsaw puzzle’ developments are creating car-dependent estates

Our latest report, out today, has confirmed what we had long suspected; new housing estates being built in England resemble a jigsaw puzzle with some of the most important pieces missing – the stations, the mass transit systems and on-site community provision and services.

What is being built in 2025? In search of the station, reveals that housing targets aimed at rural parts of the country and a developer-led choice of location are creating car-dependent estates far away from major urban areas and isolated from good public transport, and that car-based suburban sprawl is now the default model of development.

It concludes that unless we start to build differently we will end up with more and more of this ‘doughnut effect’, whereby everything ends up on out of town greenfield sites whilst brownfield sites lie unbuilt and derelict, and high streets are dying.

What is being built in 2025? In search of the station, looked at nearly 40 new housing developments, including four in Europe (Germany and Sweden), and explored a number of themes, including: whether the development was ultimately designed around the car; traffic generation and its consequences; public transport connections including bus, local rail and trams; and whether there are a range of amenities to walk or cycle to. The report also includes a section on why the planning system fails to deliver sustainable transport.

Volunteers visited each development and looked at the type and mix of housing, transport links, layout and on-site facilities, and concluded that nearly every greenfield development was oriented around the car. None of the large-scale housing greenfield developments visited for the report were on metro or tram systems, buses were in many cases infrequent or insufficient and went to limited destinations, and safe and convenient active travel options did not connect the development to places people wanted to go to. The report only identified one large-scale greenfield development, Poundbury in Dorset, which it considered to be a vibrant ‘self-contained’ community on account of being genuinely mixed use and built from the start for walking rather than driving.

To accomplish a different model of delivering new homes and avoid more car-dependent sprawl, Transport for New Homes makes three recommendations:

• Build transit-oriented developments serving residents from day one of occupation: New developments should be planned around better public transport, connected with metros, tram systems and comprehensive bus networks, available to residents on the day they move in to avoid entrenching car dependency. 
• New homes must be built in better locations: The planning system needs to direct building in more sustainable locations, with decisions on where we build new homes taken with more of an evidence-based approach. Places must be selected that will work with new transport infrastructure and promote regeneration, economic growth and good access to services. A revised National Planning Policy Framework needs to make this kind of wider area planning possible. 
• Deliverable masterplans that create delightful walkable places: Chosen sites for housing need a masterplan designed to deliver walkable places with well connected public transport and the funding to realise the plan. To achieve this, transport and land use planning must be tied together at the local authority level with changes to the current planning system to make this possible.

Read What is being built in 2025? In search of the station in full.

#CarDependency #Cycling #Design #Planning #PlanningProcess #PublicTransport #Walking

‘Jigsaw puzzle’ developments are creating car-dependent estates

Our latest report, out today, has confirmed what we had long suspected; new housing estates being built in England resemble a jigsaw puzzle with some of the most important pieces missing – the stations, the mass transit systems and on-site community provision and services.

What is being built in 2025? In search of the station, reveals that housing targets aimed at rural parts of the country and a developer-led choice of location are creating car-dependent estates far away from major urban areas and isolated from good public transport, and that car-based suburban sprawl is now the default model of development.

It concludes that unless we start to build differently we will end up with more and more of this ‘doughnut effect’, whereby everything ends up on out of town greenfield sites whilst brownfield sites lie unbuilt and derelict, and high streets are dying.

What is being built in 2025? In search of the station, looked at nearly 40 new housing developments, including four in Europe (Germany and Sweden), and explored a number of themes, including: whether the development was ultimately designed around the car; traffic generation and its consequences; public transport connections including bus, local rail and trams; and whether there are a range of amenities to walk or cycle to. The report also includes a section on why the planning system fails to deliver sustainable transport.

Volunteers visited each development and looked at the type and mix of housing, transport links, layout and on-site facilities, and concluded that nearly every greenfield development was oriented around the car. None of the large-scale housing greenfield developments visited for the report were on metro or tram systems, buses were in many cases infrequent or insufficient and went to limited destinations, and safe and convenient active travel options did not connect the development to places people wanted to go to. The report only identified one large-scale greenfield development, Poundbury in Dorset, which it considered to be a vibrant ‘self-contained’ community on account of being genuinely mixed use and built from the start for walking rather than driving.

To accomplish a different model of delivering new homes and avoid more car-dependent sprawl, Transport for New Homes makes three recommendations:

• Build transit-oriented developments serving residents from day one of occupation: New developments should be planned around better public transport, connected with metros, tram systems and comprehensive bus networks, available to residents on the day they move in to avoid entrenching car dependency. 
• New homes must be built in better locations: The planning system needs to direct building in more sustainable locations, with decisions on where we build new homes taken with more of an evidence-based approach. Places must be selected that will work with new transport infrastructure and promote regeneration, economic growth and good access to services. A revised National Planning Policy Framework needs to make this kind of wider area planning possible. 
• Deliverable masterplans that create delightful walkable places: Chosen sites for housing need a masterplan designed to deliver walkable places with well connected public transport and the funding to realise the plan. To achieve this, transport and land use planning must be tied together at the local authority level with changes to the current planning system to make this possible.

Read What is being built in 2025? In search of the station in full.

#CarDependency #Cycling #Design #Planning #PlanningProcess #PublicTransport #Walking

‘Jigsaw puzzle’ developments are creating car-dependent estates

Our latest report, out today, has confirmed what we had long suspected; new housing estates being built in England resemble a jigsaw puzzle with some of the most important pieces missing – the stations, the mass transit systems and on-site community provision and services.

What is being built in 2025? In search of the station, reveals that housing targets aimed at rural parts of the country and a developer-led choice of location are creating car-dependent estates far away from major urban areas and isolated from good public transport, and that car-based suburban sprawl is now the default model of development.

It concludes that unless we start to build differently we will end up with more and more of this ‘doughnut effect’, whereby everything ends up on out of town greenfield sites whilst brownfield sites lie unbuilt and derelict, and high streets are dying.

What is being built in 2025? In search of the station, looked at nearly 40 new housing developments, including four in Europe (Germany and Sweden), and explored a number of themes, including: whether the development was ultimately designed around the car; traffic generation and its consequences; public transport connections including bus, local rail and trams; and whether there are a range of amenities to walk or cycle to. The report also includes a section on why the planning system fails to deliver sustainable transport.

Volunteers visited each development and looked at the type and mix of housing, transport links, layout and on-site facilities, and concluded that nearly every greenfield development was oriented around the car. None of the large-scale housing greenfield developments visited for the report were on metro or tram systems, buses were in many cases infrequent or insufficient and went to limited destinations, and safe and convenient active travel options did not connect the development to places people wanted to go to. The report only identified one large-scale greenfield development, Poundbury in Dorset, which it considered to be a vibrant ‘self-contained’ community on account of being genuinely mixed use and built from the start for walking rather than driving.

To accomplish a different model of delivering new homes and avoid more car-dependent sprawl, Transport for New Homes makes three recommendations:

• Build transit-oriented developments serving residents from day one of occupation: New developments should be planned around better public transport, connected with metros, tram systems and comprehensive bus networks, available to residents on the day they move in to avoid entrenching car dependency. 
• New homes must be built in better locations: The planning system needs to direct building in more sustainable locations, with decisions on where we build new homes taken with more of an evidence-based approach. Places must be selected that will work with new transport infrastructure and promote regeneration, economic growth and good access to services. A revised National Planning Policy Framework needs to make this kind of wider area planning possible. 
• Deliverable masterplans that create delightful walkable places: Chosen sites for housing need a masterplan designed to deliver walkable places with well connected public transport and the funding to realise the plan. To achieve this, transport and land use planning must be tied together at the local authority level with changes to the current planning system to make this possible.

#Built25 #CarDependency #Cycling #Design #Planning #PlanningProcess #PublicTransport #Walking

Housing targets direct new homes to public transport deserts

There is a real urgency to build new homes. However, we have seen from our visits to newly built areas, that it’s not just the total numbers of new homes that are important.

Where you build and how you build are absolutely key, as are the transport connections that enable people to live their everyday lives. What is concerning is that we are building increasingly in rural parts of England far from jobs, in places where public transport barely reaches, and where you need to drive for most journeys.

Trapped Behind the Wheel

This trend to car-dependent sprawl is well-documented in the latest research from the New Economics Foundation in the form of their report Trapped Behind the Wheel. A contributing factor to the growth of sprawl is, as the report explains, the top-down housing targets issued by central government to local authorities. Through these targets, rural local authorities are directed to build hundreds thousands of new homes each year on the greenfield sites put forward by developers. Yet proper public transport is not provided, there are limited places to safely walk or cycle to, and the planning context is roads, roundabouts and out-of-town destinations. This pattern of development is common right across England. To move to the new places we are building, you need to be prepared for a lot of driving; traffic is already building up.

Algorithms at the heart of the matter

England is, it seems, unique in Europe in that it uses a simple formula to generate the ‘targets’ for new homes that each local authority area must build each year. Rather than than a carefully considered national or regional approach as to where best to grow and accommodate the population, we use a simple piece of maths to decide where to build, an algorithm. This produces an exact figure for each local planning authority called the ‘housing need’ number. This figure is then the mandatory starting point in devising a local plan or its equivalent, a suite of documents that describe the future of a county, a district or in some cases, a wider area.

So how are the ‘housing need’ figures calculated? The algorithm is not a static thing: governments appear to like to revise the algorithm every few years.

An algorithm based on local population trends

The last government based the algorithm on the idea that local population growth – statistics showing whether people were moving into a local authority area – indicated a demand for new homes in that authority. Therefore an algorithm was chosen that generated high housing targets were given if a place was growing fast. An unintended effect was that as more car-based sprawl was built in rural and semi-rural areas, more soon came their way. In the spiral of increased targets meaning increased building – more out of town ‘cowpat’ estates and more road systems to open up the land and take the cars were built.

An algorithm based on a workplace-based affordability ratio

In July 2024 the new government proposed a new version of the algorithm. This time it is based on the idea that one should increase house-building where house prices are high and wages low, thus to bring the price of homes down to affordable values. It is remarkably simple:

1. First, take 0.8% of the current housing stock of the local authority area.
2. Then, increase the figure, based on a three-year average of the median workplace-based affordability ratio, with an increase of 15% for every unit above four.

What are the numerical results of this methodology? You can see a list of annual housing requirements and use the interactive map from the Local Government Association data. Meanwhile if you are interested in the number of new homes in a Local Plan, then this annual figure needs to be multiplied up by the number of years that the Plan lasts, which is generally about 15 years.

You can see from our example simple map of one area of south west England, the kind of housing requirements that the new algorithm generates for Local Plans. You will recognise from this that rural local authorities have been given a very great number of homes to build, running even into tens of thousands in a local plan period.

It could be so different…

In most European countries there are national plans and regional plans for where to build new homes and how, with a holistic approach to land use, a consideration of economy, jobs, community and environment, and ample investment in mass transit systems to make sure that expanding places remain connected as functioning economic areas.

At local level planners are much involved in finding the most suitable places to build, including at what density, which is important, and they masterplan new areas rather than leaving this aspect to the private sector.

In England – apart from in major metropolitan areas and in particular London – we seem to be behind the times. Surely the time has come to move away from ‘algorithms’, ‘targets’ and the ‘five year housing land supply’ as a metric to pressure local authorities to deliver the numbers come what may, to a more visionary approach to building the new homes we so badly need. The New Economics Foundation report Trapped Behind the Wheel makes many useful suggestions, with evidence and data. There is a growing body of other work showing that we need a real change in our planning system. The question is, will the new government take the lead? We hope it will.

Our first annual report will be released soon. Please contribute to our fundraiser to help us keep going.

#CarDependency #Cycling #Location #Planning #PlanningProcess #PublicTransport #Walking

Guest post from Mark Philpotts, the founder of City Infinity,

Engineers and transport planners are sometimes criticised for the quality of transport within and connecting to new developments. In some cases this might be entirely fair, but more often I think it is because they are having to play the hand dealt to them, and in my experience they are often invited to the game far too late.

Any development will of course be influenced by local planning policies, and developers have a wide range of motivations that sit behind what they do. What I do know is that they quite rightly want to know what is expected of them, and for any requirements to be agreed and fixed as early as possible, but this can be where some of the transport problems come into play.

A classic in my practice over the years has been cycle parking. Local policy varies widely with the more forward thinking authorities trying to lever in minimum cycle parking standards. While this is largely a good thing, there is a risk that it become a numbers game leading to weird spaces being filled with two-tier racks suitable only for racing bikes. By the time the transport planners and engineers are appointed to assist with submissions, the spaces are often fixed and it’s really hard to get things changed.

I’ve seen so-called accessible cycle parking which includes non-standard and adapted cycles being provided in basements and first floors which are accessed by lifts that are either too small or have single door entry – accessible cycle parking needs people to be able to get from street to parking spot without having to dismount. My message is get everyone in the team appointed early enough so that the correct insight can feed into the whole design process.

There are so many wasted opportunities. For walking, wheeling and cycling, permeability is incredibly important, and development is a fantastic chance to open up new active travel routes. It might not be possible to leave a tunnel to nowhere in a proposed building, but there are certainly opportunities to be had with developments that are on corner plots, that fit between existing streets or which could even feed other areas with a little bit of negotiation with an adjacent landowner. OK, the last one is a little trickier, but bringing in engineers and transport planners with finding permeability as part of the brief really helps, especially as that can help elevate the quality of the transport assessment or statement for a submission.

All of this goes for the local authority engineers and transport planners too. Consultation with them often comes too late and in some cases once the application has been made which puts good ideas up against the clock. In my experience, transport planning teams are not involved in development management enough. I also don’t think people realise how powerful engineers in the highways department can be and this power can be harnessed for better outcomes or it can be a drag on progress. In some cases, the person who reviews planning applications for the highways department ends up as just that, the only person in situations where we need wider experience for better advice and ideas.

I would also like developers to challenge the local authority transport professionals more. If I am a good developer who genuinely wants to leave a place better than I find it and perhaps make my development as attractive as possible, then I want my transport contributions to count. This might be within the site or it might be through planning agreements for off-site works. Maybe developers should be constructing that last little link to their buildings as a high quality cycle track and footway? Yes, it ends at a hostile local authority road, but there’s then a bit of pressure on the local authority to also do better.

None of this is intended to denigrate other professionals in the planning process who have important jobs to do in terms of leading development projects or feeding in to them, but the transport side of all of this consistently fails to deliver. Equally, it cannot be fair to expect developers to pick the slack for decades of missed opportunity, but they could raise their game for sustainable mobility and ensure at the very least, they future-proof their development as much as they can.

Mark Philpotts is the founder of City Infinity, a sustainable mobility design consultancy where he is applying 30 years of civil engineering experience in the public and private sectors to developing
better streets and places. He has also been a writer and blogger for over a decade under the pen
name “The Ranty Highwayman”. www.cityinfinity.co.uk

https://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk/unseen-power/

#CarDependency #Cycling #Design #Planning #PlanningProcess #PublicTransport #Walking

Guest post from Mark Philpotts, the founder of City Infinity,

Engineers and transport planners are sometimes criticised for the quality of transport within and connecting to new developments. In some cases this might be entirely fair, but more often I think it is because they are having to play the hand dealt to them, and in my experience they are often invited to the game far too late.

Any development will of course be influenced by local planning policies, and developers have a wide range of motivations that sit behind what they do. What I do know is that they quite rightly want to know what is expected of them, and for any requirements to be agreed and fixed as early as possible, but this can be where some of the transport problems come into play.

A classic in my practice over the years has been cycle parking. Local policy varies widely with the more forward thinking authorities trying to lever in minimum cycle parking standards. While this is largely a good thing, there is a risk that it become a numbers game leading to weird spaces being filled with two-tier racks suitable only for racing bikes. By the time the transport planners and engineers are appointed to assist with submissions, the spaces are often fixed and it’s really hard to get things changed.

I’ve seen so-called accessible cycle parking which includes non-standard and adapted cycles being provided in basements and first floors which are accessed by lifts that are either too small or have single door entry – accessible cycle parking needs people to be able to get from street to parking spot without having to dismount. My message is get everyone in the team appointed early enough so that the correct insight can feed into the whole design process.

There are so many wasted opportunities. For walking, wheeling and cycling, permeability is incredibly important, and development is a fantastic chance to open up new active travel routes. It might not be possible to leave a tunnel to nowhere in a proposed building, but there are certainly opportunities to be had with developments that are on corner plots, that fit between existing streets or which could even feed other areas with a little bit of negotiation with an adjacent landowner. OK, the last one is a little trickier, but bringing in engineers and transport planners with finding permeability as part of the brief really helps, especially as that can help elevate the quality of the transport assessment or statement for a submission.

All of this goes for the local authority engineers and transport planners too. Consultation with them often comes too late and in some cases once the application has been made which puts good ideas up against the clock. In my experience, transport planning teams are not involved in development management enough. I also don’t think people realise how powerful engineers in the highways department can be and this power can be harnessed for better outcomes or it can be a drag on progress. In some cases, the person who reviews planning applications for the highways department ends up as just that, the only person in situations where we need wider experience for better advice and ideas.

I would also like developers to challenge the local authority transport professionals more. If I am a good developer who genuinely wants to leave a place better than I find it and perhaps make my development as attractive as possible, then I want my transport contributions to count. This might be within the site or it might be through planning agreements for off-site works. Maybe developers should be constructing that last little link to their buildings as a high quality cycle track and footway? Yes, it ends at a hostile local authority road, but there’s then a bit of pressure on the local authority to also do better.

None of this is intended to denigrate other professionals in the planning process who have important jobs to do in terms of leading development projects or feeding in to them, but the transport side of all of this consistently fails to deliver. Equally, it cannot be fair to expect developers to pick the slack for decades of missed opportunity, but they could raise their game for sustainable mobility and ensure at the very least, they future-proof their development as much as they can.

Mark Philpotts is the founder of City Infinity, a sustainable mobility design consultancy where he is applying 30 years of civil engineering experience in the public and private sectors to developing
better streets and places. He has also been a writer and blogger for over a decade under the pen
name “The Ranty Highwayman”. www.cityinfinity.co.uk

https://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk/unseen-power/

#CarDependency #Cycling #Design #Planning #PlanningProcess #PublicTransport #Walking

Guest post from Mark Philpotts, the founder of City Infinity,

Engineers and transport planners are sometimes criticised for the quality of transport within and connecting to new developments. In some cases this might be entirely fair, but more often I think it is because they are having to play the hand dealt to them, and in my experience they are often invited to the game far too late.

Any development will of course be influenced by local planning policies, and developers have a wide range of motivations that sit behind what they do. What I do know is that they quite rightly want to know what is expected of them, and for any requirements to be agreed and fixed as early as possible, but this can be where some of the transport problems come into play.

A classic in my practice over the years has been cycle parking. Local policy varies widely with the more forward thinking authorities trying to lever in minimum cycle parking standards. While this is largely a good thing, there is a risk that it become a numbers game leading to weird spaces being filled with two-tier racks suitable only for racing bikes. By the time the transport planners and engineers are appointed to assist with submissions, the spaces are often fixed and it’s really hard to get things changed.

I’ve seen so-called accessible cycle parking which includes non-standard and adapted cycles being provided in basements and first floors which are accessed by lifts that are either too small or have single door entry – accessible cycle parking needs people to be able to get from street to parking spot without having to dismount. My message is get everyone in the team appointed early enough so that the correct insight can feed into the whole design process.

There are so many wasted opportunities. For walking, wheeling and cycling, permeability is incredibly important, and development is a fantastic chance to open up new active travel routes. It might not be possible to leave a tunnel to nowhere in a proposed building, but there are certainly opportunities to be had with developments that are on corner plots, that fit between existing streets or which could even feed other areas with a little bit of negotiation with an adjacent landowner. OK, the last one is a little trickier, but bringing in engineers and transport planners with finding permeability as part of the brief really helps, especially as that can help elevate the quality of the transport assessment or statement for a submission.

All of this goes for the local authority engineers and transport planners too. Consultation with them often comes too late and in some cases once the application has been made which puts good ideas up against the clock. In my experience, transport planning teams are not involved in development management enough. I also don’t think people realise how powerful engineers in the highways department can be and this power can be harnessed for better outcomes or it can be a drag on progress. In some cases, the person who reviews planning applications for the highways department ends up as just that, the only person in situations where we need wider experience for better advice and ideas.

I would also like developers to challenge the local authority transport professionals more. If I am a good developer who genuinely wants to leave a place better than I find it and perhaps make my development as attractive as possible, then I want my transport contributions to count. This might be within the site or it might be through planning agreements for off-site works. Maybe developers should be constructing that last little link to their buildings as a high quality cycle track and footway? Yes, it ends at a hostile local authority road, but there’s then a bit of pressure on the local authority to also do better.

None of this is intended to denigrate other professionals in the planning process who have important jobs to do in terms of leading development projects or feeding in to them, but the transport side of all of this consistently fails to deliver. Equally, it cannot be fair to expect developers to pick the slack for decades of missed opportunity, but they could raise their game for sustainable mobility and ensure at the very least, they future-proof their development as much as they can.

Mark Philpotts is the founder of City Infinity, a sustainable mobility design consultancy where he is applying 30 years of civil engineering experience in the public and private sectors to developing
better streets and places. He has also been a writer and blogger for over a decade under the pen
name “The Ranty Highwayman”. www.cityinfinity.co.uk

https://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk/unseen-power/

#CarDependency #Cycling #Design #Planning #PlanningProcess #PublicTransport #Walking

Unseen power of engineers and transport planners

Guest post from Mark Philpotts, the founder of City Infinity,

Engineers and transport planners are sometimes criticised for the quality of transport within and connecting to new developments. In some cases this might be entirely fair, but more often I think it is because they are having to play the hand dealt to them, and in my experience they are often invited to the game far too late.

Any development will of course be influenced by local planning policies, and developers have a wide range of motivations that sit behind what they do. What I do know is that they quite rightly want to know what is expected of them, and for any requirements to be agreed and fixed as early as possible, but this can be where some of the transport problems come into play.

A classic in my practice over the years has been cycle parking. Local policy varies widely with the more forward thinking authorities trying to lever in minimum cycle parking standards. While this is largely a good thing, there is a risk that it become a numbers game leading to weird spaces being filled with two-tier racks suitable only for racing bikes. By the time the transport planners and engineers are appointed to assist with submissions, the spaces are often fixed and it’s really hard to get things changed.

I’ve seen so-called accessible cycle parking which includes non-standard and adapted cycles being provided in basements and first floors which are accessed by lifts that are either too small or have single door entry – accessible cycle parking needs people to be able to get from street to parking spot without having to dismount. My message is get everyone in the team appointed early enough so that the correct insight can feed into the whole design process.

There are so many wasted opportunities. For walking, wheeling and cycling, permeability is incredibly important, and development is a fantastic chance to open up new active travel routes. It might not be possible to leave a tunnel to nowhere in a proposed building, but there are certainly opportunities to be had with developments that are on corner plots, that fit between existing streets or which could even feed other areas with a little bit of negotiation with an adjacent landowner. OK, the last one is a little trickier, but bringing in engineers and transport planners with finding permeability as part of the brief really helps, especially as that can help elevate the quality of the transport assessment or statement for a submission.

All of this goes for the local authority engineers and transport planners too. Consultation with them often comes too late and in some cases once the application has been made which puts good ideas up against the clock. In my experience, transport planning teams are not involved in development management enough. I also don’t think people realise how powerful engineers in the highways department can be and this power can be harnessed for better outcomes or it can be a drag on progress. In some cases, the person who reviews planning applications for the highways department ends up as just that, the only person in situations where we need wider experience for better advice and ideas.

I would also like developers to challenge the local authority transport professionals more. If I am a good developer who genuinely wants to leave a place better than I find it and perhaps make my development as attractive as possible, then I want my transport contributions to count. This might be within the site or it might be through planning agreements for off-site works. Maybe developers should be constructing that last little link to their buildings as a high quality cycle track and footway? Yes, it ends at a hostile local authority road, but there’s then a bit of pressure on the local authority to also do better.

None of this is intended to denigrate other professionals in the planning process who have important jobs to do in terms of leading development projects or feeding in to them, but the transport side of all of this consistently fails to deliver. Equally, it cannot be fair to expect developers to pick the slack for decades of missed opportunity, but they could raise their game for sustainable mobility and ensure at the very least, they future-proof their development as much as they can.

Mark Philpotts is the founder of City Infinity, a sustainable mobility design consultancy where he is applying 30 years of civil engineering experience in the public and private sectors to developing
better streets and places. He has also been a writer and blogger for over a decade under the pen
name “The Ranty Highwayman”. www.cityinfinity.co.uk

#CarDependency #Cycling #Design #Planning #PlanningProcess #PublicTransport #Walking