New housing not considering cycling and walking

[whoof]

This is an article about new housing schemes only considering motorised transport. The failure appears to be in the local authority for not ensuring cycling and walking facilities and a call for the Manual for Streets (linked in article) to be made mandatory rather than advisory.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51179688

Unfortunately I don't hold out a lot of hope in the current government. I read another article recently about governments wanting to allow 'freedom' for people. However, this usually means freedom to make money (and often a few making millions if not billions) and freedom to polute. It does not include freedom not to be killed or injured as a result of being struck by vehilces or due to poor air quality.

[Pete Owens]

Looks like it was was written by an auto-supremacist who believes roads are exclusively for their use and believes cyclist should be confined to some gheto out of their way. It would help to avoid using culs-de-sac and design more permeable street layouts so that cyclists and pedestrians can choose more direct routes.

The big issue with the design of housing when it comes to cyclists is the provision secure street level storage of our vehicles - Particulaly with flats or small houses, that may come with drives or parking lots, but no garages.

[mjr]

The Parking Standards for Norfolk require street-level secure cycle parking in normal new developments and are part of local planning policies and so required by law. This should be made national instead of relying on local campaigners to win each battle... so why not beef up the standards in general? 20mph residential streets, tight corner radii and so on, even without stuff that Pete Owens hates like good cycleways alongside every new A spec road.

Even then, the price of transport freedom is eternal vigilence, with many developments by big developers unaware of local plan policies or who feel they can ignore it and pay their experts and lawyers to argue the toss long enough that the councils won't enforce it, leaving campaigners to continue the dispute long enough that the councils decide it's easier or cheaper to enforce than not. A deeply broken system!

[squeaker]

Even then, the price of transport freedom is eternal vigilence, with many developments by big developers unaware of local plan policies or who feel they can ignore it and pay their experts and lawyers to argue the toss long enough that the councils won't enforce it, ...

Or just claim it makes the whole scheme not viable - do you want that affordable housing or not? Broken system indeed.

[mjr]

Even then, the price of transport freedom is eternal vigilence, with many developments by big developers unaware of local plan policies or who feel they can ignore it and pay their experts and lawyers to argue the toss long enough that the councils won't enforce it, ...

Or just claim it makes the whole scheme not viable - do you want that affordable housing or not? Broken system indeed.

Or that they'll go build it over the border where that policy doesn't apply and local government is fiendlier. That's why towns near borders often grow more than their one-borough neighbours and part of what funds opposition to moving borough boundaries to include all a town/city built-up area.