Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4112
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by squeaker »

Jdsk wrote: 10 Feb 2022, 10:24am "Supplementary Planning Document":
https://www.middevon.gov.uk/media/34890 ... 200114.pdf
“the purpose of the document is to bridge the gap between high level policy aspirations and delivery on the ground in order to ensure high quality design and quality of place
ie it gives the planning officers some clues as to what the long words in the local plan mean in tangible form.
"42"
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by mattheus »

Jdsk wrote: 10 Feb 2022, 10:24am "Supplementary Planning Document":
https://www.middevon.gov.uk/media/34890 ... 200114.pdf

Jonathan
Thanks.
That's my one thing learned for today.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Pete Owens »

(edit to note that this is about the quoted extract, rather than the longer document - which does seem to be more explicitly motor-centric)

That is motherhood and apple pie stuff; those are the sort of warm words that you will see in the introduction to all planning guidelines. Though explicitly referencing Manual for Streets is good - the first mention of active travel is to marginalise it by talking about paths through green corridoors. It has something for everyone in it so in practice does not offer any practical guidance on what to design - yes it seems inoffensive enough to us, but neither would Jeremy Clarkson find anything to object to. There is absolutely nothing in those paragraphs that you could nail down as a reason for refusing a planning application. For that you need to look in specific hard objective details specified further down in the document - or other documents.

So for example - warm words about access to bus services need to turned into a hard specification for a maximum walk to a bus stop with a specified frequency of service. (Otherwise a half mile muddy footpath to a bus stop on the main road with a weekly service could pass)

Detailed geometric specifications for the density and quality of the path network are needed - not the occasional narrow unsurfaced gap between high back garden fences leading to

Minimum housing density needs to be specified - to ensure that enough people live within walking distance of services.

There needs to be quanitatative requirement for the provision of public green spaces, specifiaction for secure convenient cycle storage, etc etc.

Now you can guaruntee that the woolly phrase about providing for a range of sizes of motor vehicles will be nailed down to hard details specifying the geometry of the streets - minimum widtths, turning radii at junctions, capacity of the distributor roads, minimum parking provision - and much of this is likely to actively prohibit developers from designing the sort of pedestrian orientated development the developers at Chapelford were trying to achieve - to a very similar master plan.
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by mattheus »

Pete Owens wrote: 10 Feb 2022, 12:16pm So for example - warm words about access to bus services need to turned into a hard specification for a maximum walk to a bus stop with a specified frequency of service. (Otherwise a half mile muddy footpath to a bus stop on the main road with a weekly service could pass)
I don't know how often these things are written, but for sure they often dont happen.

New estate here (jdsk may well know it!) is classic. It extends the town by (roughly) 2/3rds of a mile. So most residents could walk to the existing bits, if all other things are done right.
But they've built the furthest away houses first! There aren't even roads that you can walk down between them and town. (apart from the 60limit-no pavements main road). So a year from now everyone on the estate will be car-drivers, absolutely guaranteed.

This is the first housing estate I've actually watched being built under my nose, and it's been ... educational ...
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by mjr »

mattheus wrote: 10 Feb 2022, 1:38pm But they've built the furthest away houses first! There aren't even roads that you can walk down between them and town. (apart from the 60limit-no pavements main road). So a year from now everyone on the estate will be car-drivers, absolutely guaranteed.
Yes, the developer of a large expansion estate near me is proposing a similar trick. It'll be a decade before the end nearest the town is built, along with the walking and cycling links. By then, driving-everywhere habits will be thoroughly entrenched.

I've objected and hope the planners uphold it, but they don't often. I'm not sure which bit of government is failing to enforce active travel equality, but it's failing all the same.

This isn't my first development scrutiny. They're mostly this awful.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Bmblbzzz »

Well, we now have Chris Boardman in charge of an Office for Active Travel (or similar title), which is a good beginning. But what's its budget? What powers does it have? How many planning applications, if any, can it scrutinise? From what I've heard its powers are mostly negative – to reject and censure substandard schemes, and remove funding from the responsible authorities – not to promote and build suitable schemes.
ChrisButch
Posts: 1188
Joined: 24 Feb 2009, 12:10pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by ChrisButch »

Bmblbzzz wrote: 10 Feb 2022, 9:23pm Well, we now have Chris Boardman in charge of an Office for Active Travel (or similar title), which is a good beginning. But what's its budget? What powers does it have? How many planning applications, if any, can it scrutinise? From what I've heard its powers are mostly negative – to reject and censure substandard schemes, and remove funding from the responsible authorities – not to promote and build suitable schemes.
Just on the 'how many planning applications' question - the announcement so far is that it will be a statutory consultee on all major planning applications. Well, a major application is one which includes 10 or more houses or covers an area of greater than 0.5 hectares. Apparently about 5000 a year of these are granted in England. ATE will have a staff of 100. So if every one of these had this function within his/her brief, they would each would have to deal with about one a week. Actually more than this, since I can't find a figure for the percentage of major applications rejected - though the overall percentage is quite low, about 18%.
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Bmblbzzz »

That's interesting, thank you. I had no idea the threshold for 'major application' was so low.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by mjr »

ChrisButch wrote: 11 Feb 2022, 1:02pm
Bmblbzzz wrote: 10 Feb 2022, 9:23pm Well, we now have Chris Boardman in charge of an Office for Active Travel (or similar title), which is a good beginning. But what's its budget? What powers does it have? How many planning applications, if any, can it scrutinise? From what I've heard its powers are mostly negative – to reject and censure substandard schemes, and remove funding from the responsible authorities – not to promote and build suitable schemes.
Just on the 'how many planning applications' question - the announcement so far is that it will be a statutory consultee on all major planning applications. Well, a major application is one which includes 10 or more houses or covers an area of greater than 0.5 hectares. Apparently about 5000 a year of these are granted in England. ATE will have a staff of 100. So if every one of these had this function within his/her brief, they would each would have to deal with about one a week. Actually more than this, since I can't find a figure for the percentage of major applications rejected - though the overall percentage is quite low, about 18%.
For comparison, our cycling campaign has 2 volunteers doing about one evening a week checking planning applications for 5 districts/boroughs. We manage to object to most of the major ones that merit it (most of them, sadly!) and usually spot the ordinary ones that seriously impact main cycle routes. We rarely comment on ones that are OK or good unless they are exceptional or we believe it may encourage repeat developers to consult us earlier in future.

I think there are 309 planning authorities in England (181 districts and 128 unitaries), plus they will be sent the major applications instead of hunting through each district's website, so I think Active Travel England should be able to do basic review-and-comment of the planning load with about 20 staff. Any more staff on the planning side should enable more work educating planning authority officers and defending Active Travel objections robustly at appeals and inquiries.

What usually defeats our objections is an irrational and illogical failure by the highway authorities and planning authorities to actually object to developments that contravene their good-looking Plans, Frameworks, Strategies and Standards! They should be more willing to uphold objections from a national government agency, like how they usually uphold any from National Highways.

For example of how wishy-washy highway and planning authorities are now, we even had a developer actually proudly boast in their Access Statement that they were exceeding the maximum permitted car parking set out in the relevant supposedly-legally-binding Strategies and Standards, creating a layout that looked like a tarmac wasteland with a few houses dotted about, and still the officers would not object. Fortunately, in that case, the excessive car parking had indirectly caused a playground to be placed next to an unfenced balancing lake and someone else's "why do they want children to drown?" objection was upheld and the development refused.

I think I read that the Active Travel England base budget will be £2bn until the intended end of this Parliament (2024?). It sounds a lot but I remember that National Highways budget is £4.5bn per year.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Jdsk »

mjr wrote: 11 Feb 2022, 5:51pmI think I read that the Active Travel England base budget will be £2bn until the intended end of this Parliament (2024?). It sounds a lot but I remember that National Highways budget is £4.5bn per year.
I haven't been able to find the total allocations.

It was £338M to local transport authorities in 2021:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/338- ... ravel-boom

Jonathan
ChrisButch
Posts: 1188
Joined: 24 Feb 2009, 12:10pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by ChrisButch »

mjr wrote: 11 Feb 2022, 5:51pm
What usually defeats our objections is an irrational and illogical failure by the highway authorities and planning authorities to actually object to developments that contravene their good-looking Plans, Frameworks, Strategies and Standards! They should be more willing to uphold objections from a national government agency, like how they usually uphold any from National Highways.
Agreed, but in their defence staffing at many of not most local authority planning departments has been cut to the bone as a result of years of budget cuts, and those who have left have often been long-serving and experienced officers carrying with them a store of local wisdom and knowledge of precedents. In the case of my own authority, there's just one part-time officer dealing with all the issues arising in a complex and ambitious urban extension. Coupled with this there is pressure not to refuse because of the obligation to meet the housing targets in the local plan, again coming from central government: which means that the authority risks losing (and having to bear the costs) if the developer appeals. In this situation developers hold most of the cards, and they know it.
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Stevek76 »

Bmblbzzz wrote: 10 Feb 2022, 9:23pm From what I've heard its powers are mostly negative – to reject and censure substandard schemes, and remove funding from the responsible authorities – not to promote and build suitable schemes.
Well the DfT generally isn't there to promote and build any sort of local scheme so this is fairly consistent. That said, I was under the impression that ATE would also provide guidance, assistance and constructive criticism for local authorities willing to engage with it.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Jdsk »

"Create Streets"

"Why outdated transport models ruin new developments and how to fix them"

https://www.createstreets.com/wp-conten ... road-1.pdf

Jonathan
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by thirdcrank »

Jdsk wrote: 24 Feb 2022, 9:31am "Create Streets"

"Why outdated transport models ruin new developments and how to fix them"

https://www.createstreets.com/wp-conten ... road-1.pdf

Jonathan
I began reading that but the first six pages are all glowing reviews of the report and my eyes began to glaze over. Bearing in mind that this thread is about Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) a current policy in England, I used "find on page" to see if there was anything specific about that policy but found nothing. Re this forum, it just sounds to be preaching to the converted.
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Stevek76 »

I'm not convinced that all of those providing supporting statements actually read it either, there's at least one who should've realised the litany of errors that fills it.

Probably would have helped the author if they'd actually spoken to some transport modellers first. Plenty of us out there who'd like to see the same end goals and actually have some relevant and accurate critiques about the profession.

Really though the idea that transport modelling itself is the root of all problems is common but woefully misguided. Transport models, rather like h&s and gdpr are used (incorrectly) as a useful excuse by the person(s) responsible, in this case politicians, to do or not do something they were already set on anyway.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Post Reply