NPP-Festive Traditions, Cycling, An Elephant… And A Disappearing Tank?
Or, the thing that’s blatantly obvious by its omission
“Freedom is having a choice of different things, not just having one really bad choice. Freedom is living in a city like here, where you can breathe clean air and choose your lifestyle.” – Zorana Jovanovic Andersen
Firstly, a big welcome back after the new year festivities and I hope this year sees you in fine fettle for another year of placemaking nonsense!
So, what’s happened in the couple of weeks since we last spoke?
Well, apart from celebrating the end of a politically crazy 2025 (who knew we hadn’t actually seen it all?), in what’s now becoming something else of an annual festive tradition, a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published for consultation.
I was hoping for some big improvements to the transport section that would finally put highways authorities on a short leash with planning departments, but no. such. luck.
This, despite the fact the document pushes strongly for a vision-led approach to transport planning.
I mean, we may have gone from the reactive “predict and provide” to the proactive “decide and provide”… but how’s that actually working out for ya?
If planners are the only ones who need to fully demonstrate a vision that incorporates all the many cross-overs between transport and planning, with highways officers basically turning their backs and carrying on as before, what’s the point?
I mean, it sounds good.
I’m sure most placemakers (and that includes transport people) would agree that…
“making sustainable transport considerations part of early engagement with local communities, highway and transport authorities, transport infrastructure providers, operators, land promoters and neighbouring councils”
… is an intrinsically good idea.
And of course, most of us want sustainable patterns of development, mixed uses, the prioritising of active travel and excellent public transport, continuous footways, segregated cycle infrastructure, safe and inclusive places and all the other good stuff…
… But.
If you’re then faced with specialists who come to the table and quietly (and not so quietly) bemoan the fact that a Manual for Streets compliant scheme can’t be done, I don’t know, because there’s an “r” in the month or an on-street parking space might be lost, or there’s no money to maintain the trees espoused in what is now proposed to be NPPF paragraph N3 1. a… well, we’re off to a rocky start. And it’s still only the first week of January.
The bit of the revised NPPF that I turned to first with a mug of weapon’s grade coffee in hand and some ulcer-inducing trepidation is the bit that previously referred to footnote 48, which stated that “Policies and decisions should not make use of or reflect the former Design Bulletin 32, which was withdrawn in 2007”. This has now been replaced by footnote 56, which requires compliance with national design guidance – i.e. Manual for Streets – to inform how policy TR4 (Street design, access and parking) is applied.
The fact we’ve now gone from a negative to a positive approach is good, but is it actually enough to move the needle?
The fundamental fact, as set out by the Urban Design Group in December 2024, still remains that:
“Planning legislation gives the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government powers to issue planning guidance, and places planning authorities under a duty to follow that guidance. However no such powers or duties apply to highways and highway authorities.”
This, folks, is why we end up with stuff like this:
So we’re kinda back where we started.
To be fair, the new layout of the NPPF and its more specific sections is good and I have no particular comments on the wording, which by and large repeats what it did before. But if only the planners are under a professional obligation to implement it I think we’re ignoring the huge transport-shaped elephant in the room. Brace yourselves, placemakers, and prepare for more “dual-carriageway gateway features” coming to a new town near you.
Indeed, those writing our transport policies and thinking about the government’s proposed new towns and how people will actually get about in them would do well to take note of a short article published on Christmas Eve in the Guardian extolling the virtues of four highly liveable cities in Europe:
Copenhagen: where 30-40% of residents get about by bike – although air pollution from traffic is still a big issue. I can attest to the fact that those 30-40% of people cycle all year round – even in the snow. Blaming the weather and the climate here in blighty for putting people off cycling is a red herring.
Vienna: where “Widespread social housing, an abundance of green space and a well-integrated public transport network contribute to the Austrian capital regularly being ranked the most liveable city in the world”. I can attest to the fact that Vienna is highly walkable and you can cross a street and leap on a tram relatively easily.
Barcelona: where “the introduction of several superblocks – lively, walkable neighbourhoods that prioritise people over cars – and “green axes” since 2016 has improved health and liveability”… but can all 503 of the proposed superblocks be implemented? This is a LTN rollout on steroids.
London: where “the amount of parks really makes it the green capital of Europe”… even if getting to those parks is dodgy for anyone outside an SUV and cycling is still too dangerous for many despite the efforts of successive mayors – including a Tory one. And please don’t buy into the bullsh1t conspiracy theories of the Sunak government that cyclists simply want to ban all cars and stop you leaving your street without a visa.
Of course, nowhere is perfect but it shows that even here in the UK, we can at least get some of it right.
The trick, of course, is to create an active travel network that lets people get about safely on foot or by bike without constant pandering to drivers and over-zealous highways authorities who want to build yet more road capacity for cars when they can’t even afford to look after the infrastructure they’ve already got.
There are potholes around here large enough to destroy and consume a Sherman tank, let alone cause problems for the rest of us.
Let’s face it, as the locations for the proposed new towns are agreed and finalised, one way to get the locals on board might just be the provision of highly integrated walking and cycling infrastructure from the get-go that gives residents old and new a realistic alternative to using a car… and, dare I say it, the provision of a pub or other community facility that’s worth walking or cycling to. But I digress.
As Adam Tranter says:
“you can’t reach the potential of cycling without making it much more safe and hospitable to cycle. It all comes down to that basic fact.”
It really is that simple. Though, as we have seen, not necessarily that easy.
Question: In 2026 with a new NPPF on the horizon can we finally make active travel a default reality?
As I alluded to in the final newsletter of 2025, if there was ever a revolutionary new year resolution for us all, this could be it.
#placemaking #walking #cycling #activetravel #newyearresolution #urbandesigngroup #udg
… and if you liked it, simply…