Here’s hoping Rayner and Haigh can re-boot the Prescott vision of joined up land use and transport planning

ONE OF MY FAVOURITE ‘feel good’ movies is 1999’s Galaxy Quest. It’s a sci-fi spoof about the has-been cast of a Star Trek-like TV show. The starship crew’s motto in it was, “Never give up; never surrender”, a phrase that I have often felt should be taken to heart by those of us trying to advance the cause of sustainable transport. But another of the things I remember from the film is that the featured race of aliens referred to episodes of the TV show as ‘Historical Documents’, not realising they were fiction.

Why is this resonant with me now, you will rightly ask.

A few days ago, I would have cut straight to my answer. But my reflections on the death of John Prescott afford me the opportunity of giving that answer a better setting. Prescott was a memorable man in many ways, but I will always think first of his muscular efforts to reshape transport policy when he was given great levers of power as Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in the Labour Government elected in 1997. For context, this was roughly an amalgamation of the roles currently held by Angela Rayner and Louise Haigh as Secretaries of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and Transport respectively.

During its campaign, Labour promised to “reduce and then reverse traffic growth”, and shortly after taking office Prescott said: “I will have failed if in five years time there are not... far fewer journeys by car. It’s a tall order but I urge you to hold me to it.” Though willed on by the transport planning and related professions, he nevertheless largely failed in the task of integrating land use and transport planning policy, and three years after making his pledge, car traffic was up by 7%. (It did not reduce in the following two years.)

It was always a huge ask, and still is, a quarter of a century later. But, when the cause is both necessary and just, “Never give up; never surrender” is the right mantra.

John Prescott fought hard for an new approach to transport. He didn’t give up, but he didn’t succeed either.

As for ‘Historical Documents’, Prescott produced several of his own, including the 1998 white paper A New Deal for Transport – Better for Everyone and most memorably (to me) 1999’s From Workhorse to Thoroughbred – A Better Role for Bus Travel. I have a hard copy of the latter on my shelves, where it has a place not far from what is probably the favourite of all my transport-related historical documents, and which was originally going to be the answer I cut straight to.

From its title alone, you might think that Transport Planning: the Men for the Job – like Galaxy Quest – to be a spoof document. Indeed, were it to be released today, one would be bound to suspect it of having ironic or humorous intent, because no-one would feel it appropriate to use such a title for a book meant to be taken seriously. Published in 1970, however, Transport Planning: the Men for the Job was definitely no attempt at humour.

It was written with about as straight a face as you might possibly imagine. And what’s more (though surely this must have caused at least some raised eyebrows and dry mirth at the time), it was – despite its title – written by a woman! Lady Evelyn Sharp (aka Baroness Sharp of Hornsey) was something of a pioneer and legend, a force of nature (it was said) and someone not to cross swords with. In 1955, she was the first woman appointed as a Permanent Secretary of a government Ministry (Housing and Local Government), the highest executive position possible within the Civil Service.

To cap it all, ‘Transport Planning: the Men for the Job’ wasn’t only written by one woman, it was commissioned by another: Minister of Transport, Barbara Castle, a famous transport political innovator too.

Dame Evelyn Sharp’s report responded to Transport Secretary Barbara Castle’s challenge to equip local authorities with the professional expertise they needed to reshape transport planning.

In 2017, I bought a copy as a Christmas present for myself. Used, but in good condition, it cost just £2.18 (plus £2.49 for p&p), and it remains one of the most treasured items amongst many historical transport documents. This is partly because of its title, and partly its look. But its largely because of some of its contents.

The terms of reference for the report begin: “To examine the manpower implications of likely developments in the next 25 years in urban transport planning, including highway planning, traffic management, public transport and allied fields…”

Lady Sharp said she took this to mean that she had been asked to explore

“how local authorities are going to deal with the problems that confront them in providing for the fast-rising flood of traffic on the roads, already choking the towns and destroying their quality for living, and how, further, they are going, in these conditions, to maintain an adequate system of local public transport.”

That surely nailed the challenge spot-on – and probably for the first time. I wonder if John Prescott had read it?

Dame Evelyn went on to write that,

“Traffic and transport can no longer, in the cities, be dealt with simply by providing more roads and making the best use of them. What is needed is a total transport policy for each major town (or inter-connected group of towns) and its hinterlands, related to the land use plan for the area. This transport planning job is of a quite different order from the traditional highway job”.

While this might give transport planners a sense of superiority over those doing the “highway job”, I would caution against that. Because I think the “transport planning job” is itself in need or a thorough review. I shall come back to that in due course, but will first follow where some other words of Lady Sharp’s lead us.

“Land use planning is not within my terms of reference,” she said, though that didn’t hold her back.

“But in fact land use and transport planning are inseparable… strategic planning of land use and transport must be regarded as an integral and continuous key function. These two elements of the environmental planning job cannot be tackled in isolation, nor merely by liaison between two separate departments.”

Housing and Local Government Minister Angela Rayner has laid out her new Policy for Planning, but needs to work with Transport Secretary Louise Haigh in getting it to deliver.

For me, and summarising a great deal, Lady Sharp’s core advice to the Minister was this: “You absolutely have to ensure that land use and transport planning are joined up as an integrated service”.

Well over half a century later, I have to observe, with sadness, that neither the then Minister of Transport nor any of her transport or planning successors, including John Prescott, have achieved this integration. And without it, the task of sustainable transport planning is doomed to remain a frustrating exercise in trying to minimise the extent to which people in badly-located development become car dependent.

The new report from the New Economics Foundation Trapped Behind the Wheel, top left, spells out the challenge of overcoming car dependency which is so prevalent as the new RTPI/LandTech study confirms.

Perhaps, though, Rayner and Haigh can – together – usher in ‘A New Era of Housing Development’ where we can, finally, begin to rectify the mistakes of the past. The phrase in quote marks was the title of a conference organised by the editor and his colleagues at LTT along with the Transport Planning Society at the start of this month. Its subtitle being ‘Let’s get the transport vision right’. Peter Stonham provided an excellent summary of this event as the front page story in LTT903, and I urge you to read that once you’ve finished this (or even before you proceed). A couple of things that were said at the conference really stood out to me, and these are other things I’ll come back to later on.

For now, I’d like to direct your attention to other recent contributions that relate to the vexed issue of effectively integrating land use and transport planning. For, although my mind is naturally drawn to articles and other items that relate to any topic I happen to be focusing on at any given time, the past few months, and even recent weeks, do seem to have featured a particular whirl of activity and newsworthy developments relating to said ‘Land Use and Transport’ issue.

One of these is a very relevant research paper, published this month, and also covered in LTT903. This was the fourth instalment in the RTPI’s ‘Location of Development’ series, which looks at where housing is planned in England. This edition covers residential developments that were granted planning permission over the period 2012-2021, “to compare the extent they might deliver better access to a range of key destinations that represent local services and community facilities”.

The first line of the LTT news item summarises the report as saying, “New housing developments remain car-dependent, with minimal improvement in access to essential services by walking, cycling, or public transport.” This statement was backed up by a table from the report, which I also reproduce here, giving the average travel times (in minutes), by each of four modes, across all the approved new homes covered by the study to a range of destination types. For each destination, travel by car was always quickest, cycling next, public transport next, and walking slowest.

Average travel times to different amenities by different modes, from all homes granted planning permission in England in from 2012-2021. Taken from RTPI’s ‘Location of Development’ series

Speed isn’t the only thing, of course, and it’s good to see, for example, that the average walk time to a primary school was just 10 minutes; and that this was only a little slower than all the other modes. However, although 93% of new homes approved were within walking distance of a GP, only 32% were within a 20-minute walk of a large employment centre (at least 5,000 jobs) and less than half (46%) within such a walk of a town centre. Another key finding was that there was little or no improvement in the take up of public transport over the option of driving to local facilities from newly approved homes.

The Executive Summary has a sub-heading entitled ‘Why does this matter’, which I think is an excellent question (even though there’s no actual question mark!). The four answers all show how a wide range of transport-related benefits (including greater economic productivity, reduced transport emissions, improved public health, and more social interaction) can all be achieved by settlement types that naturally enable travel other than by car. These beneficial development types are large, compact, with higher population densities and mixed land uses.

Lady Sharp, were she still with us, would recognise the connection at once. In her absence, the RTPI’s Chief Executive, Victoria Hills, used the launch of the report to say that “Planning should work for the people it impacts, ensuring communities flourish in healthy, well-connected places”. She added that, “To avoid repeating the mistakes of the past decade, the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) must prioritise housing development in areas that reduce car reliance, and support genuinely sustainable, vibrant communities.”

More on the NPPF in a short while (yes, there’s quite a queue forming!) But now I’d like to introduce you to another report, even more recent than the RTPI’s. This is Trapped Behind the Wheel, based on research by the New Economics Foundation commissioned by the Go-Ahead Group. If you didn’t get the less-than-subtle hint from the title, the subtitle sets out the report’s key theme more plainly: ‘How England’s New Builds Lock Us into Car Dependency’.

Yes, you’ve doubtless guessed it: though from a completely different source, and using completely different data, the NEF/Go-Ahead document is making precisely the same central point as the RTPI’s.

As all good Executive Summaries should, Trapped Behind the Wheels’ gets straight to the point. “The places we live in and how we get around are key ways in which the economy shapes our everyday lives. Each is dependent on the other. But far from moving our economy towards sustainability and improved wellbeing, England’s new homes in recent years have increasingly encouraged car-dependent lifestyles.”

Just as Victoria Hills’ comments were directed at the government, so are these other opening remarks in the NEF report. “As the new government embarks on a period of increased housebuilding, it is vital to understand what is going wrong and how to change course in the coming five years. The experience of the past 15 years shows us that, without substantial changes, there is a major risk of locking in increased car dependency for decades to come. These changes are vital if the government is to deliver on other priorities, such as bringing the cost of living down to more manageable levels, reducing spatial inequality, and responding adequately to the climate emergency.”

The ‘Car Dependency Index’ for all new dwellings in England 2009-2023. Developed by the New Economics Foundation. The little white triangle indicates the CDI of the median new dwelling in each period.

To make their key point as objectively as possible, the report writers use a Car Dependency Index (CDI) created by combining data from every neighbourhood in England on car ownership, the share of residents commuting to work by car, the relative travel times to jobs, and to key amenities by car and by public transport, and population density. The research finds that the CDI of new homes has risen steadily since 2009, and that new builds have become more and more car-dependent relative to existing homes, in all regions outside London. Although I’d be lying if I said I had grasped the detail that lies behind the CDI, the steady rise can be tracked by observing the gradual shift to the right of the little white triangle (median value) in each of the time-slices in the graphic above.

And all because almost no-one in government, then or since, has taken Evelyn Sharp’s warning to heart and acted upon it. Prescott tried but, as we have seen, sadly failed.

Trapped Behind the Wheel usefully contends that increasing car dependency is the product of three key factors: Location – new homes being located far from key amenities; Provision – new homes where sustainable transport options are poor; and Design – places where the built environment favours cars over sustainable modes of travel.

My concern is that the new government is also about to add its name to the long list of those who have failed to heed Lady Sharp’s warning; and I think the Go-Ahead group, who commissioned the NEF report, shares this concern.

Noting the government’s aim for 1.5 million new homes to be built across its five-year term, the report calculates that, by 2029, approximately 5% of all homes in the UK will have been built during that term. To enable this huge growth, the Labour manifesto proposed to build “a series of large-scale new communities across England”, which would include several new towns, together with urban extensions and regeneration.

That is why, as was reported in LTT898, the government has set up the New Towns Taskforce. According to www.gov.uk, this is “an independent expert advisory panel established to support the government to deliver the next generation of new towns. The primary objective of the new towns programme is to create new and expanded places and thereby boost economic growth and the supply of new homes – spreading opportunity and supporting strong communities”. As I understand it, the group was appointed by, and reports to, Angela Rayner, Deputy Prime Minister and head of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and her Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook. I really hope that Lou Haigh is in the loop there, too.

Here is an echo of the thinking of earlier governments and public (and enlightened private) authorities who launched the previous iterations of ‘New Towns’ from Bourneville, Port Sunlight,and Saltaire in Victorian times through Welwyn, Letchworth and Hampstead Garden suburbs of the early 20th century, to Stevenage, Crawley and Bracknell ‘London overspill’ post-war new towns.

The ‘New Neighbourhoods in Cambridge’ report by the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel

While the taskforce has only been constituted for a couple of months, I note that one of the first things it did was to visit Cambridge “to gain key insights as they develop their recommendations for the next generation of new towns”. This gives me the opportunity to tell you about another relevant report, published in June and entitled New Neighbourhoods in Cambridge, which is an evaluation of new developments in Cambridgeshire, the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel’s role in raising their quality, and potential lessons for other growth areas. Though a member of the CQP myself, I did not contribute directly to the report and claim no credit for its conclusions. I do largely endorse them, however.

Concerning the lessons learned from the six major schemes assessed, some of these conclusions are quite blunt. The first is that “Master planning is a specialised skilled activity and many design teams seem incapable of doing it well”! The second is that “Planning is not the problem, rather highways, water and grid connections are”. As for what urban extensions and new towns require, the first conclusion is: “Good locations with jobs, public transport, water and electricity supply”. You’d hope this wasn’t rocket science, but the evidence is that, as we keep seeing, in 2024 the relationship between land use and transport planning remains almost as distant as Evelyn Sharp saw it to be in 1970.

We may speculate why this is the case, but one issue seems to be that those who build the houses are seldom those who determine and deliver the essential supporting community services and facilities, including transport services. Will this government finally bring these aspects much closer together? Will these new New Towns and other new housing developments have a wide range of everyday amenities close at hand, easily accessible by walking, wheeling and cycling, and with other more distant everyday destinations easily accessible by cycling and public transport? We shall, of course, see.

Some folk I’m aware of are already fearing the worst, partly because the setting up of the New Towns Taskforce has been counter-balanced by the announcement on 12th November, by Matthew Pennycook, (and also covered in LTT 903) that the government is to shut down the Office for Place, only a little over three years after it was established by the previous administration. Pennycook asserted that the government was “not downgrading the importance of good design and placemaking, or the role of design coding in improving the quality of development. Rather, by drawing expertise and responsibility back into MHCLG, I want the pursuit of good design and placemaking to be a fully integrated consideration as the government reforms the planning system”. This sounds good, but the record of government departments themselves being well-oiled, efficient and integrated bodies delivering quality outcomes is not exactly glorious.

Some of the New Towns of the past: Letchworth, Bournville, and Stevenage.

Be that as it may, do please note that reference to the reform of the planning system. It is definitely in need of reform, but seems always to be in such need, even immediately after the last reform. For that reason, one does wonder if this government’s reform will achieve what none has since 1970, especially when couched, as it has been, in the imperative of rapidly ‘unlocking new housing development’ – seemingly above all else.

In addition to covering the New Towns Taskforce emergence, LTT898 – on its front page (no less) – carried the headline ‘Transport links with housing “need strong guidance to back up new NPPF”, Rayner told’. This telling relates to her Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) having promised that the reformed NPPF will be accompanied with the publication of “updated guidance alongside the policy coming into effect”. The news article linked to a think-piece (like this one), later on in LTT898 and here on TAPAS, 5 September 2024, by Colin Black of Mayer Brown. Colin is also leader of the Development Planning and Land Use sub-group of the Transport Planning Society’s Policy Panel, and was the host of the New Era of Housing Development conference that I mentioned earlier.

In his article, he pointed to what might I consider the ‘Achilles Heel’ of the draft revised NPPF – the new paragraphs 112 and 113. The former states that “In assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, or specific applications for development, it should be ensured that… any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree through a vision led approach”. Mention of a vision led approach is welcome, but the idea of congestion mitigation could easily lead us (however unintentionally) down the old predict and provide path. That is why Colin thinks the key will be on the character and strength of the promised guidance.

Related to this – as I see it – was the suggestion at the conference by PJA’s Phil Jones that we should change the requirement for Transport Assessments to one for Accessibility Assessments. Phil’s suggested new title doesn’t quite seem right to me, but (a) I haven’t yet got a better one and (b) I think Phil’s absolutely right that what’s needed is a change in professional mindsets about what we really need to achieve through TAs (or AAs). Strong NPPF guidance could help bring that change about, and needs to.

As things stand, your experience might be similar to mine. This is that, despite changes in language and the use of green and sustainable buzzwords, far too many Transport Assessments still have more than a whiff of Traffic Impact Assessments. The thinking goes: “Look, let’s be honest, we know that everyone’s still obsessed by congestion and that many decision makers are sceptical about mode shift. So, here’s some capacity increase to calm their fears”. In addition to that most ‘Travel Plans’ that have come my way are little more than ‘sustainability washing’. For example, I’d have a sizeable drinks kitty if I’d been given a fiver for every Travel Plan I’ve seen that proposed installing way more cycle stands than justified by the number of cycling trips predicted by the TA. Token gestures won’t cut it: we’ve got to do the right thing, not just say it.

As for paragraph 113 of the draft NPPF, this states that “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe, in all tested scenarios.” This also leaves the door open for increases to be made to highway capacity to ‘ease congestion’. Oxfordshire County Council’s Will Pedley told the conference that his authority (seemingly one of the few on top of this issue politically and professionally) had included in its response to the consultation draft NPPF that paragraph 113 should be reworded as follows:

“Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if it is unable to demonstrate high quality access by sustainable transport modes, including walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport, or there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe in all tested scenarios, the deliverability of which has been adequately evidenced and agreed with the Local Highway Authority.”

I would like to think the MHCLG will be delighted to take this helpful recommendation on board, though it’s not at all beyond the bounds of possibility that representations from volume house-builders (OK, let’s call it lobbying) will carry more weight. With the government so committed to building so many houses so quickly, they might well believe they are, literally as well as figuratively, in the driving seat.

While we await the new NPPF and the accompanying guidance, we must nonetheless continue to do what we can within the existing frameworks to integrate land use and transport planning more effectively, not just in policy, but also in design and delivery. There’s plenty we can do, if we care enough and are prepared to do what is necessary, not simply expedient. So much so, in fact, that that could be another article in itself.

Nye Bevan: He began an earlier era of house building with a pledge.

But I’ll finish this one by repeating a saying that is (I believe correctly) attributed to the post-war housing minister Aneurin ‘Nye’ Bevan. Speaking in 1946, he said that “While we shall be judged for a year or two by the number of houses we build… we shall be judged in 10 years’ time by the type of houses we build.”

My message to this government is similar, but has an alternative second clause. I suggest that “…we shall also be judged in 10 years’ time (and beyond) by the character of the neighbourhoods and communities we have created – and the quality of the transport choices they are offered”.

I don’t know how Bevan was judged in relation to house types in 1956, but I do know that he is fondly remembered for leading the creation of the National Health Service and for his contribution to the founding of the welfare state. I’d absolutely love it were Angela Rayner and Lou Haigh to be remembered for succeeding where John Prescott at least tried.

Maybe I should send them a copy of Evelyn Sharp’s historical document as inspiration.

References and Links

• Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1998) A New Deal for Transport, Better for Everyone, available online here.

• From Workhorse to Thoroughbred - A better role for bus travel 1999

• Transport Planning - the Men for the Job 1970

• Trapped behind the wheel New Economics Foundation 2024

• The Location of Development 4 RTPI 2024

• New Neighbourhoods in Cambridge Cambridgeshire Quality Panel 2024

• Is this the chance to finally deliver new housing served by sustainable transport? Colin Black LTT898 and TAPAS, 5 Sept 2024.