INTRODUCTION

  In his statement of 18 July 2002 the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out that "We need more homes where people want to live, near where they work, in the North and in the South, at a price people can afford and in a way that protects the countryside". This submission focuses on the first part of the statement, notably the transport implications of housing developments.

KEY PRINCIPLES

  In planning for sustainable housing and communities much greater emphasis must be given to the transport impacts of housing developments. In this regard three principles must be followed:

  Location.  Locating new housing developments near to other activities such as employment opportunities and leisure facilities helps to reduce the distances travelled and also enables travel by more sustainable transport modes: walking; cycling; and public transport. Travel generally originates from residential developments and choosing appropriate locations can assist in minimising traffic generation. In many cases this means locating housing in or very near to town centres. To assist in this it is essential that local and regional authorities revise Structure Plans, Regional Planning Guidance and Spatial Development Frameworks in accordance with promoting housing development at sites with the best access by sustainable modes. Guidance on using accessibility in development plans and regional planning guidance has been prepared but needs publishing.

  Layout.  Ensuring that the layout of new developments, and extensions to existing developments, provides for more sustainable modes of transport: walking; cycling; and public transport will supplement the benefits of good locational decisions. This involves making sure that new developments enable easy access by sustainable modes, wherever possible giving them preferential treatment by comparison with car access. A requirement of all housing development proposals should be the submission of a transport assessment in accordance with the forthcoming guidance. The transport assessment should demonstrate how the development is minimising any potential adverse transport impacts.

  Design.  Ensuring that the detailed design of on-street infrastructure and other elements, eg bus service provision, are in place so as to encourage residents to use sustainable transport modes in preference to car-use wherever possible. As part of this process maximum parking standards must be set for the development and, if necessary, on-street parking controls to eliminate over-spill parking. The submission of a transport assessment will also help ensure that the detailed design will encourage access by non-car modes of travel.

  It is essential that good provision for access by walking, cycling and public transport to housing developments is in place prior to opening so that travel patterns are appropriately influenced.

CAR-FREE SETTLEMENTS

  One means of reducing car dependency is to design new housing developments without allocating any space for car parking. Such settlements enable space that would have been used for parking to be re-allocated for play areas, parks or even more intensive developments. In addition to energy savings, other environmental benefits can include reduced noise and air pollution. Car-free settlements must be located where good accessibility by other modes, such as walking, cycling and public transport, is achievable. (Clearly, access must still be available for service and emergency vehicles.)

  Various types of households, such as older people, younger single people or couples and lower income groups, may find car-free settlements attractive. In addition, there are many people who need to use a car only occasionally but would like to have one available at any time. For such people, owning a car may be too much of a commitment but not having a car available at all would not be acceptable. In Germany, the concept of Stadt-Auto, a neighbourhood-based car rental scheme for residents in car-free settlements, has been developed. Residents must sign a covenant not to own a car or to park one near to the car-free settlement but, in return, are able to hire one via the Stadt-Auto scheme. The scheme's system of booking and charging results in low basic (car-ownership) costs but higher driving costs, the opposite of the usual situation. Such schemes can offer a choice of vehicle appropriate to the needs of an individual at any particular time. It has been estimated that, in German car-free settlements, one vehicle is sufficient for about 15 users. For one car-free settlement in Bremen, it was estimated that about 20% of the area of a housing estate could have been freed for purposes other than parking.

  Car-free settlements are aimed at encouraging a more rational use of cars and may be particularly appropriate for the 30 per cent of households in Britain who currently lack access to a private car. Some schemes are being developed in the UK, for example in Edinburgh, and others need to be encouraged.

ISSUES RAISED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE

The overall scale of house-building required:

  The numbers of houses required will depend on the following factors: overall population growth; the geographic distribution of population growth; household formation rates; regional imbalances in economic growth etc. Changes to these, for example as a result of social trends, will affect the overall requirements.

Are the proposals likely to significantly reduce house prices:

  This will depend on a range of issues including economic growth, real incomes etc.

The geographical distribution of new housing, including plans to concentrate development in the South East in four growth areas, Milton Keynes, the Cambridge/Stansted Corridor, Ashford and the Thames Gateway:

  Increased housing provision in these areas will necessitate significant investment in new transport infrastructure, especially for public transport. Thus it is essential that, for example, rapid progress is made with the SuperCam rapid transit scheme in Cambridge, and FastTrack in the Thames Gateway.

  A salutary example is provided by Milton Keynes. In this growth area all primary infrastructure (eg roads) have previously been prepared so developers have little to do. Land-use patterns are set by the development plan although there is now a new development framework for central Milton Keynes that sets the longer-term pattern. The intention is to increase development densities within the city centre thereby making public transport more cost effective. The city cannot have 60% of new housing on brownfield sites so the aim is for higher densities. Currently transport assessments are not required—traffic impacts were considered in advance of the provision of infrastructure. This situation will change as the city centre is developed more intensively.

  But concern as to the provision of improved public transport is growing as a result of the major scheme bid in the LTP. Whereas there was common agreement that public transport required major enhancement, at a very late stage in the process the Council agreed to submit a bid for the Enigma Bridge (Bletchley Link). This proposal was apparently "parachuted" in with little justification other than that it would enhance the region via expected regeneration benefits. As a result the desired major improvements for public transport have been deferred.

Whether the proposals will promote high quality sustainable communities whilst avoiding poorly designed urban sprawl:

  To the extent that development can and will take place on brownfield land urban sprawl may be contained. New developments must therefore be in or very near to town centres, but with appropriate restraint on car parking and good alternatives to car use in place.

Proposals for new Millennium Villages:

  Self-contained settlements can reduce travel needs and promote sustainable transport. However, it is essential that provision is made for all activities eg employment and leisure, so the villages must be of a sufficient size to make these viable. Otherwise good access by non-car modes to other centres where such activities are provided will be necessary.

The balance of new development between housing for sale and social housing:

  No comment.

The extent to which decisions relating to housing, including numbers, tenure and density, should be taken by central and local government:

  No comment.