Transport Planning in Large Scale Housing Developments David Knight
Large Scale Housing Developments No longer creating great urban spaces in the UK (Hall 2014) Transport Planning Transport planning processes will need to be turned on their head in the move towards low-carbon communities and sustainable transport systems TCPA/DCLG (2008) a changing world with a sustainability imperative requires transport planning to change with it Hutton (2013) Are developments being built in the right place?; Is the Transport Planning process appropriate to help deliver sustainable objectives?; How do the actors and coalitions involved in the planning process influence the transport planning outcome?; How can accessibility planning be improved?
Overall Research Aim To investigate transport planning practices in large scale major residential developments in England with a view to improving transport planning processes practices and outcomes.
Research Objectives i. To identify the factors affecting transport planning in large scale residential developments; ii. To examine the extent of large scale major residential development in England and to determine whether housing is being proposed and built in broadly the right place in terms of transport accessibility. iii. To compare and contrast the sustainable transport outcomes of large scale major residential developments in a selection of cities/towns in England; iv. To analyse the opinions, beliefs and attitudes of key actors and coalitions in the planning process in regard to delivering sustainable transport objectives in large scale major residential development; and v. To synthesise findings and develop recommendations for policy makers and practitioners so as to improve the planning and implementation of new residential development.
Understanding LSMRDs Identified available datasets Built spreadsheet of relevant data Analysed data using descriptive statistics and linear regression
Data Collection In England in 2013, there were 336 local planning authorities made up of: 32 London boroughs; 36 metropolitan borough councils; 201 non-metropolitan district councils; 55 unitary councils; 10 National Parks; City of London Corporation; and Council of the Isles of Scilly. Large Scale Major Residential Developments = 200+ dwellings In 245 LPAs there were LSMRD decisions, in 91 there were no decisions 126 LSMRDs identified from 61 LPAs Location No. Location Name Number of LPAs % No. Decisions % 1 Inner London 11 4.49% 60 6.10% 3 2 Outer London 12 4.90% 64 6.51% 3 3 Metropolitan 32 13.06% 140 14.24% 8 25% of LPAs 4 Urban 70 28.57% 289 29.40% 18 5 Rural 120 48.98% 430 43.74% 30 Total 245 100.00% 983 100.00% 61
Locations of LSMRDs Reviewed
Decision Notice Sources of Information Transport Assessment Travel Plan S106 Agreement Environmental Statement 51% do not have one How Travel Plan secured Number Percentage Unknown 46 42.0 Condition 21 18.8 Section 106 Agreement 34 30.4 Not Secured 10 8.9
Findings: the development proposals Three quarters of the planning applications made in outline; Two thirds approved; Time taken for LPA to make a decision from one month to 9 years 50% of decisions within 9 months; 90% within 2 years; 60% of the proposals on greenfield sites; Developments varied from 200 dwellings to 3000 dwellings; The 126 developments represented 70,900 dwellings; 40% between 200 and 300 dwellings
LSMRD categories and characteristics Category A B C D E Range (dwellings) 200-249 250-299 300-425 426-749 750+ Brownfield (% developments) 44 36 35 50 24 Average Density (dwellings/hectare) 69 46 78 143 270 Mixed Use (% developments) 24 36 45 88 96 Employment Uses (% developments) 13 18 17 42 65 Education Uses (% developments) 8 5 6 29 69 Retail Uses (% developments) 16 32 21 54 96 Health Uses (% developments) 8 5 14 8 30 Leisure Uses (% developments) 4 9 17 33 54 Highway Accesses 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.8 (average number) Average Permeability (no.pedestrian/cycle 3.3 3.5 4.2 2.4 6.7 accesses) Filtered Permeability (% developments) 8 9 4 0 8 Bus Access (% developments) 8 14 41 50 80
LSMRD Location Distance Threshold Percentage Within 2km of the Strategic Road Network 45% Within 400m of main local transit corridor 38% Within 2km of a rail station 49% Within 1km of National Cycle Network 61% One half of the developments were urban extensions; A third were urban infill; Only two cases of new settlements; 60% of LSMRDs were mixed use developments; Two thirds of the LSMRDs were in: Mega City Region of London; or Southern England Rural periphery; 60% met the TRICS location criteria of Edge of Town.
Development Densities Higher densities on brownfield sites 30-40 dph typical on greenfield
Transport Improvements 50% of the developments required junction capacity improvements New or improved bus services were proposed in over 40% of cases Cycle improvements were proposed in 40% of cases 60% proposing pedestrian improvements. The average LSMRD made a transport contribution of approximately 1M two thirds were highway related with the remainder being largely public transport related Well under 10% went to walking and cycling schemes
The role of Accessibility Planning The Social Exclusion Unit defines accessibility as: the ease with which people can access goods and services ; and by asking can people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ease? Accessibility is a product of mobility and proximity (Cox 2010); The most important determinants of accessibility are where the facilities and services are located (Banister 2002). The aim of sustainable accessibility is to re-orient the existing urban structure by focussing development at places with high accessibility in order to support an effective public and private transport system (Curtis 2008) The best way to predict the future is to shape it (Halden 2014) The next slide explains how accessibility was measured
Element Criteria Scoring Max Score Public 3 Transport Walking Walk distance to rail station Within 200m = 3, Within 400m =2, Within 800m =1, Beyond 800m =0 Car/cycle distance to rail station Within 2km = 2, Within 4km = 1, Beyond 4km = 0 Walk to bus stops Within 400m = 3, Within 700m =1, Distance to Main Local Transit Corridor (Bus, Tram, Underground with service frequency of 20mins or greater) Distance to Employment (Commuting/School) Beyond 700m = 0 Within 400m = 3, Within 800m, = 1 Beyond 800m = 0 Distance in m. Desirable (500m) = 3, Acceptable (1000m) =2, Maximum (2000m) =1, Beyond maximum =0 Distance to Education (Commuting/School) Distance in m. Desirable (500m) = 3, Acceptable (1000m) =2, Maximum (2000m) =1, Beyond maximum =0 Distance to Retail (Elsewhere) Distance in m. Desirable (400m) = 3, Acceptable (800m) =2, Maximum (1200m)=1, Beyond maximum =0 Distance to Health (Elsewhere) Distance in m. Desirable (400m)= 3, Acceptable (800m) =2, Maximum (1200m) =1, Beyond maximum =0 Distance to Leisure (Elsewhere) Distance in m. Desirable (400m) = 3, Acceptable (800m) =2, Maximum (1200m) =1, Beyond maximum =0 Cycling Distance to National Cycling Network (NCN) Within 400m = 2, Within 2km = 1, Total Score 28 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
Findings: Accessibility Index Simple to use Consistency between users Removes differing viewpoints More that half of LSMRDs have low accessibility In other words, they are in the wrong place!! Accessibility level Score Range No. of LSMRDs Percentage Very High 22 to 28 16 12.7% High 15 to 21 40 31.7% Low 8 to 14 64 50.8% Very Low 1 to 7 6 4.8%
Accessibility Index Model Inputs Independent Variable Input Comments Transport Infrastructure Density Settlement Size Population of nearest settlement City town or village as at 2011 Census Location (TRICS Criteria) Type of Development % 0d.p. Area of Road + Rail + Path/ Land Area in LPA (000 m 2 ) H240305 1617 Geo Policy Tables by Region Town Centre = 6 Edge of Town Centre = 5 Neighbourhood Centre =4 Suburban = 3 Edge of Town = 2 Free Standing = 1 4= Urban Infill 3 = Urban Extension 2 = Village Extension 1 = New Settlement Land Brownfield =2 Both =1 Greenfield = 0 Standard TRICS (National Trip Generation Database) criteria (Ref TRICS Good Practice Guide 2014) Reference development types referred to in Pacione (2004) Existing land use of site Number of Dwellings e.g. 318 (>200) Number of dwellings proposed Density Dwellings/hectare 1.d.p. e.g. 30.5 Density of Residential Area (is developed land excludes open space, other uses etc) Mixed Use 0= No additional uses 1=one additional use 2= two additional uses 3= three additional uses 4= four additional uses 5= five additional uses Mixed use development with one or more other land uses (Employment, Education, Retail, Health, Leisure)
Recommendations for Practice 1. Allocation of large scale housing sites should: a. Be accessibility-led, leading to the delivery of more sustainable developments in transport terms. b. Achieve at least a score of 19 out of 28 given model predictability to ensure high level of accessibility. 2. Transport Assessments should use the Index to: a. Confirm a high level of accessibility is delivered in the proposed development. b. Assess the existing site characteristics, and test proposed development scenarios and select optimum solution.
Concluding statement There is now an evidenced methodology for Accessibility Assessment that can be applied to the allocation of Large Housing Sites in a LPA Local Plan and through the Transport Assessment process to ensure highly accessible sustainable developments can be delivered. This tool is designed to be utilised by decision makers and professionals.
Future Work Case studies Interviews with Stakeholders Identify how transport planning policy and guidance should evolve in the future to improve transport sustainability; Identify how professional practice should evolve in the future Suggest potential modifications to Transport Assessment Methodology that addresses weaknesses in achieving transport sustainability
Thank you for Listening I welcome your feedback David Knight BEng(Hon) TPP FCILT MCIHT Professional Transport Planner davidknight@clarkebond.com d.knight@lboro.ac.uk Supervisors: Professor Marcus Enoch Dr Andrew Timmis