Exeter City Council is pulling together a Local Plan (see here). This is “a blueprint for the future of the city”, and sets the strategic direction for how and where development will happen in the city. The policies underpinning the Local Plan will shape how safe and accessible the city is for people cycling and walking. The Campaign has actively engaged in the consultation of this Plan
Our Response
We Welcome:
There is much to be commended in this Exeter Plan.
We strongly welcome that the plan has been explicitly positioned to help deliver the net zero goal and
builds on the existing strategies of Exeter Vision 2040 and Liveable Exeter. We support the strategy to
build a healthy and active city.
We support the sharper focus on brownfield,
city-centre development which is dense, designed to
be low-car and enable residents to easily access
services by foot or bicycle.
We welcome the commitment to reduce the need to
travel and the discouragement of large, out-of-town
retail developments. We support the continued
commitment to enabling the city to become active
and to build inclusive and connected neighbourhoods.
We are particularly encouraged to see the
commitment to ensuring:
- the “fullest possible contribution” to mitigating and adapting to climate change
- new developments making connections to the active travel network
- walking and cycling to become the “most convenient” option for local trips
- we develop “people-friendly, human-scaled streets and junctions which are a joy to walk and cycle”
- road space will be reallocated to maximise active and public travel
- cycle storage / parking will be maximised
- the implementation of “high quality infrastructure”
- active and public travel will be prioritised over traditional highway improvements
- developments will be “designed at the outset to prioritise walking, cycling and scooting”
See more info in our full response
Concerns on each section
A – Giving LCWIP a strong status as a mandated planning document as advised by central government
The Local Plan states that the City Council will support a comprehensive active travel network and references the Exeter LCWIP. It also states that the City Council will work with other councils and bodies to ensure the LCWIP and other strategies “are consistent”. Furthermore, the Exeter Plan commits to “early phases of [major] development are as close as possible to existing active travel routes and make walking and cycling improvements”
To achieve these aspirations the Exeter Plan needs to mandate that the LCWIP is given a strong status as a planning document.
We are disappointed therefore that the Exeter Plan stops short of following central government guidance in making the LCWIP a planning SPD (or equivalent). The Local Plan would benefit from giving this clarity of policy so that Developers take the LCWIP seriously in their planning applications
Proposal
Give the LCWIP SPD (or equivalent) status so that it can be meaningfully leveraged when considering Developer Planning Applications.
B – Working with neighbouring districts.
The Local Plan commits to “working with our partners at East Devon, Mid Devon and Teignbridge District Councils and Devon County Council to prepare a jointstrategy for the wider area”.
The plan would be improved by a stronger commitment to when this joint strategy will be delivered. We are concerned that our neighbouring District Councils’ Local Plans are not fully aligned with Exeter’s Local Plan to minimise inducing additional private car use. These councils are likely to continue building on their boundary with Exeter and thereby induce additional car journeys, as evidenced by the recent decision by East Devon District Council for a new town south of Exeter airport.
Furthermore, the “coordinated transport strategy” (8.2) for the whole Exeter catchment area is an imperative to enable the strategy underpinning the Exeter Plan.
Proposal
Commit to a timetable for the development of joint planning and transport strategies with neighbouring councils and seek agreements with these councils not to
undermine each others’ core strategies.
C – Master design policy for cycling infrastructure:
There is now a national design standard for cycle infrastructure (LTN 1/20). However, the Exeter Plan makes only one reference to LTN 1/20 (para 8.16) and appears to reference older transport policies which have different/lower design standards (e.g. 5.53 stipulates “the Sustainable Transport SPD provides the standards used to determine an appropriate level of car and cycle parking”).
Proposal
Make more explicit that the LTN 1/20 design standard for cycle infrastructure is the master design standard for developments in Exeter and supersedes existing transport policies where there is a conflict.
Commit to a timetable for updating existing transport policies (such as those
contained in the 2012 ‘Sustainable Transport Supplementary Planning Document’) so
they remain relevant and aligned with modern standards and council strategies.
As an example of best practice the current draft Oxford local plan notes that within locations accessible by public transport / active travel planning permission is to be granted only to low car schemes, with a maximum of 1 car parking space per house elsewhere.
D – Ransom strips
Ransom strips have blighted many recent developments in the city, inhibiting active travel. Ransom strips undermine much of what the Exeter Plan is seeking to achieve.
Proposal
Add a policy to the Exeter Plan making it clear that planning applications which contain (or imply) a ransom strip at the edge of a development, which could block future active travel connections, will not be given planning consent.
E – How will existing neighbourhoods be improved by the Exeter
This Exeter Plan makes no explicit reference to how existing residential neighbourhoods will be improved. The aspirations for building low-car neighbourhoods where active travel is safe and enabled needs to be extended to existing residential areas so that walking or cycling becomes
the most convenient travel mode. As such, the Exeter Plan needs to commit to work with Devon County Council to create more ‘liveable neighbourhoods’ (such as are currently being trialled in
Heavitree) across the city, school streets and bike hangers.
Proposal
Improve the Exeter Plan by outlining how existing residential neighbourhoods will be improved. Outline how funding streams for example from developer contributions and grants can enable these changes. Commit to supporting
further measures to enable residents in existing neighbourhoods to more safely access local services by foot, scooter or bike with liveable neighbourhoods, school streets and bike hangers.
F – Children
When referring to play areas the Exeter Plan states that “We want our children to be active in a safe environment” (14.27). This is good. However, it doesn’t explicitly state that we want the
whole of our built environment (and highways) to be safe enough for children to live and move independently and safely. When they were last asked, the children of Exeter responded that the
dominance of cars was a major concern for them.
Proposal
Make explicit in the Exeter Plan that to achieve the strategic goal of higher
activity levels for all, the city will seek to ensure all new and existing developments (and support DCC in ensuring that highways) are made safe enough for children to move independently in the city. This should be assessed using the Healthy Streets indicators (https://www.healthystreets.com/what-is-healthy-streets)
G – Meaningful targets for active travel:
We would again challenge how meaningful is the ambition underpinning the goal of getting to 50% of intra-city journeys by foot or bicycle (para 8.5). It is good to have ambitious targets, but we are concerned that this target doesn’t address the nearly 29000 cars commuting into the city every day (2011 census figures) from outside Exeter. We are also uncertain how the councils will be able to measure progress in achieving this target.
Proposal
Make clear which types of journey are included in this target, how it will be
assessed and what the current level is.
H – Removing barriers
We welcome the stated intention (8.15) to remove barriers to active travel. With the wording used in 8.15 (“improvements will be needed…”) it is not clear what actual actions are proposed and
how these will be delivered.
Proposal
Clarify the proposed actions (and actors) that will be undertaken to “remove significant barriers”.
I – Prioritising active travel: making it a reality:
There are many good references to prioritising active travel. We welcome this. However, there are occasional references that imply active travel won’t be prioritised but will instead be ‘worked around’ the real priority of cars. For example, para 13.10, suggests that active travel will be prioritised but “away from main traffic routes”. Walking and cycling away from car-routes is good, but should not be at the expense of building direct safe walking and cycling routes along the main routes that people need to travel. Cycling is real transport and is ‘traffic’ too. For example, main traffic routes like the Topsham Road and Pinhoe Road are he most direct, flattest (and widest) roads which would be a chosen route for people cycling. Both ECC and DCC should not shy from building safe active travel into these routes.
Proposal
Improve the Exeter Plan by making clear that safe active travel will be
considered on main ’traffic’ routes in Exeter.
J – The importance of Public Transport
To achieve the reduction of the dominance of private vehicles and achieve modal shift, public transport plays a vital role. Many journeys by public transport also include active travel and this should be facilitated, e.g. by provision of cycle parking and cycle hire. We support the aspiration to have “a reliable, low-carbon, frequent and attractive…public transport in the city” (STC 1d) however more specific actions are needed to describe how ECC will work with DCC to improve a service which has reduced in frequency by 41% since 2010
Proposal
Commit to working with Devon County Council to develop a plan for improved public transport, including integration with active travel.
K – Prioritising active travel routes in new development
New housing developments create the opportunity to shape and change travel habits of new residents. However, this opportunity is often eroded by active travel routes and connections being developed after a new development has been built and occupied. Similarly, the delay in adoption of the highways by DCC in new developments means that poor travel and parking habits become ingrained, making it harder to subsequently achieve modal shift to active and public transport.
The Local Plan should explicitly support a default ban on pavement parking.
Proposal
Create an expectation in the Exeter Plan that active travel routes will be
built and opened before occupation of residences in new developments.
Set an expectation that highways in new housing developments will be quickly adopted by DCC and so prevent pavement parking and harmful travel habits.
Create a policy that states a default ban on pavement parking in new developments.
L – Home-delivery parking:
New housing developments should assume and make provision for last-mile deliveries to be made by electric cargo bike or small electric
vans.
Incentives or licensing should encourage electric last-mile delivery and disincentivise multiple diesel-based deliveries.
Allocated parking for home-delivery vans should be considered as part of new housing developments so that pavement parking from delivery vans can be discouraged.
Proposal
Consider licensing for home deliveries in the city which incentivises no/low
carbon delivery vehicles.
Develop a policy to encourage Developers to make space for parking for home delivery vans in new developments.
M – Car accessed retail
Policy HS1 makes a strong case for discouraging out of town retail on the basis of negatively affecting the viability and vitality of existing centres. This could be further strengthened by including additional requirements on accessibility by active and public transport and refusing developments which will be primarily accessed by private car.
Proposal
develop a policy to ensure accessibility for active and public transport is part of any retail development. Consider a policy that assumes new retail parks will not primarily be accessed by private car.
N – Cycle parking
Policy STC3 notes ‘When provided centrally within a development, parking for active travel must be located in easily accessible locations with natural surveillance and high quality access to
active travel routes.’ These requirements should apply to all active travel parking, not just those located centrally.
Proposal
Amend wording of STC3 to make clear that requirements for active travel
parking apply universally.