GVA Grimley - General -

Date: 04 Sep 1998

One has to ask whether a New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone, the Government's new White Paper on integrated transport, is, in fact, a good deal at all. The rhetoric is fine, though not appreciably different from what the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, John Gummer, published for consultation. It is a relief in some ways to know that John Prescott is simply embellishing the move towards sustainable transport modes that was started some years ago. There are, however, some rather 'wholesome numbers' that could usefully have been included within the new policy framework. In short, why can't we have a transparent, integrated transport budget to achieve integrated transport?

You will not have forgotten the road building programme envisaged by the 1989 White Paper on transport, with what seems now the rather amusing title of Roads for Prosperity. Paragraph 15 of this White Paper identifies some of the numbers currently outwith the integrated budget. In relation to alternative means of transport, it states that "another option would be to impose higher taxes on road users generally to reduce demand. But road users already pay some three times the annual cost of road construction and maintenance in taxes directly related to the ownership and use of vehicles". Three times the annual cost! Very wholesome. The Government was right to cut the road building programme - but where has all the money gone?

The Labour Party Manifesto 1997 promised an integrated transport policy to fight congestion and pollution. What we are likely to see over the next few years is, instead, a series of measures designed to make travel by car more difficult and more expensive; for example, the proposed workplace-parking levy and road user charging.

The White Paper also signals changes to administrative structures, policy guidance and forward planning initiatives, but these may take a long time to filter through and impact. Specifically, the production of local transport plans by local authorities with stretched resources may provide a major cause of delay in the determination of planning applications.

Solutions to the problems posed by the White Paper, and perhaps also the delivery of integrated transport, are likely to be produced at the local level - through partnerships between local authorities and developers. This is already happening in practice. Indeed, whilst the terms of Circular 1197: Planning Obligations do not provide local authorities with the policy basis to require, say, developers to prepare the local transport plan, it is lawfully possible for developers to offer to undertake this work as part of the Section 106 package (albeit that any offer from a developer may be 'induced' by a local authority's refusal to process an application). Hence a brokered partnership to bring forward the adoption of local transport plans. It is worth noting that much of the research and analysis may already be with the private sector as part of the preparation of a major planning application (e.g. green commuter plans).

To conclude, the White Paper on integrated transport has confirmed the future direction of transportation and land use planning. Yet it is likely that the pace of delivery will be defined at the local level. In this sense, the White Paper is a potential constraint to development, but also an opportunity for enlightened participation.

Lastly, if the Government is truly committed to integrated public and private transport then the concept of hypothecation needs to be extended to an integrated transport budget. This might include not only the revenue from the road fund licence being reserved for transport initiatives, but perhaps also the licence being administered locally (and set at a level that achieves the objectives of the local transport plan). The 1989 White Paper indicates that the numbers here are really quite wholesome.

Where do I go now?: » View the latest news items » View the news archive » Subscribe to Weekly Property Newsletter » Submit news