Can Planning Policy be effective in changing travel behaviour?

The Occasion

The UK Government is aiming to unleash a new wave of housebuilding and development over the next few years. At the same time, there is awareness that new development needs to be sustainable in terms of the travel it will generate. Can planning policy ever be effective in changing travel behaviour and, if so, what do policy makers need to do to ensure that new developments encourage sustainable journeys?

To debate this crucial topic, the ITC was delighted to welcome a distinguished panel of experts at our digital Winter Discussion Event held on 6th March 2025. The discussion was chaired by ITC Chairman Terry Hill CBE, and the expert panel included: Roger Madelin CBE, Joint Head of Canada Water, British Land; Sue Percy CBE, Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transport (CIHT); and Professor David Banister, Emeritus Professor at the University of Oxford.

Summary

Can planning policy be effective in changing travel behaviour? Key issues from the panellists:

  • David Banister argued that planning policy should be better attuned to local needs. He noted that 30 years had passed since the implementation of PPG13 guidance in UK planning policy which had been designed to improve the integration of transport and planning. More recently, he observed that the avoid-shift-improve paradigm had become increasingly influential in informing planning and transport policy. However, he observed that policy approaches have been focused most on the shift towards more sustainable modes such as active travel and public transport, and the improve arising from policies to decarbonise motorised private travel. As a result, he called for planners and policymakers to give more priority to the avoid element of the paradigm. This would involve creating planning principles and interventions that increased physical, spatial, and digital proximity and limited the need to travel to access destinations and opportunities. He concluded by arguing that policies targeting more equitable and sustainable travel behaviour should be vision-led, integrated with planning and housing, and sensitive to local needs.
  • Sue Percy discussed pathways towards integrated planning and transport policy approaches. She proposed that reform to the planning system was a necessary prerequisite to meet the Government’s multiple objectives of carbon reduction, improved quality of life, housing targets, and sustainability ambitions. She argued that effective planning should prioritise place-based solutions, promote and support the local availability of services, and provide appropriate alternatives to private car use. However, barriers existed to the improvement of planning approaches, she noted, including persistent ‘predict and provide’ approaches to policymaking, delayed considerations of wider transport needs, poor site allocation for development, housing needs assessments that were too rigid, and a lack of skills. Drawing on recent CIHT research, she called for reform through vision-led planning, delivery, and management of new housing developments.
  • Roger Madelin highlighted examples from the private sector where land developments had been effective in integrating planning and transport. He drew from his experience in developing Brindley Place in Birmingham and King’s Cross in London to show that good transport facilities made a major difference in how people moved around a neighbourhood. Location was crucial, he argued, in terms of how people accessed a development site, since a project close to the core of a major city presented different challenges from one in a suburban or small town. Understanding local needs and the wider facilities in a neighbourhood was crucial to successful transport planning. He also discussed practical challenges that faced developers, including pre-existing parking lease agreements and ways of balancing local movement with wider accessibility into an area.

The expert panel included Prof David Banister (L), Sue Percy CBE (centre) and Roger Madelin CBE (R)

 

Key themes raised in the Q&A discussion:

  1. At what level of governance is planning policy best formulated? One issue raised by attendees was the importance of local decision making when determining planning policy. This would help to address the wide disparities in need and spatial context across the country. The importance of regional autonomy was noted in the requirement for Combined Authorities to develop Spatial Development Strategies to help better deliver housing and transport. Some warned that there existed a danger that pressure for more housebuilding would result in developments in suboptimal greenfield locations with poor transport provision.
  2. Is it possible to integrate transport and planning effectively? Some attendees pointed out that the ambition to integrate planning and transport better had been around for decades but made little progress. Others countered by noting that policies such as PPG13 had been at least in part successful, since the numbers of car-dependent households had fallen by 10% since it was implemented. It was observed that planning policy often treated transport as a simple measure of accessibility (distance or time). Better models are needed to integrate the complexity of transport supply and of place if truly integrated planning is to be achieved. Some felt optimistic about the current direction of planning policy, including increased awareness of its wider interplay with transport, social aims, and environment responsibility. The benefits of a systems-based approach that considered the holistic relations between land, housing, transport, and people, was also proposed.
  3. Should planning policy aim to restrict travel? A debate arose about whether planning policy should aim to reduce or restrict travel. Some pointed to the inherent well-being benefits of travel identified in the ITC’s Why Travel? book, while others observed that some degree of travel was necessary for many workers. Attendees noted that there were benefits that could arise from encouraging more locally-focused rather than long-distance travel, particularly in terms of regenerating local economies. Professor Banister explained that the objective of focusing on an ‘avoid’ travel paradigm should not be to limit all mobility, but rather to provide better accessibility at a local scale that prevented unnecessary travel.
  4. How can good transport provision be enabled at an early stage in development? It was observed that good transport provision is necessary at an early stage in a development, in order to encourage new residents moving into the area to use public transport. However, at this early stage transport operations such as bus services often were not financially viable. Overcoming this problem was a challenge, but some pointed to the possibilities of building in micro-mobility and demand-responsive travel options at the start of a development in order to prevent residents getting locked into car use.
  5. The importance of public acceptability and community engagement in shaping policy. A number of attendees pointed out it was important that policies enjoy a strong degree of public acceptability. This was particularly the case given the strong attachment of the public to the freedom that arises from car ownership, and how much people dislike restrictions on their travel. Others suggested that residents are more likely to shift their travel behaviours when developers provide them with convenient, cost-effective, comfortable, and accessible options. Effective communication and engagement with the public, including demonstrating the benefits of sustainable travel for their health and wellbeing, were deemed necessary.