Consultation outcome

Strategic road network and the delivery of sustainable development updates: government response to consultation

Updated 23 December 2022

Introduction

On 21 July 2022, the government invited views on updates to the Department for Transport (DfT)’s update to circular 02/2013: Strategic road network and the delivery of sustainable development (the circular).

Updates were required on how National Highways (NH) engages in plan-making and decision-taking, responding to the government’s commitments in the transport decarbonisation plan as well as planning case law.

The consultation also proposed changes to the requirements for roadside facilities, including amendments on heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) driver services and new provisions for zero emissions vehicles to reflect the stated position made in the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) to Parliament on Planning reforms for lorry parking (8th November 2021) which committed to updating the circular to reflect the importance of logistics and freight, addressing the strategic national need for more HGV parking as well as the introduction of the rapid charging fund.

The consultation was not a wholesale revision of the circular and does not reflect proposals for wider changes to the planning system set out in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. A fuller review of the circular is likely to be required in due course to reflect those wider changes, subject to decisions on how they are to be taken forward.

Overview

There were 67 responses to the draft revised circular 02/2013. Not all respondents answered every question. All responses have been analysed and given full consideration in the preparation of the final revised circular.

Table 1 provides a breakdown of the general consultation responses by type of respondent, while table 2 shows the number of responses to each individual question.

Table 1: Types of consultation respondent

Category	Number of responses
Private sector organisation	15
Public sector organisation	19
Third sector organisation	21
Academia	1
Private individual	6
Other	5
Total	67

The responses broken down by question can be seen in table 2.

Table 2: Breakdown of consultation responses by question

Question	Number of responses
Question 1: Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed in the introduction section?	47
Question 2: Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed in the new connections and capacity enhancements section?	37
Question 3: Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed in the engagement with plan-making section?	38
Question 4: Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed in the engagement with decision-taking section?	40
Question 5: Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed in the special types of development section?	17
Question 6: Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed in the roadside facilities section?	40
Question 7: Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed for annex A?	24
Question 8: When should the new requirements in annex A apply from?	13
Question 9A: Are the facilities and parking currently required by the circular sufficient or not sufficient to enable utilisation of longer and heavier vehicles?	13
Question 9B: Please explain your answer.	12
Question 10: What additional facilities and/or parking could be required to enable utilisation of longer and heavier vehicles? Please explain your answer.	10
Question 11: In what format would you like to see the circular published moving forward?	14
Question 12: Do you agree or disagree the proposed objectives meet our obligations under the Equalities Act 2010?	11

This document provides a summary of all the consultation responses received. It does not attempt to capture every point made, nor does it cover comments on aspects of policy that fall outside the scope of the consultation. This document sets out the changes the government has made in response to points raised in the consultation and where the government has not made changes, the reasons are explained.

It is important to note that the paragraph numbers in the final circular are slightly different to those in the consultation draft. This is owing to the addition and changes in the final circular.

The government has had regard to its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 during the preparation of the circular.

Question 1: Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed in the introduction section?

A total of 47 respondents responded to this question. Of those, 37 (79%) stated they agreed with the changes proposed in the introduction section, while 7respondents (15%) disagreed. A total of 3 (6%) respondents failed to offer a definitive yes / no view to the checkbox.

Substantive comments to the question included the following points:

• general support highlighting the importance of the role of National Highways in the delivery of net zero and the inclusion of its support for reducing car dependency through engagement in plan-making and decision-taking was welcomed

• general support for a move away from “predict and provide” to vision-led approaches (often referred to as vision and validate or decide and provide), with some responses constructively suggesting further wording to strengthen this to ensure that vision-led planning could encompass various approaches

• include reference to decarbonisation efforts that are taking place more widely within government, and that the strategic road network (SRN) will support a shift away from private car use

• support for referencing planning practice as something that has previously been absent from policy and guidance related to transport

• 2 out of 47 questioned the use of the terminology “significant” and “severe” as they could create confusion

• it was suggested that the introduction section should reflect that sustainable travel characteristics of a site will vary dependent on the type of development, particularly for logistics development

• a small number of respondents asked for more robust considerations of active travel, including signposting other key documents for walking, wheeling and cycling such as Local Transport Note 1/20 and Manual for Streets (MfS)

• some asked for a statement to require development proposals needing Environmental Impact Assessments to go further and seek to maximise opportunities for environmental improvements

Government response

The changes are as consulted on, with some minor changes as explained below.

The government welcomes the support for the proposed changes to the introduction section, in particular, the move away from “predict and provide” towards a vision led approach to reflect the commitment in the Transport Decarbonisation Plan.

The proposed changes consulted on were primarily intended to deliver on this commitment. The government is considering how further support can be provided for the commitment to vision-led approaches, including through new guidance as part of the local authority toolkit on transport decarbonisation as well as further opportunities to change and update wider guidance.

In relation to the request that more robust consideration is given to active travel and the need to signpost key documents, further references have been added to explicitly link the circular to other key guidance documents including the Manual for Streets and Local Transport Note 1/20. This change has been made to better integrate with existing guidance.

The government has also carefully considered the response asking for the sustainable development definition to go further by seeking to maximise opportunities for environmental improvement in and around developments. Given that the current wording reflects the National Highways Licence, the government does not consider that further clarification is necessary.

Question 2: Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed in the new connections and capacity enhancements section?

A total of 37 respondents responded to this question. Of those, 33 (89%) stated they agreed with the changes proposed in the new connections and capacity enhancements section, while three respondents (8%) disagreed. A single respondent (3%) failed to offer a definitive yes / no view to the checkbox.

Substantive comments to the question included the following points:

• the emphasis of delivering modal shift was welcomed and three referenced it as being consistent with their transport plans

• the introduction of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) was welcomed, with some suggesting that the safety risk assessment process and wider DMRB standards should be referenced

• responses were overall supportive of the position that all reasonable options to promote and increase access to sustainable modes of transport to reduce car dependency are assessed before considering options for new connections to the SRN

• support for the references to signed roadside facilities being an exception to the position of no new connections on high-speed routes

• suggestions were made for additional references to Manual for Streets (MfS)

• it was suggested that development proposals need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and this may need some exceptions to the position of “no new accesses / junctions” to the SRN

• some suggested any assessment of impact should also consider background traffic as well as specific developments and the role of the SRN in supporting economic growth

• one respondent suggested an amendment should be made to reflect the nature of roadside service locations where access for construction can only be made from the SRN

• a small number of respondents reflected on road safety audits, stating it was not for the circular to determine whether a road safety audit should be undertaken prior to planning application being submitted

Government response

The changes are as consulted on, with some minor changes as explained below.

The government has carefully considered the suggestion to include additional reference to the safety risk assessment process. The DMRB already sets out the need for a stage 1 road safety audit report to be undertaken before the submission of a planning application. This is required to demonstrate that all road user safety issues have been addressed in the design of the scheme, such that where it is only carried out at formal application stage then there will inevitably be delays in the assessment and determination of the planning application. It is correct for the circular to require that all relevant assessments are carried out at pre-application stage, in order for NH to make timely responses to formal consultations.

The government has also considered the request for exceptions to the position of “no new accesses / junctions” to the SRN on high-speed routes as this may limit future growth opportunities. However, paragraph 19 of circular 01/2022 already identifies that the principle of creating new connections on the SRN can be identified at the plan-making stage in circumstances where an assessment of the potential impacts on the SRN can be considered alongside whether such new infrastructure is essential for the delivery of strategic growth.

The government welcomes support for the changes to this section noting in particular the positive responses regarding the need to prioritise sustainable modes of transport as a first principle as well as accepting the suggestion to include a reference to MfS. Further references to the MfS (and any relevant replacement) have been carried forward throughout the document.

Question 3: Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed in the engagement with plan-making section?

A total of 38 respondents responded to this question. Of those, 33 (87%) stated they were in agreement with the changes proposed in the plan-making section, while 4 respondents (10%) disagreed. A single respondent (3%) failed to offer a definitive yes / no view.

Substantive comments to the question included the following points:

• it was mentioned that plan-making must not compromise the SRN’s prime function to enable the long-distance movement of people and goods and that local plans and spatial development strategies explore all reasonable options to reduce reliance on the SRN

• many welcomed that planned improvements to the SRN must include the development of safe and integrated networks for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders where appropriate

• some encouraged more active wording for sustainable transport modes and more specific reference to the SRN in supporting the delivery of sustainable transportation and active travel should be made

• the obligation to provide appropriate, timely and substantive responses in the plan-making process was welcomed.

• one respondent suggested the wording should change to consider the needs of road freight alongside walking and cycling considerations for transport schemes

• several responses referred to the Road Investment Strategy (RIS). Respondents suggested that there was a need to clarify type of development that would qualify for RIS funding

• some raised concerns over the ability of National Highways to put this section into practice while others questioned the policy alignment between the circular and the NPPF

Government response

The government welcomes the overall support for changes to the plan-making section. It is considered that the wording of the circular is sufficiently strong to ensure sustainable transport options are assessed at the earliest stages in plan-making to facilitate and support mode shift away from the private car. The government further recognise that the practical implementation of the changes in the circular is critical to achieve its desired outcomes. Accordingly, the government will work in close collaboration with National Highways to ensure the objectives of the circular are met.

With regard to the request made by some responses for clarification around the RIS, it is not for the circular to detail funding requirements for schemes.

The government is also satisfied that the wording in this section is aligned to the NPPF. The circular underlines the NPPF’s expectations for plan-making and evidence base and provides direction on how National Highways is expected to follow these policies.

Question 4: Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed in the engagement with decision-taking section?

A total of 40 respondents answered yes/no to this question. Of those, 24 (60%) said they did agree with the changes proposed in the engagement with decision-taking section, 15 (37%) said they did not. A single respondent (3%) failed to offer a definitive yes / no view.

Substantive comments to the question included the following points:

• most are in general agreement with this section and welcome the clarifications and elimination of inconsistencies within the current circular

• for transport assessments the move to a vision-led approach is welcomed by many as well as the early engagement in the decision-making process

• many highlighted inconsistencies with the terminology used in the NPPF, such as the “high accessibility” requirement or definition of “severe”

• the use of “sensitivity tests” in this section have been questioned as this can result in assessments of higher trip rates

• a small number of respondents requested greater clarification in relation to how transport assessments need to be approached to ensure a move away from “predict and provide”. Some also mentioned that it was important that major development and key infrastructure projects are not disincentivised as a result of a move to a vision-led approach

• one respondent commented that there does not appear to be any differentiation in terms of how a transport assessment for allocated sites and speculative development would be considered

• while the vast majority support the requirement for new developments with on street or communal parking to require electric vehicle (EV) charging equipment, it has been suggested not to specify high-power charging or any other specific type of equipment as many different solutions are available

Government response

The government welcomes the support for changes to this section of the circular. The majority of respondents agreed the updates provide clarity and eliminates inconsistencies within the current circular.

The government has carefully considered the concerns over “sensitivity tests” and made some minor revisions to confirm that assumptions underpinning projected levels of traffic should be clearly stated. As such, sensitivity tests may not always be required, but these can be a necessary means to assess the potential impacts on the SRN resulting from changes to the core assumptions.

The government agrees that the proposed requirements to account for neighbouring developments as set out in the consultation version of the circular had a disproportionate impact on developments that have already been allocated within a Local Plan. As a result, it has been clarified that where development proposals are consistent with an up-to-date plan or strategy (or where there is no up-to-date plan or strategy), the opening year assessment for a new development should only have regard to other developments where these have been consented or allocated and where there is a reasonable degree of certainty will proceed within the next 3 years.

The government has made some minor amendments to text to make the linkages to the National Planning Policy Framework clearer.

Question 5: Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed in the special types of development section?

A total of 17 respondents answered yes/no to this question. Of those, 9 (53%) said they did agree with the changes proposed in the special types of development section, three (18%) said they did not. Five respondents (29%) failed to offer a definitive yes / no view.

Substantive comments to the question included the following points:

• overall, this section was strongly supported by most respondents given they are general updates

• suggestions were made for further clarifications to include the assessment of the intensity of potential solar reflection / glare visible from the SRN

Government response

The government welcomes the overall supportive responses to this section. Regarding the concerns on the assessment requirements for solar reflection and glare, this will be determined on a case-by-case basis reflecting the scale of development and its location in relation to the SRN.

Question 6: Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed in the roadside facilities section?

A total of 40 respondents answered yes/no to this question. Of those, 24 (60%) said they agreed with the changes proposed in the introduction section, 15 (37%) said they did not. A single respondent (3%) failed to offer a definitive yes / no view.

Substantive comments to the question included the following points:

• respondents who agreed with the changes in this section commented that they were supportive of policy changes to increase HGV driver facilities and the steps taken to ensure that closed facilities are to be retained until it can be determined that they are no longer needed

• respondents questioned whether the new circular would apply to sites with planning applications pending decisions, and expressed concerns that if it did, it would make consent for many of these sites difficult to achieve

• respondents were supportive of NH taking a bigger role in providing roadside facilities. However, many raised concerns about how and when NH will identify need, citing the long gaps between the Department’s Lorry Parking Survey; and some appeared unsure as to who would be responsible for identifying need

• some respondents suggested additional facilities should be required at MSAs including enhanced security monitoring equipment as well as secure and dedicated HGV facility blocks adjacent to HGV parking provision

• one respondent felt the current wording introduced a grey area as to whether a 28-mile gap or 14-mile gap should be applied where HGV facilities are provided

• 8 respondents raised strong concerns about the need for cash payments at EV chargepoints, noting that EV chargepoints mostly require payment either through an app or via a debit/credit card

• some respondents also questioned if facilities that only serve EVs (electric forecourts) can be signed from the SRN

• some respondents raised concerns about environmental impacts of reducing the distance between HGV driver facilities

Government response

Paragraph 81 of circular 01/2022 establishes that in areas where there is an identified need for greater HGV parking, National Highways will work with relevant local planning authorities to ensure that local plan allocations and planning application decisions address the shortage. Table 2 of the circular also establishes that twice as many HGV spaces shall be provided at motorway service areas in these locations than the current minimum provision. Following the publication of Part 2 of the National Survey for Lorry Parking early next year, National Highways will update its 2019 Lorry Parking Demand Assessment (LPDA) study to formally identify those areas of high demand. Where these findings are agreed by the Department for Transport, the higher threshold for HGV parking at motorway service areas will apply for applications submitted after the date of the LPDA’s publication. Timeframes for subsequent updates to the LPDA will be agreed with the Department for Transport.

The government does not agree HGV drivers necessarily need their own facility blocks separate from the rest of an MSA. The government believes that developers are in the best position to decide on the need for separate HGV driver facilities within their sites based on site specific HGV customer feedback, overall HGV customer numbers and site spatial constraints. Similarly, the government believes MSA operators are best placed to determine appropriate security arrangements at their sites on a dynamic basis in response to actual and perceived security risks.

After further consideration, the government agrees with the objections raised by respondents about the need for cash payments for EV charging and have removed this requirement from the circular.

Regarding the concerns about signing for EV only facilities, it is recognised there are a number of emerging issues as we transition to zero emissions vehicles. The government will consider how to accommodate these changes in a future iteration of the circular.

Through workshops held with key stakeholders during the consultation period, the government became aware of, and carefully considered, an ask for clarification on whether EV charging spaces are calculated as part of the overall parking provision for a MSA. As a result, and for the avoidance of doubt, a minor amendment was added to clarify that the provision of spaces for electric vehicle charging will contribute to the overall parking numbers on site.

Question 7: Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed for annex A?

A total of 24 respondents answered yes/no to this question. Of those, 17 (71%) said they did agree with the changes proposed in the Annex A: roadside facilities table section, 2 (8%) said they did not. Five respondents (21%) failed to offer a definitive yes / no view.

Substantive comments to the question included the following points:

• most respondents were supportive of the changes proposed to the requirements for signage from the SRN in table 1

• respondents were supportive of the requirement for there to be one changing place and one accessible toilet at every MSA, although a small number of respondents raised concerns about whether this would be sufficient

• a small number of respondents objected to the requirement to provide cooked hot food 24/7

Government response

The government carefully considered the concerns raised about the number of accessible and changing place facilities.

The proposals in the circular reflect the commitment and ambitions within the 2018 Inclusive Transport Strategy to deliver a rapid step-change in the availability of changing places facilities across the motorway network, allowing the majority of motorway service areas to have them in place by the early 2020s. It is also expected that roadside services operators will comply with the relevant parts of building regulations in relation to the provision of an adequate number of accessible and changing places toilets.

The government also considered the concerns about the change to cooked hot food to be provided during opening hours. The government is aware that for HGV drivers, the food options at MSAs late at night are a concern for them as the options are more limited. We consider it is necessary to drive up standards for HGV drivers to help the industry tackle recruitment and retention difficulties, and that it is proportionate to enhance the food offering at MSAs by requiring food to be cooked rather than simply heated. For this reason, the proposed change will be kept.

Question 8: When should the new requirements in annex A apply from?

A total of 13 responses were received for this question.

Substantive comments to the question included the following point:

• 8 respondents stated that the requirements should apply as soon as the circular is finalised with a reasonable transition period for operators to apply the requirements to their sites

Government response

The government agrees that the requirements should apply once circular 01/2022 is published. However, National Highways will apply any new policy positions on a proportionate basis where transport assessment and Local Plan work is already at an advanced stage.

Question 9A: Are the facilities and parking currently required by the circular sufficient or not sufficient to enable utilisation of longer and heavier vehicles?

A total of 35 answers by 15 respondents were received for questions 9A, 9B and 10 and most provided a single response. Therefore, government has grouped these questions together. The government response can be found at question 10.

Question 9B: Please explain your answer.

A total of 35 answers by 15 respondents were received for questions 9A, 9B and 10 and most provided a single response. Therefore, government has grouped these questions together. The government response can be found at question 10.

Question 10: What additional facilities and/or parking could be required to enable utilisation of longer and heavier vehicles? Please explain your answer

A total of 35 responses were received by 15 respondents to this question and questions 9A and 9B, which are all being addressed under this question.

Substantive comments to the questions included the following points:

• a small number of respondents note current parking levels and facilities are not sufficient.

• key issues raised by respondents were around the amount of land that would be needed to accommodate longer, heavier vehicles and the costs that would result from this.

• one respondent noted access in and out of parking facilities would need to be long and wide enough to allow turns and safe access in and out of parking locations. They also noted equipment to uncouple trailers and safely park them for longer stays within parking locations may be required

• many respondents also flagged concerns about increasing the use of heavier and longer vehicles.

Government response

The government does not consider it is necessary to make any changes to the circular to accommodate more longer and heavier vehicles at this time given the low level of utilisation of these vehicles and the corresponding low demand for specific parking and other facilities for these vehicles. The government will keep the level of utilisation of these vehicles and the corresponding need for changes to facilities to accommodate them under review.

Question 11: In what format would you like to see the circular published moving forward?

Out of the 14 responses to this question, the majority suggested a HTML web based and PDF format while following the requirements for accessibility.

Government response

The government will publish the circular in HTML web-based format. Following careful consideration, providing both a PDF and HTML version would cause significant maintenance issues that would not outweigh its benefits. Therefore, the circular will be published in HTML.

HTML documents on GOV.UK are accessible by default and meet our legal obligations under the accessibility regulations.

Question 12: Do you agree or disagree the proposed objectives meet our obligations under the Equalities Act 2010?

• out of the 11 responses to this question, most agreed and welcomed the inclusive language. Others declared not to be qualified to answer this question.

• one respondent suggested further changes could be made to the requirements to provide EV charging to ensure it does not obstruct the pavement.

• a respondent also invited DfT to consider whether shower and washing facilities in Table 1 of Annex A meets the needs of all groups with protected characteristics.

• another respondent suggested that while it is positive to see the requirement for 1 changing places toilet and 1 accessible toilet, this might be too low with increasing levels of disability in society.

Government response

The government has considered equalities impacts as part of its work to update the circular.

The government believes the minimum level of facility provision in table 1 of Annex A is sufficient to meet the needs of all groups that use roadside facilities as set out in the response to question 7. As demand for certain facilities increases in line with changes to the population, the government expects roadside facility operators to increase their level of provision.