Sustainable Transport and Active Travel
Context
Transport is changing nationally and locally. Reducing car dependency is essential for improving air quality, reducing congestion, supporting healthier lifestyles and helping meet the UK’s target of net‑zero carbon emissions by 2050. Tamworth’s compact size, existing bus and rail services, and extensive walking and cycling corridors mean the town is well‑placed to make sustainable travel the natural choice for everyday trips.
Proposed Approach
We propose a flexible, proactive approach focused on making sustainable travel the easiest option. New development should integrate walking, cycling and public transport from the outset, reducing the need to drive for short local journeys.
This approach will be supported by a series of polcies as set out below.
Phases
Review and feedback
Consultation feedback
Having gathered feedback from members of the public, stakeholders and those working within the relevant industries, below is a summarised report of our findings.
Do you agree with our proposed approach to sustainable transport and active travel?
Please explain your answer including any changes you would like to see to the approach.
No comments were left in relation to this question.
Do you have any comments to make on the strategic policy direction?
Strategic Policy Direction 5: Sustainable Transport and Active Travel
The response emphasised that new development should not just provide cycle parking or internal paths, but must also connect properly into existing safe walking and cycling routes. A clear theme is that off-site links are often missing, indirect or unsafe, which undermines on-site sustainable transport measures.
There is also support for going beyond simply protecting existing public rights of way: the response wanted them enhanced, with opportunities taken to create new links where possible.
Accessibility and usability are another key concern. The response highlighted the need for footpaths and crossings to be designed coherently and inclusively, especially for wheelchair users and people with buggies, with features such as properly placed dropped kerbs and continuous routes.
Examples raised include unsafe junctions, narrow and poorly lit routes, and overly indirect alternatives, all of which discourage active travel even where some infrastructure exists.
Do you have any comments to make on policy direction 49?
Policy direction 49: Managing Car Use
The response highlighted the need for practical support for people who do not have off-street parking, particularly by providing on-street EV charging for homes without driveways. This suggests interest in making the transition to electric vehicles more accessible and equitable for residents in terraced streets or other areas where home charging is currently difficult.
Do you have any comments to make on policy direction 50?
Policy direction 50: Impact on the Transport Network and Highways Safety
The response said policy direction 50 is too vague and needs clearer definitions, especially around what counts as a “significant” or “unacceptable/severe” impact. They want more objective criteria or thresholds so the policy can be applied consistently, for example using measurable comparisons such as journey times over a set distance.
A strong theme is that any negative impact on highway safety should be treated as unacceptable, with safety seen as a non-negotiable issue because of the potential risk to life.
Do you have any comments to make on policy direction 51?
Policy direction 51: Freight, Servicing and Logistics
The response emphasised the need for suitable access routes for delivery vehicles, with freight traffic directed away from residential streets and roads that are not appropriate for heavier vehicles. This suggests concern about protecting local amenity, safety and road suitability when planning site access.
Do you have any further comments to make on the proposed approach?
The respondents highlighted the need for better coordination between nearby developments, so transport and active travel infrastructure is planned as a joined-up network rather than site by site. One suggestion was to use a community infrastructure levy or similar mechanism to secure shared improvements across adjacent schemes, with the example that this could have led to better outcomes around the three sites north of Tamworth.