I am concerned that this should be a matter for legislation.  I am not clear there is any need for new legislation.   

The access mapping and routes improvement side is already covered by local authorities under the rowips and local access fora, and the lack of core funding to these existing programmes has been the key reason for their lack of impact.  Adding an extra layer of legislative burden will not help this. 

The road scheme side is already covered by updates and amendments to technical advice notes and planning guidance; there is no need for extra legislation. 

Further, the consultation document itself seems to accept there is some confusion at whom this proposed legislation is aimed.   It seems the objective is to get more people to walk and cycle to work.  But there are a number of other reasons why this is difficult, not least 1) the terrain and weather 2) poor public transport 3) poor general infrastructure 4) the generally long work-home commute.  Of course we can learn from the dutch; but it is also much easier in the Netherlands, where everything is built up, there is a large town every ten miles, the railnetwork is excellent, and the geographical limitations are minimal.  And the users of improved pedestrian and cycle routes do so for a number of reasons, not just to get to work.  It is unreasonable to think of legislation designed for one aspect only of infrastructure utilisation; this will lead to distorted thinking and bad laws. 

I suggest you drop this proposal for a new bill, and instead think generally about how to help non-private car transport in its widest sense.

Jack hanbury