Planning Rules Have Failed To link New Homes To Public Transport - study finds.

[yorksrob]

According to The Guardian, a study by the Royal Town Planning Institute has found that:

"A decade of planning rules designed to create housing connected to public transport routes has achieved nothing, a report has found, with millions of people in new homes still dependent on cars to get to local amenities."

It suggests that:

"The RTPI is calling on ministers to look at what changes can be made as part of the consultation process about the revised NPPF, which aims to create 1.5m new homes during this parliament."

Link to full article:

Planning rules have failed to link new homes to public transport, report finds

A decade of planning policy has achieved nothing, leaving millions of people still dependent on cars, study shows

www.theguardian.com

If the Government wanted a test case to start the ball rolling, they could look to ensuring that the Tavistock railway is opened alongside any new housing development.

 

[Snow1964]

I suspect the timing is deliberate to coincide with Government meeting of 250 organisations to discuss the proposed 1.5m homes

Over 375 leaders from domestic and international institutional investors, developers, housebuilders, regeneration specialists, housing associations, and Combined and Local Authorities met in London yesterday (4 November) with the aim of creating new partnerships that will significantly increase the scale of housebuilding and urban regeneration that is needed across England.

The event is part of the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and Homes England’s broader approach to secure new private investment into housing and the renewal of towns and cities.

Discussions held yesterday pave the way for more detailed dialogue and collaborative action that aim to deliver the housing and regeneration ambitions set out by the Government.

Investors, developers, and local and national government leaders unite to drive forward ambitions to create 1.5 million homes across this Parliament

Leaders from over 375 institutions meet with the aim of creating new partnerships to increase scale of housebuilding and regeneration across England

www.gov.uk

 

[yorksrob]

I suspect the timing is deliberate to coincide with Government meeting of 250 organisations to discuss the proposed 1.5m homes

Investors, developers, and local and national government leaders unite to drive forward ambitions to create 1.5 million homes across this Parliament

Leaders from over 375 institutions meet with the aim of creating new partnerships to increase scale of housebuilding and regeneration across England

www.gov.uk

Yes, it does seem very timely in that context. I'd hope that the Government fixes it before all these houses are built.

 

[Mikey C]

If you build new houses on green fields on the edge of town, it's hardly surprising that public transport use won't be very good, and that car use will increase.

 

[thejuggler]

Taking vast areas of land adjacent to stations for park and ride schemes needs a rethink.

That land should be used to build homes and sustainable communties adjacent to the railway stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Taking vast areas of land adjacent to stations for park and ride schemes needs a rethink.

That land should be used to build homes and sustainable communties adjacent to the railway stations.

The two are not mutually exclusive - you can put the parking underground and have residential and retail on top.

 

[Mikey C]

Taking vast areas of land adjacent to stations for park and ride schemes needs a rethink.

That land should be used to build homes and sustainable communties adjacent to the railway stations.

You miss the whole point of park and ride stations, which is to INCREASE use of the railway by making it possible for people living several miles away to use the train. Take away the park and ride, and people will just use the car for their entire journey.

 

[slipdigby]

If you build new houses on green fields on the edge of town, it's hardly surprising that public transport use won't be very good, and that car use will increase.

Especially if these developments are at woeful levels of density that mean that any public transport provision will be distant, slow, indirect, and catastrophically subsidy heavy.

You miss the whole point of park and ride stations, which is to INCREASE use of the railway by making it possible for people living several miles away to use the train. Take away the park and ride, and people will just use the car for their entire journey.

I suspect you're very correct. Removing one reasonably well used park and ride parking space would require Zone 1 levels of residential density and resulting rail use in order to offset the lost demand.

Best,
Slip

 

[ChrisC]

If you build new houses on green fields on the edge of town, it's hardly surprising that public transport use won't be very good, and that car use will increase.

It‘s not just on the edge of towns but out in what was open countryside often up to 10 miles outside of a large city. Many of the people who move into these new houses have chosen to move out of the city to be nearer the countryside. They have been used to being close to buses that run frequently and then find that the local bus routes run hourly at best with no evening or Sunday services.

I‘ve only been used to an hourly bus service almost all of my life. I’ve never known anything any better and have just learnt to adapt to it. If I just miss a bus, or it doesn’t turn up, or is regularly delayed, it’s a big inconvenience but not the end of the world. If you have been used to a turn up and go bus service an hourly service can be seen as unusable and so people don’t consider using it. There’s some recently built housing developments along my local bus route but bus ridership has not increased. They just drive and don’t use the bus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I‘ve only been used to an hourly bus service almost all of my life. I’ve never known anything any better and have just learnt to adapt to it. If I just miss a bus, or it doesn’t turn up, or is regularly delayed, it’s a big inconvenience but not the end of the world. If you have been used to a turn up and go bus service an hourly service can be seen as unusable and so people don’t consider using it. There’s some recently built housing developments along my local bus route but bus ridership has not increased. They just drive and don’t use the bus.

Hourly public transport isn't the end of the world provided it is reliable. What's more of an issue is that rural bus services tend to operate only from about 8am to 6pm at most. You need an 18 hour operating day (roughly 0600-midnight) to really be a car substitute. For instance I wouldn't commute to an office job by bus with a last bus around 1800, it needs to be much later for possible overtime and/or drinks after work.

 

[Hophead]

If you build new houses on green fields on the edge of town, it's hardly surprising that public transport use won't be very good, and that car use will increase.

Not at all. It's perfectly possible to serve any housing development anywhere. If, that is, provision is made for public transport. Unfortunately, most new estates are built to be intentionally hostile to public transport being, for the most part, nothing other than giant cul-de-sacs full of speed bumps and narrow streets dotted with parked cars, with no provision for a bus turning circle or anywhere to turn a bus unless it's a 3-point turn.

Of course, the developers will say that they're just giving people what they want and they don't want "traffic". The inevitable outcome is, of course "traffic". Not for the residents where they live, but for everyone on the through roads (and with a less pleasant trip for anyone walking or cycling).

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure that, in a post coronavirus world and with home working increasingly common, that you are going to be able to convince people that they don't want to live in suburbia.

I personally think it is possible to build public transport surburbia - but it might not look like what people normally think of when they hear the term.

 

[thejuggler]

You miss the whole point of park and ride stations, which is to INCREASE use of the railway by making it possible for people living several miles away to use the train. Take away the park and ride, and people will just use the car for their entire journey.

Or they will see new developments being built close to railway stations and think 'if I move there I won't need tens of thousands of pounds of depreciating metal and can live there and use the train'.

 

[Rail_Midlands]

Not at all. It's perfectly possible to serve any housing development anywhere. If, that is, provision is made for public transport. Unfortunately, most new estates are built to be intentionally hostile to public transport being, for the most part, nothing other than giant cul-de-sacs full of speed bumps and narrow streets dotted with parked cars, with no provision for a bus turning circle or anywhere to turn a bus unless it's a 3-point turn.

Of course, the developers will say that they're just giving people what they want and they don't want "traffic". The inevitable outcome is, of course "traffic". Not for the residents where they live, but for everyone on the through roads (and with a less pleasant trip for anyone walking or cycling).

Exactly, The LTN's are doing the same thing now, inside the well built area, pushing the traffic to somewhere else due to NIMBYs.

 

[Snow1964]

Interestingly we have an estate that looks bit like Poundbury (built by same builder), and another nearby built by big national builder with boring boxy homes. Both built 3-5 years ago.

Although they are across a road from each other, the desirability factor and prices for similar sized properties are now about 20% apart. Clearly with modern work-life balance, rather than commuter homes just shows difference between putting up identikit houses, rather than making a community becomes relevant.

The RTPI is correct, too many estates are built without being integrated into transport, school location, doctors, shops etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure that, in a post coronavirus world and with home working increasingly common, that you are going to be able to convince people that they don't want to live in suburbia.

I personally think it is possible to build public transport surburbia - but it might not look like what people normally think of when they hear the term.

I think it can look like what people normally think of. Look at the "beads on a string" around Liverpool, or at Metroland. Both are public transport based* suburbia. They're also largely 15 minute towns.

* Yes, people own cars, but public transport is the primary way into the city.

 

[yorksrob]

Taking vast areas of land adjacent to stations for park and ride schemes needs a rethink.

That land should be used to build homes and sustainable communties adjacent to the railway stations.

I do sometimes think that there's a bit of an over-emphasis on providing massive car parks next to new stations. If near to housing, lots of people would walk anyway.

 

[DarloRich]

This might be a test case as the railway line runs through the development site and has an existing station. This is next to the E-W rail route phase 2 and part of the business case is the line is required to support housing development!

The former Stewartby and Kempston Hardwick brickworks in Bedfordshire has outline planning consent for 1,000 new homes, a school and community facilities.

The 130-acre (about 50-hectare) site, which is about six miles (about 10km) from Bedford town centre, has been bought by property developer Harworth from Heidelberg Materials, previously known as Hanson UK.

Former Stewartby brickworks sold to developer

The brownfield site has outline planning consent for homes, a school and community facilities.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Bletchleyite]

This might be a test case as the railway line runs through the development site and has an existing station. This is next to the E-W rail route phase 2 and part of the business case is the line is required to support housing development

Indeed. I am hoping this is done as a proper 15-minute eco-town development centred around the station, though I have limited confidence that it actually will be! At least it'll improve custom for the railway either way.

 

[Mikey C]

Not at all. It's perfectly possible to serve any housing development anywhere. If, that is, provision is made for public transport. Unfortunately, most new estates are built to be intentionally hostile to public transport being, for the most part, nothing other than giant cul-de-sacs full of speed bumps and narrow streets dotted with parked cars, with no provision for a bus turning circle or anywhere to turn a bus unless it's a 3-point turn.

Of course, the developers will say that they're just giving people what they want and they don't want "traffic". The inevitable outcome is, of course "traffic". Not for the residents where they live, but for everyone on the through roads (and with a less pleasant trip for anyone walking or cycling).

What sort of bus service will those homes, several miles out of town, be able to realistically support? At a frequency and with long enough hours to make people feel comfortable enough to rely on it?

Or they will see new developments being built close to railway stations and think 'if I move there I won't need tens of thousands of pounds of depreciating metal and can live there and use the train'.

But what about all the existing villages and towns where these people live?

I do sometimes think that there's a bit of an over-emphasis on providing massive car parks next to new stations. If near to housing, lots of people would walk anyway.

Because it attracts people to the railway, people who wouldn't otherwise use the train.

 

[HSTEd]

What sort of bus service will those homes, several miles out of town, be able to realistically support? At a frequency and with long enough hours to make people feel comfortable enough to rely on it?

Well conceptually, a new suburban development could be built with dedicated bus routes from the beginning that would allow them to cut straight across the cul-de-sacs etc that are in place to limit conventional road traffic.
If there are no hard turns and little traffic in the way an urban bus can move surprisingly quickly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well conceptually, a new suburban development could be built with dedicated bus routes from the beginning that would allow them to cut straight across the cul-de-sacs etc that are in place to limit conventional road traffic.
If there are no hard turns and little traffic in the way an urban bus can move surprisingly quickly.

Aren't you basically describing Runcorn?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The two are not mutually exclusive - you can put the parking underground and have residential and retail on top.

That is a great idea. Good use of land too.

 

[HSTEd]

Aren't you basically describing Runcorn?

I have no personal experience of Runcorn, I've never been!
So I don't really no.

 

[I'm here now]

The two are not mutually exclusive - you can put the parking underground and have residential and retail on top.

Or just not have parking at all, for a more sustainable and equitable development.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have no personal experience of Runcorn, I've never been!
So I don't really no.

It has a busway separate to the car roads which loops round the estates.

Or just not have parking at all, for a more sustainable and equitable development.

Then people drive all the way instead of parking at the station.

 

[BrianW]

Then people drive all the way instead of parking at the station.

Or just not have parking at all, for a more sustainable and equitable development.

Time, and opportunity, for a thinking afresh of transport needs and provision - a bit like the invention of buses, cars, trains .... and where people 'need' to travel to, why, how often etc.

Do folk in India, China, Africa etc 'drive all the way' anywhere, any time?

Can a walkable/ cyclable future be imagined, eg in conjunction with East West Rail? Like 'beads on a string'? I think so.

 

[Bald Rick]

The two are not mutually exclusive - you can put the parking underground and have residential and retail on top.

Or side by side. Plenty of examples of that all over the network, where large surface car parks have been compressed into a multi storey (often of larger capacity), and the rest of the land sold for residential development. St Albans saw over 400 homes built that way. Guildford, similarly, underway.

Do folk in India, China, Africa etc 'drive all the way' anywhere, any time?

Yes, routinely. The roads in China have to be seen to be believed.

 

[Class 170101]

The reality is that public transport in the UK doesn't asppear unless the operators can make a profit and they won't do that to a load of fields even if its due to turned into housing in a few months time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Time, and opportunity, for a thinking afresh of transport needs and provision - a bit like the invention of buses, cars, trains .... and where people 'need' to travel to, why, how often etc.

Do folk in India, China, Africa etc 'drive all the way' anywhere, any time?

Yes, private transport is heavily used in those places, probably more so than the UK.

Can a walkable/ cyclable future be imagined, eg in conjunction with East West Rail? Like 'beads on a string'? I think so.

Beads on a string is certainly the optimal layout for public transport - the string can be any shape, so you can for instance fold it into a figure of 8 or cloverleaf like Runcorn if you want somewhere bigger. That the northern suburbs of Liverpool have naturally developed that way around Merseyrail stations is quite telling, and similar has happened around outer Tube stations in London (e.g. Metroland). EWR already sort of is like that though the beads on the Marston Vale are quite small, presumably time to expand them (as is planned at Stewartby for one).