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

[yorksrob]

Perhaps local planning authorities need more teeth to insist on public transport provision. Interestingly, the report suggests that they've been more successful in attracting other amenities.

 

[PeterC]

That's definitely an oversight in that case. However, unless they've been living under a rock for the past few years they should have seen about it.

I have known people buy flats within sight of a large music venue without being aware of its presence. A large percentage of the public spend their lives with their eyes and ears closed.

 

[Malaxa]

I am one of those people who's moved from the city out to the countryside.

The railway station is too far out of town to access on foot, with no safe walking route (cycling is possible but a nuisance) and the buses cunningly timed not to connect with any of the hourly trains.

I am astonished that a developer is allowed to build a new suburban estate with no safe walking routes. There is a welcome swing towards incorporating safe cycling and walking routes in such modern sprawl.
Why is cycling a "nuisance"? Is it too fast and inexpensive?

 

[Lewisham2221]

Perhaps local planning authorities need more teeth to insist on public transport provision. Interestingly, the report suggests that they've been more successful in attracting other amenities.

I think the issue, as @Bletchleyite alluded to, is that the planners et al aren't ever likely to use the "facilities" provided anyway. All to often they seem to be more than happy for the public transport provision to comprise of a poorly located bus shelter and perhaps enough section 106 funding for a 0900-1500 Mon-Fri bus service for 6 months. The same goes for provision of walking and cycling routes - a poorly lit (or not lit at all) path through a secluded patch of woodland does not become an excellent walking and cycling route just because a developer has thrown down a bit of tarmac and put up a sign saying that it it's footpath/cycle route. Too much box ticking and not enough realistic consideration of the real world.

Add all that to too many decades of car-friendly development and you're fighting a losing battle against car ownership.

 

[RT4038]

I think the issue, as @Bletchleyite alluded to, is that the planners et al aren't ever likely to use the "facilities" provided anyway. All to often they seem to be more than happy for the public transport provision to comprise of a poorly located bus shelter and perhaps enough section 60 funding for a 0900-1500 Mon-Fri bus service for 6 months. The same goes for provision of walking and cycling routes - a poorly lit (or not lit at all) path through a secluded patch of woodland does not become an excellent walking and cycling route just because a developer has thrown down a bit of tarmac and put up a sign saying that it it's footpath/cycle route. Too much box ticking and not enough realistic consideration of the real world.

Add all that to too many decades of car-friendly development and you're fighting a losing battle against car ownership.

I think it is a bit more complicated than that.

• The poorly located bus shelter is because no-one wants the shelter anywhere near their home, and this would devalue the sale price to the developer
• The s106 funding asks have to be proportionate. A 30 min. interval service 07h00-19h00 for five years will probably add £2,500 to the sale price of every new home (on the assumption of 300 houses). Buses in the evening will cost even more, with hardly any use I should imagine. Maybe not much as a % of 5 bed executive houses, but of course everyone complains about the price of new houses. Plus there will be the s106 demands for roads, cycleways, schools, school buses and all sorts of other services/infrastructure
• The better the roads, the cycleways etc the higher the costs on each new house, and therefore the higher the purchase price, the higher the mortgages. Where are the 'affordable' houses here, and who is paying their infrastructure/service costs?

It is not developers that are paying for these things - it is the house purchasers!

 

[gaillark]

... this board never seems able to grasp that many people want/like to drive. If you don't offer parking you limit potential passengers to those living within a short walking distance.

Parking needs to be offered and it can be done in a multi story way limiting the space required

Thank you Darlo. I like to drive. Don't use buses.
A reality check for some people on this board ... Many commuters are busy people and they are not interested in having loads of housing near to a station if it does not provide a frequent direct service to London in the SouthEast. Having to change trains increases unreliability, time and money. Far easier to drive from Newmarket to Great Chesterford or Whittlesford. Totally useless travelling to Cambridge on a once an hour service and change. ok if you want Cambridge but an hourly service is not great.
If I were living in or near Winslow the train would be useless as its far more convenient to drive to Aylesbury or Leighton Buzzard. ok if you want to go to Oxford or MK.

The railway "loves" motorists as it provides significant income from parking fees: Cycling brings in nothing. Taking parking away from stations - then fares will need to rise further for all to make up the shortfall.

I think it is a bit more complicated than that.

• The poorly located bus shelter is because no-one wants the shelter anywhere near their home, and this would devalue the sale price to the developer
• The s106 funding asks have to be proportionate. A 30 min. interval service 07h00-19h00 for five years will probably add £2,500 to the sale price of every new home (on the assumption of 300 houses). Buses in the evening will cost even more, with hardly any use I should imagine. Maybe not much as a % of 5 bed executive houses, but of course everyone complains about the price of new houses. Plus there will be the s106 demands for roads, cycleways, schools, school buses and all sorts of other services/infrastructure
• The better the roads, the cycleways etc the higher the costs on each new house, and therefore the higher the purchase price, the higher the mortgages. Where are the 'affordable' houses here, and who is paying their infrastructure/service costs?

It is not developers that are paying for these things - it is the house purchasers!

Correct.
I work in property for decades. Homeowners are lumbered with the extra costs and quite a number of s106's are poorly specified to make council planners tick a box. Most people use a private car to get around.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the issue, as @Bletchleyite alluded to, is that the planners et al aren't ever likely to use the "facilities" provided anyway. All to often they seem to be more than happy for the public transport provision to comprise of a poorly located bus shelter and perhaps enough section 60 funding for a 0900-1500 Mon-Fri bus service for 6 months. The same goes for provision of walking and cycling routes - a poorly lit (or not lit at all) path through a secluded patch of woodland does not become an excellent walking and cycling route just because a developer has thrown down a bit of tarmac and put up a sign saying that it it's footpath/cycle route. Too much box ticking and not enough realistic consideration of the real world.

Add all that to too many decades of car-friendly development and you're fighting a losing battle against car ownership.

I'm not so naive to expect to fight a battle against car ownership. Decent public services aren't mutually exclusive though.

I think it is a bit more complicated than that.

• The poorly located bus shelter is because no-one wants the shelter anywhere near their home, and this would devalue the sale price to the developer
• The s106 funding asks have to be proportionate. A 30 min. interval service 07h00-19h00 for five years will probably add £2,500 to the sale price of every new home (on the assumption of 300 houses). Buses in the evening will cost even more, with hardly any use I should imagine. Maybe not much as a % of 5 bed executive houses, but of course everyone complains about the price of new houses. Plus there will be the s106 demands for roads, cycleways, schools, school buses and all sorts of other services/infrastructure
• The better the roads, the cycleways etc the higher the costs on each new house, and therefore the higher the purchase price, the higher the mortgages. Where are the 'affordable' houses here, and who is paying their infrastructure/service costs?

It is not developers that are paying for these things - it is the house purchasers!

Conversely, doesn't a nearby railway station tend to increase the value of housing ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not so naive to expect to fight a battle against car ownership. Decent public services aren't mutually exclusive though.

A battle against car ownership will simply never be won. Zero-car households have so much less flexibility in life than those who have one. You may get some down to one with excellent public transport, though.

 

[Deepgreen]

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

Of course, but that costs much more money and time, and developers want quick, cheap (and thus nasty) results.

A battle against car ownership will simply never be won. Zero-car households have so much less flexibility in life than those who have one. You may get some down to one with excellent public transport, though.

Indeed, and it's more less inevitable that railways/public transport outside cramped city centres will all-but disappear once cars are totally automated and self-driving - they will probably couple to save road space on long journeys and become, effectively, road trains. Many decades away, of course, but not that far outside a long term planning sphere.

 

[Malaxa]

The railway "loves" motorists as it provides significant income from parking fees: Cycling brings in nothing. Taking parking away from stations - then fares will need to rise further for all to make up the shortfall.

A battle against car ownership will simply never be won. Zero-car households have so much less flexibility in life than those who have one. You may get some down to one with excellent public transport, though.

In the space of about 6 cars, Greater Anglia seems to do very well from commuters cycling to the station along excellent cycle paths of Chelmsford.

Volutary zero-car households tend to have a lot more spare cash than those who fritter away endless sums on car-related expenses.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the space of about 6 cars, Greater Anglia seems to do very well from commuters cycling to the station along excellent cycle paths of Chelmsford.

Lots of people do cycle to railway stations. A lot used to to MKC via the Redways, though the cycle theft problem there has got so bad the racks are much emptier these days. Add a bewaakte Fietsenstalling - a staffed facility indoors - and I reckon a load would return, potentially also some e-bikes which are good on Milton Keynes' surprising number of hills.

However, that isn't going to make people go zero-car. To use an example, if you live in one of the "beads on a string" radiating out from Liverpool you are probably within 10-15 minutes' walk of a Merseyrail station, but that isn't going to mean not having a car for other purposes.

Volutary zero-car households tend to have a lot more spare cash than those who fritter away endless sums on car-related expenses.

They do, but ironically they have fewer opportunities to spend it by going interesting places without one.

Realistically people will only go zero-car (assuming they're not so poor they can't afford a car) if they live in a big city with excellent public transport (which in the UK means London and, er, London - maybe Edinburgh at a push because its very high density makes it work a different way). It's a losing battle anywhere else.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

It's not just a (literal) binary choice between 0-car and 1-car though. There are all sorts of mobility options around car clubs, car-shares with friends and family, the occasional taxi, and so on.

We live in a rural town with excellent public transport, and we're seriously considering not replacing the car when it finally dies. We make most journeys by train, bus or e-bike. The few journeys that are infeasible by public transport, we can do by sharing a car with family.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not just a (literal) binary choice between 0-car and 1-car though.

Well it is. You are either a car owner or you are not.

There are all sorts of mobility options around car clubs, car-shares with friends and family, the occasional taxi, and so on.

Those are all options available to people regardless if they own a car or not.

 

[Mikey C]

I am astonished that a developer is allowed to build a new suburban estate with no safe walking routes. There is a welcome swing towards incorporating safe cycling and walking routes in such modern sprawl.
Why is cycling a "nuisance"? Is it too fast and inexpensive?

Even if the developer incorporated safe walking and cycling routes within their development, that's no use if the rest of the journey to the station is poor.

Well it is. You are either a car owner or you are not.

As the issue is trying to reduce car USE, it's a far more nuanced question than that. Just because you have a car that doesn't mean you'll automatically use it for every journey. Just because you have a season ticket on the train, it doesn't mean you'll only use the train.

 

[lachlan]

Thank you Darlo. I like to drive. Don't use buses.
A reality check for some people on this board ... Many commuters are busy people and they are not interested in having loads of housing near to a station if it does not provide a frequent direct service to London in the SouthEast. Having to change trains increases unreliability, time and money. Far easier to drive from Newmarket to Great Chesterford or Whittlesford. Totally useless travelling to Cambridge on a once an hour service and change. ok if you want Cambridge but an hourly service is not great.
If I were living in or near Winslow the train would be useless as its far more convenient to drive to Aylesbury or Leighton Buzzard. ok if you want to go to Oxford or MK.

The railway "loves" motorists as it provides significant income from parking fees: Cycling brings in nothing. Taking parking away from stations - then fares will need to rise further for all to make up the shortfall.


Correct.
I work in property for decades. Homeowners are lumbered with the extra costs and quite a number of s106's are poorly specified to make council planners tick a box. Most people use a private car to get around.

Homeowners also like walking links if nothing else to walk the dog. Non-drivers do also buy homes and would like safe walking and cycling routes. Even if they don't buy homes, they live with homeowners and still have to get to work (by walking, biking or public transport). The government needs to get better at active transport links and require house builders to do more to improve the area.

Of course, but that costs much more money and time, and developers want quick, cheap (and thus nasty) results.


Indeed, and it's more less inevitable that railways/public transport outside cramped city centres will all-but disappear once cars are totally automated and self-driving - they will probably couple to save road space on long journeys and become, effectively, road trains. Many decades away, of course, but not that far outside a long term planning sphere.

As you say many decades away if this ever becomes a reality - shouldn't we focus no nice liveable towns and cities in the meantime with good public transport and active travel connections? Or live in hope of a driverless car dream that may never come?

 

[Indigo Soup]

I am astonished that a developer is allowed to build a new suburban estate with no safe walking routes. There is a welcome swing towards incorporating safe cycling and walking routes in such modern sprawl.

Why is cycling a "nuisance"? Is it too fast and inexpensive?

We're very definitely 'rural' rather than 'suburban', albeit in a small town within commuting radius of several large centres, and the development was granted planning permission back in 2009. The lack of a safe route to the station applies to the whole town: there's a busy dual carriageway trunk road in between, where the official means of crossing is to look both ways and hope for the best.

From town centre to station is 2 miles by this route, which includes unlighted footways and a dual-use path. The community has wanted a bridge put in across the trunk road for at least ten years, but has been told that some flashing lights to warn drivers are adequate.

There's a route with a bridge across the main road which is 3.5 miles, so viable to cycle, but as well as being considerably longer there's no footway whatsoever.

Given the topology of the town, the connection to the bus service is actually pretty decent. Onward connection to rail, though, is awful.

 

[Deepgreen]

Homeowners also like walking links if nothing else to walk the dog. Non-drivers do also buy homes and would like safe walking and cycling routes. Even if they don't buy homes, they live with homeowners and still have to get to work (by walking, biking or public transport). The government needs to get better at active transport links and require house builders to do more to improve the area.

As you say many decades away if this ever becomes a reality - shouldn't we focus no nice liveable towns and cities in the meantime with good public transport and active travel connections? Or live in hope of a driverless car dream that may never come?

Yes, absolutely! My prediction wasn't one of hope, but inevitability.

 

[class17]

I think the issue, as @Bletchleyite alluded to, is that the planners et al aren't ever likely to use the "facilities" provided anyway. All to often they seem to be more than happy for the public transport provision to comprise of a poorly located bus shelter and perhaps enough section 106 funding for a 0900-1500 Mon-Fri bus service for 6 months. The same goes for provision of walking and cycling routes - a poorly lit (or not lit at all) path through a secluded patch of woodland does not become an excellent walking and cycling route just because a developer has thrown down a bit of tarmac and put up a sign saying that it it's footpath/cycle route. Too much box ticking and not enough realistic consideration of the real world.

Add all that to too many decades of car-friendly development and you're fighting a losing battle against car ownership.

Exactly this.
Just look at bus shelters that offer no protection from prevailing wind & rain. But they look nice!

 

[Starmill]

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.

Worth nothing that any such service must be 7 days a week, 364 days a year (an exception for 25 December is still reasonable) and highly reliable to be considered. It also must serve directly a railway station or bus interchange to allow long-distance connections rather than just to and from regional centre, obviously if they're co-located that's better but unfortunately lots of towns have stations nowhere near their respective high streets / post offices / market squares / whatever. This is all non-negotiable and the absolute bare minimum.

When building from new in a previously not served area, many years of initial revenue support will also be non-negotiable. This is because the public transport service will be quiet for several years while the phased moving in is happening. Three years of up-front funding should be considered a minimum.

Most bus passengers are still householders of car access. It's not about removing car access.

Exactly this.
Just look at bus shelters that offer no protection from prevailing wind & rain. But they look nice!

There are countless frustrating examples of limited funding being spent in a way that may as well have been setting wads of cash on fire.

BBC News - Unenforced bus gate in Colchester to be removed - BBC News

Unenforced bus gate in Colchester to be removed

The road has never been used as part of a bus route.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Indigo Soup]

This is all non-negotiable and the absolute bare minimum.

Bluntly, if the planners try to make it non-negotiable, private housebuilders will walk away, and the local authority will be chastised for failing to build houses.

The only way that the amount of housing that's required can be built, and the only way that the built environment can be minimally compromised by the commercial demands of developers, is if the infrastructure is built at public expense without an expectation of a return. That would require local authorities to have access to capital expenditure budgets that just don't exist.

 

[yorksrob]

Exactly this.
Just look at bus shelters that offer no protection from prevailing wind & rain. But they look nice!

Sounds like most recently built platform canopies.

Most bus passengers are still householders of car access. It's not about removing car access.

Exactly - this is so true of rail and bus usage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bluntly, if the planners try to make it non-negotiable, private housebuilders will walk away, and the local authority will be chastised for failing to build houses.

The only way that the amount of housing that's required can be built, and the only way that the built environment can be minimally compromised by the commercial demands of developers, is if the infrastructure is built at public expense without an expectation of a return. That would require local authorities to have access to capital expenditure budgets that just don't exist.

It's actually pretty standard. Milton Keynes Council generally holds developers to 3 or sometimes even 5 years of planning gain funded public transport. Trouble is that because MK is designed for the car usage doesn't build and the bus service is eventually withdrawn, but in other towns that won't be the same.

 

[RT4038]

It's actually pretty standard. Milton Keynes Council generally holds developers to 3 or sometimes even 5 years of planning gain funded public transport. Trouble is that because MK is designed for the car usage doesn't build and the bus service is eventually withdrawn, but in other towns that won't be the same.

I think it is in other towns, mostly. Depends on the nature of the development, of the surrounding bus network, and of any subsequent developments, of course.

Bluntly, if the planners try to make it non-negotiable, private housebuilders will walk away, and the local authority will be chastised for failing to build houses.

The only way that the amount of housing that's required can be built, and the only way that the built environment can be minimally compromised by the commercial demands of developers, is if the infrastructure is built at public expense without an expectation of a return. That would require local authorities to have access to capital expenditure budgets that just don't exist.

Quite.

 

[Starmill]

Bluntly, if the planners try to make it non-negotiable, private housebuilders will walk away, and the local authority will be chastised for failing to build houses.

The only way that the amount of housing that's required can be built, and the only way that the built environment can be minimally compromised by the commercial demands of developers, is if the infrastructure is built at public expense without an expectation of a return. That would require local authorities to have access to capital expenditure budgets that just don't exist.

Only because of political choices to prevent local authorities from raising adequate funding of course. And in any case the new housebuilding contracts are going to look rather different from the old ones.

 

[Mikey C]

It's actually pretty standard. Milton Keynes Council generally holds developers to 3 or sometimes even 5 years of planning gain funded public transport. Trouble is that because MK is designed for the car usage doesn't build and the bus service is eventually withdrawn, but in other towns that won't be the same.

To be fair MK is also designed around cycle use. Indeed it's the one city in the country where I would use a bicycle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair MK is also designed around cycle use. Indeed it's the one city in the country where I would use a bicycle.

It is, just not public transport.

 

[Kite159]

Public transport is only useful if it goes where you want to actually go.

If you live in a modern housing estate which does have a frequent bus route passing through but you work in a place not served directly by that bus route then you won't use it for commuting. Especially if you work more unsociable hours when the buses don't run.

 

[yorksrob]

Public transport is only useful if it goes where you want to actually go.

If you live in a modern housing estate which does have a frequent bus route passing through but you work in a place not served directly by that bus route then you won't use it for commuting. Especially if you work more unsociable hours when the buses don't run.

But your kids might find it handy getting into town

 

[Kite159]

But your kids might find it handy getting into town

Assuming you have kids of the age where they can be trusted to use public transport on their own.

 

[yorksrob]

Assuming you have kids of the age where they can be trusted to use public transport on their own.

If not, you're granny.

There's many different families out there.