• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Section 106 and Bus Services

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Mod note: Posts #1-6 were moved from this thread:
we don't run buses like we do trains and that alone puts people off.

Whether "like trains" is that important or not, the requisite quality (soft and hard product) is absent from pretty much all UK bus operations with only a few exceptions, most of which have or have had something to do with Alex Hornby.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,046
Location
UK
When I said 'like trains' I was meaning minimum service levels and the inability to just pick and choose when/where to run. Even with 56 days notice required for changes, operators have ignored this and cut services knowing that nothing can be done.

It's crazy that a new build development anywhere in the country might get a funded bus (out of S106 money) and once that runs out, the bus ends. I bet people buying a new-build don't even know the chances are the bus service that was 'sold' to them isn't a given.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It's crazy that a new build development anywhere in the country might get a funded bus (out of S106 money) and once that runs out, the bus ends. I bet people buying a new-build don't even know the chances are the bus service that was 'sold' to them isn't a given.

The idea is that S106 (planning gain) is a "pump primer" to cover the fact that it generally takes 3-5 years for a new service to become established and you want it in place before all the houses are occupied to drive habits from day one. If it hasn't become commercial by then it probably never will. I'm sure "use it or lose it" is publicised about these.
 

duncombec

Member
Joined
3 Sep 2014
Messages
783
Even with 56 days notice required for changes, operators have ignored this and cut services knowing that nothing can be done.
Seems a little unfair - I understand local authorities have to give their permission for any changes under the statutory notification period... but also I recall a Traffic Commissioners annual report from a few years ago (sorry, can't remember when, so no chance of a quote) that implied concern over local authorities using such short periods on their tender renewal programs that operators couldn't register their services within the statutory periods without them being recorded as a short notice change.

Notices & Proceedings (N&P) is currently a bit behind, as there is a notable delay in formally recording paper applications - which is why you can see changes recorded months after they actually started, even though they were submitted on time - and sometimes, short notice changes are as a result of long-term roadworks or purely technical changes.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,067
The idea is that S106 (planning gain) is a "pump primer" to cover the fact that it generally takes 3-5 years for a new service to become established and you want it in place before all the houses are occupied to drive habits from day one. If it hasn't become commercial by then it probably never will. I'm sure "use it or lose it" is publicised about these.
S106 Agreements are nothing more than legitimised blackmail by planning authorities on developers, commonly supporting causes which the committee are into.

One wonders how many of those local politicians imposing such bus service agreements are supported by, or members of, the union representing bus staff. In case you think this is a politically partisan view, members of other parties use them to support their own pet desires as well.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,046
Location
UK
The idea is that S106 (planning gain) is a "pump primer" to cover the fact that it generally takes 3-5 years for a new service to become established and you want it in place before all the houses are occupied to drive habits from day one. If it hasn't become commercial by then it probably never will. I'm sure "use it or lose it" is publicised about these.

In our case, Hertfordshire County Council syphoned off the S106 money to help fund the bus station at Hatfield station. That project went way over budget, so a number of services were cut because - and they were pretty honest - the funding had 'run out'. Somewhat ironic that it was a bus station, nowhere near our development, that lost us our bus for a while (until the route was, wisely, merged with another service and is now running profitably).

Worse than that, the other bus station they built at Parkhouse Court (near the Galleria for anyone who knows the area) ended up with zero services calling (for a short while there was one bus per day to a nearby Tesco for shoppers) and as the roads haven't been adopted, local residents now use the bus station as an unofficial car park.

S106 can so easily be abused, and the other con is that developers can be required to match funding from the council - but when it comes to the council having the money to build something, they don't have it* - and the developer doesn't have to give the money. OR (again HCC) the money can sit in a pot but not be used, and developers don't have to simply hand over the money - which means they can pocket it.

* There was £50k to build a community centre on designated park land, but the town council couldn't make up the other £50k. 19 years later, no community centre!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NorthernSpirit

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
2,184
When I said 'like trains' I was meaning minimum service levels and the inability to just pick and choose when/where to run. Even with 56 days notice required for changes, operators have ignored this and cut services knowing that nothing can be done.

It's crazy that a new build development anywhere in the country might get a funded bus (out of S106 money) and once that runs out, the bus ends. I bet people buying a new-build don't even know the chances are the bus service that was 'sold' to them isn't a given.
There are two housing developments going on in Calne. One is at Regents Park and the other is High Penn/Penn Wood. All the housing there is built under a section 106 agreement however there is no bus service to serve these parts of Calne - you're actually a 15 to 20 minute walk from the nearest bus stop. I would personally love to see the 40 (The Pippin to Tesco service) being completely revised and funded through section 106 to serve the two developments in both directions as a circular which would help.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,046
Location
UK
I suppose if you never start a bus service in the first place, nobody can be disappointed later.. and it's also great in ensuring everyone there will have a car.
 

SCH117X

Established Member
Joined
27 Nov 2015
Messages
1,557
In Harrogate North Yorkshire County Council have not required a bus service to housing developments that are within lengthy walking distance of a high frequency service (Transdevs route 1 / Connexions X1 whatevers) but did require funding for a service to a new estate in Knaresborough which has evolved into an extension of Transdevs 1C as a 1D.
 

Man of Kent

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
597
In Harrogate North Yorkshire County Council have not required a bus service to housing developments that are within lengthy walking distance of a high frequency service (Transdevs route 1 / Connexions X1 whatevers) but did require funding for a service to a new estate in Knaresborough which has evolved into an extension of Transdevs 1C as a 1D.
North Yorks CC is not the planning authority and cannot require a service. They can request it from the district council, which is the local planning authority, who can agree or decline in line with local planning policies.

From April 2023, there will be a new unitary council covering North Yorks, so planning authority and Local Transport Authority become one and the same.

S106 can so easily be abused, and the other con is that developers can be required to match funding from the council - but when it comes to the council having the money to build something, they don't have it* - and the developer doesn't have to give the money. OR (again HCC) the money can sit in a pot but not be used, and developers don't have to simply hand over the money - which means they can pocket it.
Depends on how well local planning policies set out the need for things to be funded by S106, how tight the agreements are drawn and what are the skills of those negotiating them. Some agreements are generic, some are specific and some have time constraints on them. Some contain indexing arrangements to allow for inflation, others forget to do this basic action. @jon0844's example of money for a community hall sounds to me like an opportunistic ask from a local council that the developers agreed to, rather than a thought-out and published policy aim.
 

SCH117X

Established Member
Joined
27 Nov 2015
Messages
1,557
North Yorks CC is not the planning authority and cannot require a service. They can request it from the district council, which is the local planning authority, who can agree or decline in line with local planning policies.
@jon0844's example of money for a community hall sounds to me like an opportunistic ask from a local council that the developers agreed to, rather than a thought-out and published policy aim.
North Yorkshire County Council is the local passenger transport authority so if they do not ask for a service a developer is hardly going to fund one. A Section 106 is an agreement between the parties concerned so a developer should not be signing it if they consider it unreasonable. In the case of a community hall many planning authorities have polices on the provision of. In Harrogate's case for example, village halls and open space to cater for the needs of the increased population so a S106 is perfectly reasonable in that respect provided it is worded sensibly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

markymark2000

On Moderation
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
3,557
Location
Western Part of the UK
There are two housing developments going on in Calne. One is at Regents Park and the other is High Penn/Penn Wood. All the housing there is built under a section 106 agreement however there is no bus service to serve these parts of Calne - you're actually a 15 to 20 minute walk from the nearest bus stop. I would personally love to see the 40 (The Pippin to Tesco service) being completely revised and funded through section 106 to serve the two developments in both directions as a circular which would help.
Was S106 funding requested for the developments?
 

Megafuss

Member
Joined
5 May 2018
Messages
643
I am trying to figure out how demand for service is established for a new build estate before it is built. Operators and local authorities can guess. But know of one such area, next to a motorway junction and 3 miles from a town centre where around 60% of the residents work "out of town". Guess where the S106 bus goes....
 

markymark2000

On Moderation
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
3,557
Location
Western Part of the UK
Cheshire West is a funny one, for these. They have 2 fair sized developments (100+ homes), a bus goes along the main road every hour but there is no bus stops. No provision for bus stops short term so the buses have to fly past not stopping. It can't be made into hail and ride as it's a single carriageway, A road and I think the speed limit is 50.


In Huntington, rather than ask for a bus to go into the site of nearly 1000 odd homes, they asked for a funding for a frequency enhancement on the local bus which stops right at the bottom of the camp. Stagecoach, the council, nor the developer has the brains to extend the local bus 2 minutes to the roundabout which is located about 1/2 way into the development (roads are wide enough and space for bus stops. This put the route upto every 15 minutes. Now it's down to an uneven 3 buses per hour (09:51, 10:11, 10:36, 10:56, 11:21, 11:41, 12:06, 12:26, 12:51) so that they could take a bus off and rather than use any brains and interwork it so that the times could be made simple, they opted, of course, to make a hash of the timetable.



In Ellesmere Port, there is a 2,000 home development. Frequency enhancement to start with then new routes but no Sunday service (as the council is wasting the 1 Sunday tender in disused areas and providing links which aren't available any day of the week other than Sundays!)
The bus gate for a bus to go through the development is down to be left until the last phase and so any bus service would have a costly time penalty or need a dedicated bus. Council claim to procure a new bus to the local train station from 300 houses occupied, from 800 houses there may be some bus priority.
Theres also the 811 local service bus but but no one knows about it because it's a Merseyside tender and Cheshire West won't have anything to do with it despite it linking the development to Flintshire Industrial Estate and Broughton Airbus. Two of the biggest employers in the local region.
So while yes there may be some improvements, maybe, in the pipeline, they are a bit late on and nothing to try and make the buses viable from early on (like the bus gate into the existing neighbourhood which would combine existing and new demand).



Developments in Northwich are laughable. The Winnington Village Development has only recently gained a bus with the Arriva network changes. Good news you may say. Well..... There are no bus stops through the development yet, the bus passes though not stopping as no one knows where the bus stops. Developers were meant to put in bus stops in consultation with the residents but instead put up stops without consultation last summer (2021) and placed them (to quote a local councillor) 'outside peoples windows and doors' and caused 'great distress to residents' (how does a bus stop cause distress when there was no bus). Apparently 'due to the site layout, they are struggling to place the bus stops'.
Why wasn't any of this sorted earlier?

Other developments in Northwich and Winsford have no provision for bus improvements and the council approve the developments without any bus service, bus stop infrastructure improvements or paths linking less than 50m from the development to the main road (instead forcing people to walk all through the development out to the main road meaning what could be a 5 minute walk to the bus stop is actually a 20+ minute walk to the bus stop for no reason at all.



Councils these days, unless those who are very pro bus, just won't request 106 funding for buses. They'll rinse the developers for all of the other funds which directly benefit the council but refuse to ask for any money which goes to buses and the nasty, greedy private bus companies.

I am trying to figure out how demand for service is established for a new build estate before it is built. Operators and local authorities can guess. But know of one such area, next to a motorway junction and 3 miles from a town centre where around 60% of the residents work "out of town". Guess where the S106 bus goes....
To be fair, you can't work out the demand at all and plan the bus services unless you get every single resident to tell you all their journeys. It has to be an educated guess and 'into town' is the best guess for the most demand overall (60% of people may work out of town but most of them will work in completely different directions and at completely different times. It's not as if 20% of people in the development work at the out of town retail park. Everyone will go different ways. Though if a bus service is in place earlier on, some people looking to move will see the new bus service and perhaps plan their new job around that if that is feasible. In the same way that people without cars currently do 'I can't work there as I can't get there' etc.
 
Last edited:

miklcct

On Moderation
Joined
2 May 2021
Messages
4,330
Location
Cricklewood
I am trying to figure out how demand for service is established for a new build estate before it is built. Operators and local authorities can guess. But know of one such area, next to a motorway junction and 3 miles from a town centre where around 60% of the residents work "out of town". Guess where the S106 bus goes....
A full-day bus will go direct onto the motorway to the next junction with other bus services, as a feeder service, while a peak-hour bus will go direct onto the motorway right into the Central Business District for commuters.
 

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
12,621
Location
Yorkshire
A full-day bus will go direct onto the motorway to the next junction with other bus services, as a feeder service, while a peak-hour bus will go direct onto the motorway right into the Central Business District for commuters.
Not many British towns have a well defined Central Business District.
 

telstarbox

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
5,938
Location
Wennington Crossovers
I am trying to figure out how demand for service is established for a new build estate before it is built. Operators and local authorities can guess. But know of one such area, next to a motorway junction and 3 miles from a town centre where around 60% of the residents work "out of town". Guess where the S106 bus goes....
Buses aren't just for work though - people use them for school, hospitals, shopping and leisure. In some settlements more people use buses for non-commuting than commuting purposes.

One rule of thumb used in UK planning is that dwellings should be within 400m of a bus service, so for a development outside that range a S106 may be sought.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Not many British towns have a well defined Central Business District.

I'd have said they did myself. Indeed, 1960s ring road developments cause most British town and city centres to be very compact. There's still distributed employment but that doesn't make the town or city centre not a CBD.

London is one of the few that doesn't have one obvious centre.
 

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
12,621
Location
Yorkshire
I only know of 2 S106-funded services near me. One was the current 530 in Halifax. It's had a few changes but has developed into an early to early evening hourly service Monday to Saturday with some funding still required from Metro. About 2/3 of the route is shared with other routes.

The other was ridiculous. It was a service from Keighley to the new Asda in Keighley. It was originally tacked on the end of an every 15 minute service from the other side of Keighley but then ran as an every 20 minute service from Keighley bus station. From there it ran 2 stops. The first was next to Asda, the other on the far side of Asda's car park from the entrance. At the time there were 8-11 other buses an hour (4-6 now) between the bus station and the first of its two stops (or just round the corner). When the funding ran out the service just stopped. It was typically run with double decker buses. I think I once saw 5 people on it, but more typically 1 or 2.

There was another where the funding paid for an annual bus ticket for local buses in Leeds for the first year of those living in the new development which was on a road which was already well served. I've no idea how successful it was.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,441
I'd have said they did myself. Indeed, 1960s ring road developments cause most British town and city centres to be very compact. There's still distributed employment but that doesn't make the town or city centre not a CBD.

London is one of the few that doesn't have one obvious centre.

20th century town centres were often very well defined, and thus fairly easy to serve by bus. More recent developments of out of town shopping centres and office parks have fragmented demand, along with other changes in society, so while the town centre might still be the biggest destination a lot of people will always want to go somewhere else, but you can't serve everywhere on one bus.

A lot of services with s106 funding are always destined to fail when the money runs out because they fundamentally don't make sense as a public transport service. That a new route is necessary in the first place means the council have allowed a new development which isn't close to any existing transport links, which is the first problem, but then the second problem is that none of the new developments have the scale or density needed to make a service viable on their own, and new houses cost a fortune so are almost exclusively purchased by people who can afford to run multiple cars regardless of whether there is a bus or not.
 

Hophead

Established Member
Joined
5 Apr 2013
Messages
1,193
20th century town centres were often very well defined, and thus fairly easy to serve by bus. More recent developments of out of town shopping centres and office parks have fragmented demand, along with other changes in society, so while the town centre might still be the biggest destination a lot of people will always want to go somewhere else, but you can't serve everywhere on one bus.

A lot of services with s106 funding are always destined to fail when the money runs out because they fundamentally don't make sense as a public transport service. That a new route is necessary in the first place means the council have allowed a new development which isn't close to any existing transport links, which is the first problem, but then the second problem is that none of the new developments have the scale or density needed to make a service viable on their own, and new houses cost a fortune so are almost exclusively purchased by people who can afford to run multiple cars regardless of whether there is a bus or not.
Furthermore, most new housing developments are little more than giant cul-de-sacs, which are difficult, if not impossible, to serve effectively by bus. There would be a through route, but "fear of traffic" tends to mean that is not provided. The outcome of which of course, is "traffic" (but outside of the new estate itself).
 

miklcct

On Moderation
Joined
2 May 2021
Messages
4,330
Location
Cricklewood
new houses cost a fortune so are almost exclusively purchased by people who can afford to run multiple cars regardless of whether there is a bus or not.
Aren't new houses in hard-to-reach rural places in general cheaper than city centre apartments? Aren't people priced out of London to zones 3, 4, 5, 6, ... because they can no longer afford zone 1 and 2 homes?
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,332
Location
Bristol
Aren't new houses in hard-to-reach rural places in general cheaper than city centre apartments? Aren't people priced out of London to zones 3, 4, 5, 6, ... because they can no longer afford zone 1 and 2 homes?
They are cheaper than London, but they're still ridiculously expensive.
 

markymark2000

On Moderation
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
3,557
Location
Western Part of the UK
One rule of thumb used in UK planning is that dwellings should be within 400m of a bus service, so for a development outside that range a S106 may be sought.
The issue is, many developers seem to do one the following

1. Use 'as the crow flies' 400m (of course very different to actual 400m. I've seen it measured going over motorways and through fields with no path etc, that shouldn't be allowed)
2. Have 'the development' within 400m of a bus. Not the houses. Of course some developments go far back and so while the entrance is ok, the houses are nowhere near 400m.
2. Make homes within 400m even if it could be closer (using so many cul-de-sacs and sending people on a long walk around the estate when in reality, the bus stop may only be 100m away if there was a gap on the fence (look at Scunthorpe near Lakeside. Those developments have houses facing the main road with the bus but they have fenced it all so people have to walk up the road and come back on themselves rather than a 3 metre long path and a gap in the fence).


Even by some miracle, they accommodate buses or S106 is there to make improvements, the new residents become nimbys (A bus gate in Knowsley got closed before it even opened to 'prevent rat running' but it had the raised centre so lower vehicles would have gotten stuck. And then in Northwich Winnington Village, all the bus stops got put up and nimbys complained they don't want a bus stop outside their house so the stops had to be taken up and I believe, now a year in since the bus started, no bus stops are up so no one knows where to catch the bus).

Developers are sneaky, they don't want buses in the development. They know it and will do what they can to stop it.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,225
S106 Agreements are nothing more than legitimised blackmail by planning authorities on developers, commonly supporting causes which the committee are into.
Developers no doubt look on them in that way, and would love to merely push the additional costs of their development onto the Local Authority.

One wonders how many of those local politicians imposing such bus service agreements are supported by, or members of, the union representing bus staff. In case you think this is a politically partisan view, members of other parties use them to support their own pet desires as well.
One wonders of the conspiracy theory that comes up with such a comment! The s106 system is far from perfect but does establish a link between new development and the additional costs (in the widest sense) to the locality of that development.

20th century town centres were often very well defined, and thus fairly easy to serve by bus. More recent developments of out of town shopping centres and office parks have fragmented demand, along with other changes in society, so while the town centre might still be the biggest destination a lot of people will always want to go somewhere else, but you can't serve everywhere on one bus.

A lot of services with s106 funding are always destined to fail when the money runs out because they fundamentally don't make sense as a public transport service. That a new route is necessary in the first place means the council have allowed a new development which isn't close to any existing transport links, which is the first problem, but then the second problem is that none of the new developments have the scale or density needed to make a service viable on their own, and new houses cost a fortune so are almost exclusively purchased by people who can afford to run multiple cars regardless of whether there is a bus or not.
This all may be true, but what other system can their be in a democracy such as ours.? The planning authority does not have free rein to decide where developments go - there is considerable public pressure which cannot be 'swept away' in a democratic system. New developments go where there is the least public objection (by and large) - their proximity to existing public transport systems are the least of concerns. By and large the politicians do what the majority of voting citizens want (otherwise they won't get re-elected) and that is not necessarily the best thing for the country or public transport systems.

Are you suggesting that new developments should not be served by buses then?

Developers are sneaky, they don't want buses in the development. They know it and will do what they can to stop it.
It is not so much that developers don't want buses in their development - they just don't want them to devalue any of the property sale value. And, let face it, many developments are better served by good bus stops on the outside, so through bus passengers don't have to trundle around residential roads with parked vehicles and speed calming.
 
Last edited:

jammy36

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2013
Messages
299
The planning authority does not have free rein to decide where developments go - there is considerable public pressure which cannot be 'swept away' in a democratic system. New developments go where there is the least public objection (by and large) - their proximity to existing public transport systems are the least of concerns. By and large the politicians do what the majority of voting citizens want (otherwise they won't get re-elected) and that is not necessarily the best thing for the country or public transport systems.

That doesn't really reflect how the planning system works in this country. In essence anyone can submit a planning application for a new development (you don't even need to own the land to do so). Once a valid application has been received the local planning authority must approve development proposals (no matter how unpopular) where they accord with the up-to-date* local development plan (or in the absence of such a plan in accordance with the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (where there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development).

* For the delivery of applications for new homes up-to-date includes the need for the authority to demonstrate it has a five year supply of deliverable housing sites - i.e. it will meet its housing targets.

Public objection (no matter how large) holds little weight unless that objection relates to a material planning consideration.

Of course the public can contribute to the development of the local plan making process (very, very few people do - most wait until a planning application is submitted), but ultimately local authorities need to prepare positive plans to meet housing targets and deliver new homes. Many authorities don't have an up-to-date plan, so must follow national policy - whether that development is locally popular or not is (largely) irrelevant to the decision taking process.

Section 106 agreements (planning obligations) are a mitigation measure that can be used to make unacceptable (in planning terms) developments acceptable. They are tightly drawn up legal agreements that can only be used where they meet certain tests. Some of the comments in this thread suggest people don't really understand how or when they can be used.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,225
That doesn't really reflect how the planning system works in this country. In essence anyone can submit a planning application for a new development (you don't even need to own the land to do so). Once a valid application has been received the local planning authority must approve development proposals (no matter how unpopular) where they accord with the up-to-date* local development plan (or in the absence of such a plan in accordance with the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (where there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development).

* For the delivery of applications for new homes up-to-date includes the need for the authority to demonstrate it has a five year supply of deliverable housing sites - i.e. it will meet its housing targets.

Public objection (no matter how large) holds little weight unless that objection relates to a material planning consideration.

Of course the public can contribute to the development of the local plan making process (very, very few people do - most wait until a planning application is submitted), but ultimately local authorities need to prepare positive plans to meet housing targets and deliver new homes. Many authorities don't have an up-to-date plan, so must follow national policy - whether that development is locally popular or not is (largely) irrelevant to the decision taking process.

Section 106 agreements (planning obligations) are a mitigation measure that can be used to make unacceptable (in planning terms) developments acceptable. They are tightly drawn up legal agreements that can only be used where they meet certain tests. Some of the comments in this thread suggest people don't really understand how or when they can be used.
Yes, the public may not individually contribute to the local plan making process, but you can be sure that Parish Councils (especially those of affluent villages surrounding larger towns) will. It is often those who will steer developments to areas that will not blight them (in their view) , rather than any transport / public transport considerations. In putting the local plan forward in the first place, officers will be guided by councillors, who in turn will have an eye to the least contentious places (for their own peace and re-election) rather than efficient land use considerations.

Some of the comments in this thread suggest people don't really understand how or when they can be used.
Agreed.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
20,028
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Yes, the public may not individually contribute to the local plan making process, but you can be sure that Parish Councils (especially those of affluent villages surrounding larger towns) will. It is often those who will steer developments to areas that will not blight them (in their view) , rather than any transport / public transport considerations. In putting the local plan forward in the first place, officers will be guided by councillors, who in turn will have an eye to the least contentious places (for their own peace and re-election) rather than efficient land use considerations.


Agreed.
Absolutely. In my neck of the woods, Bath and North East Somerset Council are doing just that. Zones for development are Norton Radstock (incl Paulton), Keynsham and, most amusingly, Whitchurch which is much more part of Bristol than Bath! Chew Valley and the rural location, and much of the environs of Bath - less affected.

Over the border, Somerset County Council have no local development plan/guidelines (or are so imprecise) and so developers can apply for permissions to develop in lots of nice villages but there's no grounds under which to refuse them!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LUYMun

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2018
Messages
786
Location
Somewhere
The trouble with a lot of S106 funded services is that they start way ahead of the game, usually before the first tenants even get the key. I seem to believe this when local route 28 for the Bordon redevelopment ran for only two years, when the homes weren't yet completed.
 

markymark2000

On Moderation
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
3,557
Location
Western Part of the UK
The trouble with a lot of S106 funded services is that they start way ahead of the game, usually before the first tenants even get the key. I seem to believe this when local route 28 for the Bordon redevelopment ran for only two years, when the homes weren't yet completed.
But then you have some on the other hand which don't start until 300 homes have been completed and by which time, most of those already have their travel patterns set in stone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top