|
Title: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: grahame on August 27, 2018, 10:11:52 From http://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk:
Quote Transport for New Homes has visited over 20 housing developments to see what we are building in terms of transport and ensuing lifestyles. Having published our report we are now launching the Transport for New Homes Association to stimulate discussion and find practical ways for planning and transport to better work together. Quote Events How can we build healthy, liveable communities where residents can walk, cycle and use public transport to go about their daily lives? At these free events we launch our report summarising our visits to more than 20 large new areas of housing and invite cross-disciplinary discussion. Oxford launch event Wed 10 October 2018, 11am – 4pm Oxford Quaker Meeting House, 43 St Giles, Oxford, OX1 3LW London launch event Wed 24 October 2018, 3pm – 6pm The Gallery, 77 Cowcross Street, London, EC1M 6EL Sustainable development or mini-America? Counter-urbanisation and its consequences for transport, health and environment. Campaign for Better Transport behind this .... and one or two familiar names ;D . I think I see an absurdity in building houses in streets so packed that a bus cannot get through ... and in too often waiting to provide public transport in new build areas until most of the housing units are occupied ... by people who have multiple cars or who have gone out and bought another car so they can practically live there. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: eightonedee on September 01, 2018, 00:20:07 The absurdity is the unspoken conflict between policies encouraging sustainable transport links as an essential element of planning and green belts around some (but by no means all) major cities and conurbations.
A paradigm example is Oxford and the expansion of Witney over the last 4 decades to help meet its housing demand. Witney sits comfortably the other side of Oxford's green belt, but lost its railway in the early 1960. The result - long queues of traffic every morning on the A40 into Oxford. Planning policy is torn between the need for more housing and the objections of those who live near sites designated for it. This is the reason why large new settlements end up away from existing public transport (especially rail links). They may be packaged as "ecotowns" or "garden villages", but the reality is that they are a convenient political fix taking housebuilding away from the prosperous outer suburbs where opposition tends to be fiercest. However, the expansion of existing towns already on the railway system can be a win/win. From what I have read, it looks like a substantial part of the success in building rail services around Melksham has been the expansion of the town generating demand. And for all my comments about the shabbiness of Didcot Broadway, the town is gradually be transformed by growth, which has brought a better range of shopping to the town centre and a multiplex cinema. All this in a town that is generally dismissed as a railway junction - actually a good "sustainable" location! Most developments of any size now contribute toward public transport, usually by financial payment, but if the development is large enough by imposing obligations to provide road-based public transport infrastructure. Bus lanes tend to be the result of such development, rather than inadequate space for buses. The missing element in "building the homes we need in the places we need them" is both public and political support (which feed off one another) for taking account of existing transport infrastructure and using development to support it's sustainability as has happened more by accident than design at Melksham and Didcot. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: grahame on October 09, 2018, 01:07:39 Quote Sustainable development or mini-America? Counter-urbanisation and its consequences for transport, health and environment Oxford • 10 October 2018 Chair • Professor Graham Parkhurst, UWE How can we build healthy, liveable communities where residents can walk, cycle and use public transport to go about their daily lives? Six speakers I'll be very interested to hear what they have to say ... and one who I know very well indeed, but will have something new to say in his changing role. http://www.passenger.chat/oxford-programme-public.pdf Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: grahame on October 09, 2018, 05:38:43 From what I have read, it looks like a substantial part of the success in building rail services around Melksham has been the expansion of the town generating demand. Good. You 'got' that story - but only a small proportion of the new traffic is from new housing. However, the new housing was a significant trigger in enabling us to get the service level case re-opened when substantially the same team who had decided that two trains a day was appropriate for 2006 was still very much around. Until the last year, town expansion at Melksham has been to the east and south and the station is to the north west. The new George Ward Gardens is to north west (where public transport - train and bus is walkable easily) but there's a lot more coming to the south east ... around 800 homes with planning permission and I expect ground breaking any time. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: Lee on October 09, 2018, 20:44:16 Quote Sustainable development or mini-America? Counter-urbanisation and its consequences for transport, health and environment Oxford • 10 October 2018 Chair • Professor Graham Parkhurst, UWE How can we build healthy, liveable communities where residents can walk, cycle and use public transport to go about their daily lives? Six speakers I'll be very interested to hear what they have to say ... and one who I know very well indeed, but will have something new to say in his changing role. http://www.passenger.chat/oxford-programme-public.pdf I have been in touch today with one of the speakers, Professor Tom Holbrook from 5th Studio, for his thoughts ahead of tomorrow's presentation, and he has this message for forum members: Quote from: Professor Tom Holbrook Thanks very much for your email, and enthusiasm! I think the best preview of my presentation is to direct you to the PDF of our report for the National Infrastructure Commission which is available on their website here: https://www.nic.org.uk/publications/future-development-concepts/ I look forward to meeting you and your members who can make it tomorrow! Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: grahame on October 10, 2018, 07:33:48 I have been in touch today with one of the speakers, Professor Tom Holbrook from 5th Studio, for his thoughts ahead of tomorrow's presentation, and he has this message for forum members: I will look him up. Actually you have been in touch with at least two of the speakers - my slides are here (http://www.passenger.chat/TFNH_oct18.pdf). ;D Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: Lee on October 10, 2018, 07:59:48 Indeed - I figured you were more than capable of giving your own message to forum members ;D
Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: ellendune on October 10, 2018, 09:13:03 I have been in touch today with one of the speakers, Professor Tom Holbrook from 5th Studio, for his thoughts ahead of tomorrow's presentation, and he has this message for forum members: I will look him up. Actually you have been in touch with at least two of the speakers - my slides are here (http://www.passenger.chat/TFNH_oct18.pdf). ;D Noticed a different domain name for the Coffee shop on the last slide. Where did that come from? Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: grahame on October 10, 2018, 09:28:32 I have been in touch today with one of the speakers, Professor Tom Holbrook from 5th Studio, for his thoughts ahead of tomorrow's presentation, and he has this message for forum members: I will look him up. Actually you have been in touch with at least two of the speakers - my slides are here (http://www.passenger.chat/TFNH_oct18.pdf). ;D Noticed a different domain name for the Coffee shop on the last slide. Where did that come from? Multiple domain names are parked / work to this place. We need to be moving away from "firstgreatwestern" as we are current and that name is now historic. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: grahame on October 11, 2018, 07:36:18 A very interesting day indeed - but what a depressing outcome / story of a planning system which in many ways is outdated and unfit for purpose. The day was clearly for experts by experts (I was very much the amateur in the talkers!) and with a bias towards planning for access by modes other than the car - but even for the car driver, there are some depressing design asides such as the dumping of housing where it's convenient to the house builder rather than where it works for clean air, efficient journeys and lack of congestion as people go to neighbouring areas. Horror stories in our region like the bus service in Newton Abbott that went through the new housing but no bus stops were provided so it didn't call, and from Trowbridge where green field sites are chosen with poor public transport and people walking have to walk on the verge of the arterial road that bisects the estate.
http://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/transport-for-new-homes-summary-web.pdf • Theme 1 Car-based living • Theme 2 Homes not properly connected for pedestrians, cyclists or buses • Theme 3 Public transport opportunities missed • Theme 4 The importance of mixed land use and integrated transport • Theme 5 The advantages of the new urban quarter • Theme 6 Insights from the Netherlands But ... I'm not sure where the report goes from here / what can be done about the issues it highlights. Co-incidentally, I came back to Melksham to take part in a Neighbourhood plan meeting - looking at the plan which has to go both to a central government inspector to ensure it's valid, and to a local vote to ensure that it's what people want. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss how to inform the people who can take part in the local vote on a pretty technical issue ... memories of how the Brexit issue was presented (or not) prior to the referendum and a desire to fully inform and discuss any issues with potential voters prior to the vote in this case so that decisions are made based on facts. The plan may not effect the 1000 new homes already approved in Melksham, but it could certainly effect the 2,400 that look likely in the 2026 - 2036 allocation; we can't realistically stop new housing (and I don't think we would want to - personally anyway) but we can look to get it in the right place and with the right access and facilities. That will work for the community, for the wider councils and policies, and for the developers who should end up with more desirable homes for people to buy. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: Trowres on October 11, 2018, 21:13:37 Quote But ... I'm not sure where the report goes from here / what can be done about the issues it highlights. There are parallels with rail transport:
Can things be improved? Is it better to concentrate on one of the above issues, or attack all of them? I don't know the answer, but with Local Plans being updated in various authorities there should be as good an opportunity as there is likely to be to expose misconceptions and irrational approaches to housing location and its relationship with transport. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: grahame on October 12, 2018, 03:58:19
Can things be improved? There is a whole separate thread to be had on this one ... at least we get some views and comments here. I really dispair when I see the papers headlining "Duchess closes car door" over and above just about everything else. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: Lee on October 15, 2018, 15:25:00 Just to round things off, I have this from another of the speakers, Dr Nicholas Falk of the URBED Trust:
Quote from: Dr Nicholas Falk I am sorry that I did not get your email until it was too late to send you a preview. However I am delighted to attach a pdf of my presentation. (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/EuropeanPerspective.pdf) I concluded by running briefly through our proposals for what I call the Oxford Metro, which is designed to provide the spines for new housing development around Oxford that would accommodate potential demand without adding to congestion. The proposals will be covered in a forthcoming report from the Oxford Civic Society and Oxfordshire Futures Group, and I do encourage you to take a look at their web site and use anything you find of interest - https://www.oxcivicsoc.org.uk/ and https://www.oxfordfutures.org.uk/ Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: eXPassenger on October 24, 2018, 17:30:14 There is an interesting article in The Guardian today:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/24/housing-developments-planning-incentives-cars-new-homes-transport-report Quote Planning incentives are encouraging housing developments that push residents towards “car-based living” by failing to include public transport or pedestrian infrastructure, a report has claimed. Poor regulations allow developers to buy up cheap, almost rural locations for new housing stock, which councils are required to assess for “deliverability” while meeting national housebuilding targets and before making transport assessments, according to the report by the campaign group Transport for New Homes (TNH). “Building new homes in fields so remote from good public transport networks, major employment hubs and services, means that sustainable transport options are perceived as limited from the start and too difficult,” the report said. Local authorities have also apparently specifically zoned housing next to roads they wanted to finance, such as the Castle Mead urban extension in Wiltshire, which is bisected by a new bypass giving lorries and other traffic access to the nearby town of Trowbridge. In one example of the incentives, a mile-and-a-half stretch of road linking a new estate, also near Trowbridge, was being funded with £14.25m of public money. According to the research, £8.75m from the government’s local development fund and £5.5m from the infrastructure marginal viability fund are helping pay for improvements to the A350, leading to the town’s Ashton Park development of 2,700 homes. This will be topped up by the developer contributing £11.5m, a total of £25.75m for the new single carriageway and new roundabouts to provide access to the homes. The A350 extension is one of example of how the unintended consequences of government housing targets and programmes are encouraging developments reliant on motor transport, with access and parking for cars trumping green space and footpaths, according to TNH. Researchers visited 20 housing developments around the country, and some in the Netherlands, trying out public transport, cycling and walking routes, taking photos, talking to residents and local businesses, and charting congestion. They found “residential streets … practically devoid of greenery [while] the sheer amount of area given over to road access, driveways and parking was astonishing” – up to 40% in some places. “Areas of affordable homes seemed particularly badly hit,” the report said. It warned of a turn towards the car-focused infrastructure of American suburbia, with some estates linked by roads without pavements, and said public transport opportunities had been missed, there was a lack of infrastructure for walkers, and many estates “rising up from the countryside” were not properly integrated into the towns to which they were attached. TNH is funded by the Foundation for Integrated Transport and the RAC Foundation. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: stuving on October 24, 2018, 17:36:10 The report being reported is already the subject of this thread (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=20282.msg245059#msg245059) - thought the thread title is wrong, it should be Transport for New Homes. There was a similar piece in this morning's Times, too - why the interest only now?
Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: grahame on October 24, 2018, 17:45:25 The report being reported is already the subject of this thread (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=20282.msg245059#msg245059) - thought the thread title is wrong, it should be Transport for new Homes. There was a similar piece in this morning's Times, too - why the interest only now? The LONDON launch was today ;D ;D ... though of course the Oxford one had a higher class of speaker! Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: eXPassenger on October 24, 2018, 17:51:15 The report being reported is already the subject of this thread (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=20282.msg245059#msg245059) - thought the thread title is wrong, it should be Transport for new Homes. There was a similar piece in this morning's Times, too - why the interest only now? Sorry. I had read the earlier post and thought this was a new item. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: grahame on October 24, 2018, 18:03:09 The report being reported is already the subject of this thread (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=20282.msg245059#msg245059) - thought the thread title is wrong, it should be Transport for new Homes. There was a similar piece in this morning's Times, too - why the interest only now? Sorry. I had read the earlier post and thought this was a new item. I will merge the two and correct the old (confusing) title a bit later Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: Lee on October 24, 2018, 18:13:49 Also worth noting, as is so often the case with such articles, we are only getting part of the story here. Take the Castle Mead estate for example - What the article doesn't mention is that the successful 2013 Wiltshire Council LSTF bid that provided the initial funding for an appropriate TransWilts rail service also funded a team of people who went door to door talking to each of the Castle Mead residents, assessing their transport needs, and providing them with information about the local bus service from the estate to Trowbridge, onward bus and rail connections from Trowbridge itself, and other sustainable transport options such as local walking and cycle routes.
This wasn't a Johnny-Come-Lately exercise either - the bus route was already put in place before the bulk of the new homes went up, and the team operated while houses were literally being built and occupied around them. How do I know this? - I was the leader of the team. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: grahame on October 25, 2018, 04:24:32 The report being reported is already the subject of this thread (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=20282.msg245059#msg245059) - thought the thread title is wrong, it should be Transport for new Homes. There was a similar piece in this morning's Times, too - why the interest only now? Sorry. I had read the earlier post and thought this was a new item. I will merge the two and correct the old (confusing) title a bit later Merged and subject line sorted Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: grahame on November 21, 2018, 10:33:09 https://www.transporttimes.co.uk/news.php/Transport-for-New-Homes---are-we-building-sustainable-development-or-mini-America-343/ - very interesting piece from Jenny
Quote Transport for new homes - are we building sustainable development or mini-America? Author: Jenny Raggett, Project Lead, Transport for New Homes Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: stuving on November 22, 2018, 13:37:21 I'm not sure where the Town and Country Planning Association stand on transport these days, but they are having a seminar on it soon (https://www.tcpa.org.uk/Event/tcpa-seminar-planning-and-delivering-sustainable-transport-in-large-scale-new-communituies) (28th November):
Quote TCPA seminar: Planning and delivering sustainable transport in large scale new communities *editedAs part of our New Communities Group programme of events, this half-day seminar will explore approaches to planning and delivering sustainable transport in large scale new developments. The seminar will cover: Designing sustainable and healthy modes of transport Integrating existing and new transport Assessing need Programme* 13.05 Developing local cycling and walking infrastructure plans - Richard Mace, Head of Engagement & Commercial, and Isobel Pastor, Head of Housing and Transport Policy, Department for Transport 13.25 Opportunities for ‘Smart, Shared, Sustainable Mobility’ - Geoff Snelson, Director of Strategy and Futures, Milton Keynes Council 14:30 Introducing Green Cities - Julia Thrift, Projects and Operations Director, TCPA 14:40 Best practice in planning for sustainable transport - Lynda Addison OBE, Malcolm Baker Consulting 15:00 Opportunities for transport innovation – Longcross Garden Village - Nick Lloyd-Davies, Senior Planning Project Officer, Runnymede Borough Council Price: £50+vat (£60) for TCPA Members; £100+vat (£120) for non-members; FREE for TCPA New Communities Group members. Their annual conference starts today, with Nick Raynsford introducing the report of his review into planning in England. This isn't on the TCPA site yet (presumably waiting for this morning's launch), but has been reported elsewhere (https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/raynsford-review-criticises-chaotic-patchwork-in-planning): Quote A review of the English planning system led by former housing minister Nick Raynsford has warned that there is a ‘chaotic patchwork’ of responsibilities and that permitted development is ‘toxic’. The system is not compatible with promoting the health, wellbeing and civil rights of communities, says the review, which was commissioned by the Town & Country Planning Association (TCPA) and carried out by a task force led by Raynsford. Planning has a huge potential to make people’s lives better, says the review, but this opportunity has been undermined by deregulation. The report, Planning 2020: Raynsford Review of Planning in England, calls on the government to immediately restrict permitted development, which allows the conversion of commercial buildings to housing units without any proper safeguards on quality, with a senior member of the review team branding it ‘toxic’ for enabling conversion to homes lacking light or space. I can't see much about transport in that, though. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: grahame on January 21, 2020, 12:07:23 Thought back to Transport for New Homes ( http://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk ) at today's BBC Story (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51179688)
Quote New UK housing 'dominated by roads' Planners and engineers have been rapped for allowing new housing developments to be dominated by roads. A report says too many highways engineers are still approving roads that do not fully account for pedestrians and cyclists. It follows a government survey suggesting an increase in public concern over the impact of cars on people's health and the environment. The new report comes from University College London (UCL). Its author, Prof Matthew Carmona, told BBC News: “Far too many new developments are still all about the car. It’s all about making sure cars don’t need to slow down. Pedestrians and cyclists just have to get out of the way. Whether we move away from cars by moving to cycles and walking, or by moving to buses, light rail and trains, we should be moving away from - or at least offering an alternative to - private car dependent. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: CyclingSid on January 22, 2020, 06:53:54 Unfortuneatly when they do provide cycling infrastructure, all too often the standard is that low as to be almost unusable. I get the impression that designing for cyclists and pedestrians is not something that figures highly in a highway engineers education and training.
Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: SandTEngineer on January 22, 2020, 08:55:11 Unfortuneatly when they do provide cycling infrastructure, all too often the standard is that low as to be almost unusable. I get the impression that designing for cyclists and pedestrians is not something that figures highly in a highway engineers education and training. Well, my experience is that when the cycling infrastructure is provided, cyclists still stick to the adjacent road ::)Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: Richard Fairhurst on January 22, 2020, 09:22:13 You could possibly say that the two might be connected...
(https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/resources/images/7037903.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=responsive-gallery) Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: Reading General on January 22, 2020, 09:38:20 Whether we move away from cars by moving to cycles and walking, or by moving to buses, light rail and trains, we should be moving away from - or at least offering an alternative to - private car dependent. The key word here is alternative. The alternative has to be available and that is not something you can really leave in the hands of a private, for profit bus company without council support from the beginning. As a minimum target, the journey from new estates to the town/city centre, the area we need to remove cars from the most, needs to be available from the moment new residents move in. But this doesn't mean simply adding another bus service and another potential six or so buses an hour to an already busy location, the possibilities of fitting it in among the already running services should be viewed first, after all many of our town centres are at capacity for accommodating buses at the moment, Oxford springs to mind. The design of estates needs to change too, away from this winding road that is difficult for public transport to negotiate, to a more traditional layout. Much time and the amount of stops can be saved on bus services which run along straight roads, it's much easier to find the route and making good progress is key to keeping people using services. It is of no coincidence that, on post war housing estates, the bus stop nearest the shops is often the most popular to join the route and head to town. If people can access the shops on foot, they can access the main public transport choice, they also feel safer waiting amongst others for transport too. One aspect of modern estates and public transport that doesn't work that well is the method of increasing coverage with enormous, one way terminal loops. Buses (trolleys, trams) always have to wait time somewhere on a loop and this is often at the expense of passengers only a couple of stops from home. On a particular route I used to drive, I would run the bus around the loop without destinations to drop people off before heading back to the start if I had more than 5 minutes to wait, this unfortunately had to stop when branded buses arrived as it would cause people on their way to a stop to start legging it for the bus thinking it was early or the previous bus running late. The routes that work best are the routes that run in a straight line to a terminal point and U-turn with as little one way running as possible. If a large loop is necessary it should be run as a pair of circular services but even these can be frustrating for passengers heading to a common point not knowing which one on which side of the road is coming first. Public transport requires some effort from the user in order for it to make progress, so the temptation to place many bus stops along a route or run the route to every corner of the estate must be resisted. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: broadgage on January 22, 2020, 21:01:04 Agree, new housing estates need to be bus friendly from the beginning.
A straight, or nearly straight main road for the buses. Shops and pubs along the main road. Numerous short side streets off the main road, the majority of the houses to be in these side streets which need to be short enough that walking to the main road and the bus stops therein is easy. These side streets can be relatively narrow, wide enough for a fire engine or a refuse truck, or indeed a bus in case of diversions, and could reasonably be one way, alternate side streets being one way in opposite directions. Those ends of the side streets distant from the main road to be linked together by a secondary road, so as to provide access from different directions, and to allow pedestrians and cyclists to take the most direct route to neighbours. The main road needs to be wide enough for buses to pass each other with ease. Speed limit 30 mph on the main road, 20 MPH in the side streets and the secondary roads. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: CyclingSid on January 23, 2020, 07:02:56 "Cyclists dismount" signs, has anybody ever seen a "Cyclists remount" sign?
Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: mjones on January 23, 2020, 08:05:54 Well, my experience is that when the cycling infrastructure is provided, cyclists still stick to the adjacent road ::) Yet in countries that provide cycling infrastructure that is actually helpful to cyclists, rather than simply trying force them onto the footway, cyclists can be observed to be using it in large numbers. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: Reading General on January 23, 2020, 08:47:48 Yet in countries that provide cycling infrastructure that is actually helpful to cyclists, rather than simply trying force them onto the footway, cyclists can be observed to be using it in large numbers. I’ve seen it in action in Eindhoven, and I was pleasantly surprised at how orderly it all was. I’m not sure if they enforce any stronger rules there or not, but in a pedestrian area, nobody was weaving in and out of the pedestrians to make quicker progress, just riding in line at the pace of other cyclists. You can strike me down here but I think there are many in the U.K who ride a bike in the same manner they would drive a car. They will not be stopped by anything en route and will take any path, the most direct route to get to where they are going. I’m pro cycling but I’m not a fan of the ‘personal best time’ type cycling that has become popular. The trouble with cycling in the U.K is that many have been doing as they please for too long and like driving, we notice those who break the rules more than those observing them, until eventually it becomes normalised. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: Bmblbzzz on January 23, 2020, 09:22:53 You can strike me down here but I think there are many in the U.K who ride a bike in the same manner they would drive a car. They will not be stopped by anything en route and will take any path, the most direct route to get to where they are going. I’m pro cycling but I’m not a fan of the ‘personal best time’ type cycling that has become popular. The trouble with cycling in the U.K is that many have been doing as they please for too long and like driving, we notice those who break the rules more than those observing them, until eventually it becomes normalised. Strava doesn't help with this! Neither does the way that cycling has been regarded at various levels from parents up to government ministers as either a kids' toy or a sport but not as transport. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: Bmblbzzz on January 23, 2020, 09:24:47 The routes that work best are the routes that run in a straight line to a terminal point and U-turn with as little one way running as possible. If a large loop is necessary it should be run as a pair of circular services but even these can be frustrating for passengers heading to a common point not knowing which one on which side of the road is coming first. I think this shows another feature that's frustrating for public transport, albeit probably more typical of new traffic plans imposed on old areas than modern developments, is the one-way system. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: CyclingSid on January 24, 2020, 07:06:02 Places like Reading could do with more contra-flow cycle lanes (duck!)
Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: Reading General on January 24, 2020, 07:50:26 Places like Reading could do with more contra-flow cycle lanes (duck!) Agreed, and a couple more contraflow bus lanes, Mount Pleasant/Silver Street would make a big difference to services and meet up with the London Street one, but for a different thread perhaps. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: stuving on January 25, 2020, 13:15:58 The news that restarted this thread last week (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=20282.msg280675#msg280675) was triggered by a report - this report (https://indd.adobe.com/view/23366ae1-8f97-455d-896a-1a9934689cd8). (The link is to an Adobe viewer, but there is a dowload button and the pdf itself is here (https://adobeindd.com/view/publications/23366ae1-8f97-455d-896a-1a9934689cd8/sp1x/publication-web-resources/pdf/Place_Alliance_-_A_Housing_Design_Audit_for_England_2020_Final_Draft.pdf).) It describes itself as "A Housing Design Audit for England", and was done by the Bartlett school of planning at UCL.
Its backing was widely reported as being by CPRE (well known) and Place Alliance (who they?). This they (http://placealliance.org.uk/): Quote The Place Alliance is a movement for place quality. It is founded on the idea that through collaboration and better communication we can establish a culture whereby the quality of place becomes an everyday national and local priority. Place Alliance is open to all and brings together organisations and individuals who share the belief that the quality of our built environment has a profound influence on people’s lives. The success of Place Alliance depends on the support of its supporters and volunteers. We welcome all organisations and local groups as well as individuals, town and parish councils, local authorities and businesses as members and supporters of Place Alliance. Place Alliance is an independent not-for-profit initiative of UCL. We operate on a tight budget and rely on the generosity of our supporters. At first sight (i.e. I've not read any of the report yet) they blame government(s), planners, developers, etc for housing design being so bad (as they see it) - but not buyers. Do they have no agency at all? I imagine that whether buyers find the houses and their environments attractive has a measurable impact on actual selling prices and times, even if it seems unlikely that you could make any house literally unsaleable just by design. And if buyers views have no influence, that itself would be worth exploring. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: ellendune on January 25, 2020, 13:46:14 At first sight (i.e. I've not read any of the report yet) they blame government(s), planners, developers, etc for housing design being so bad (as they see it) - but not buyers. Do they have no agency at all? I imagine that whether buyers find the houses and their environments attractive has a measurable impact on actual selling prices and times, even if it seems unlikely that you could make any house literally unsaleable just by design. And if buyers views have no influence, that itself would be worth exploring. Ahh but there is a housing shortage. In that sort of market it is the seller that has control not the buyer. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: eightonedee on January 25, 2020, 13:47:07 You've hit the nail on the head Stuving!
No private sector developer is going to build houses it cannot sell. They have to steer a course between design fashion, planning policy, where they can find land to buy, what they can build and what people want to buy. The reason why housing is still designed with the car owning family in mind (at least outside city centres where there is demand among urban singles and childless couples for housing without car parking provision for each household, often involving car clubs or other shared private transport provision) is that they have to sell to one- and two-car households. Many in the industry take their design responsibilities seriously. Notwithstanding the problems for example with the standard of workmanship (see recent publicity about Persimmon), just like any other consumer focused industry the house building industry knows that building and selling a saleable product perceived as good and suitable by buyers is what they have to do. This enables them to make the profit that pays the dividends that fill our pension funds, pays its Corporation Tax to help pay for public services, creates the jobs and provides much needed housing. Ultimately it is for society as a whole to provide the infrastructure changes that support a move from private car to public transport, and for those who design and build vehicles that have a lower impact on the environment. I am aware from my own professional practice how much of the value generated by development ends up going to providing social infrastructure or in payments into local and national government. On large scale development, it can be more than twice what the landowner is paid for the land sold with planning permission, and even then the landowner will have to account to HMRC for capital gains tax on that land sale. Groups like Place Alliance have to acknowledge that much of design is subjective judgement. After all, there is a considerable demand for old "character" housing with awful insulation, non-existent foundations and internal layouts that are hopelessly inefficient. Pontificating about such matters does not generate jobs, dividends, taxes or homes. If you think you can do better, raise capital, start buying land and building houses and then you will see what really is involved. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: eightonedee on January 25, 2020, 13:57:52 Quote Ahh but there is a housing shortage. In that sort of market it is the seller that has control not the buyer. Maybe, but there is still plenty of competition on the supply side so that buyers have a choice, not only between different developers/suppliers of new homes but also the secondhand stock that is on the market too. The buyer is therefore still king (or queen!). We are not in East Germany. The housing shortage manifests in high house prices in the private sector and a shortage of housing in the rented sector (be that private or social). Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: Reading General on January 25, 2020, 17:41:46 You see, as pro public transport as I am, I think it's more about creating the option of good public transport/cycling/walking opportunities, not eradicating private car use altogether in suburbia. It's about choosing the right option depending on where people are going and trying to stop the unnecessary car journeys, as well as moving away from these labyrinth like estates where you could come out of a house and have no idea which direction is the way out of the close, or to the shops/bus stop etc. As I've pointed out already, the first target is to try and reduce car use from where people live to their town/city/regional centre. If you work in the same town that you live in, public transport should be the choice. Accommodating better public transport/walking/cycling provision shouldn't really take too much space away from the developers and cars can still be accommodated much as they were on the post war estates before everybody owned a car. Perhaps if we changed the way we build neighbourhoods and estates, many households could become one car again and possibly even no car, if everything can be accessed locally and by public transport.
Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: ellendune on January 26, 2020, 00:18:52 Quote Ahh but there is a housing shortage. In that sort of market it is the seller that has control not the buyer. Maybe, but there is still plenty of competition on the supply side so that buyers have a choice, not only between different developers/suppliers of new homes but also the secondhand stock that is on the market too. The buyer is therefore still king (or queen!). We are not in East Germany. The housing shortage manifests in high house prices in the private sector and a shortage of housing in the rented sector (be that private or social). Not where I am. And particularly when all the major developers are producing pretty much the same product. There is no competition at the moment because there is a shortage and the seller can dictate the market. That is also why prices keep going relentlessly up so that the many of the younger generations cannot afford to buy. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: Bmblbzzz on January 26, 2020, 14:05:07 Quote Ahh but there is a housing shortage. In that sort of market it is the seller that has control not the buyer. Maybe, but there is still plenty of competition on the supply side so that buyers have a choice, not only between different developers/suppliers of new homes but also the secondhand stock that is on the market too. The buyer is therefore still king (or queen!). We are not in East Germany. The housing shortage manifests in high house prices in the private sector and a shortage of housing in the rented sector (be that private or social). Not where I am. And particularly when all the major developers are producing pretty much the same product. There is no competition at the moment because there is a shortage and the seller can dictate the market. That is also why prices keep going relentlessly up so that the many of the younger generations cannot afford to buy. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: eightonedee on January 26, 2020, 16:27:19 Quote from: ellendune on Today at 12:18:52 am
Quote Not where I am. And particularly when all the major developers are producing pretty much the same product. There is no competition at the moment because there is a shortage and the seller can dictate the market. That is also why prices keep going relentlessly up so that the many of the younger generations cannot afford to buy. and Quote I reckon the price of housing is as much to do with owners' expectations – thinking of the houses we live in as investments – as with supply and demand. But (a) I'm no financial expert (b) the reasons for house price rises could (if we let them, and I don't suggest we should) become a whole thread in themselves, not strictly connected with planning and design. Bmblbzzz has it right. There are about 1.2 to 1.3m home sales a year, we are still not building 200k new homes (of which I'd guess 20-25% are new for rent not sale). So prices for new homes are set by the general market. That is how a housebuilder appraises a site and how developments land is valued - you look at the estimated gross sales revenue by looking at house prices generally in the area, take off the costs of building and selling, including financing costs, take off an assumed return on capital employed (profit) and what you are left with is the net land value. How is this relevant to the subject matter of this thread? Well new homes have to be sold into a market dominated by existing housing stock, so any design features in the development that inhibit private car use (ignoring city centre schemes where the market is not one dominated by buyers looking to buy a home for them and their car(s)) will put those homes at a competitive disadvantage to the general housing stock available on the market. And of course we need to ensure that the owners of the 20m odd existing units in the national housing stock to use public transport or walk whenever possible. So that's why I'm afraid I think Place Alliance are looking at the wrong place to start a really effective modal shift away from private car use. It's not in the layout of new housing, it's in the provision of good reliable and affordable public transport and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists for the country as a whole. Where they to remove their design focused blinkers and actually look at many local planning authorities' policies and national planning policy they will see that the underlying intent is there, and I would think that most current developments (whatever anyone thinks about their aesthetics) contribute towards local transport infrastructure (not just roads) in a much more positive manner than those carried out say 20 years ago. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: mjones on January 26, 2020, 17:11:21 "
Where they to remove their design focused blinkers and actually look at many local planning authorities' policies and national planning policy they will see that the underlying intent is there, and I would think that most current developments (whatever anyone thinks about their aesthetics) contribute towards local transport infrastructure (not just roads) in a much more positive manner than those carried out say 20 years ago. " No they don't! That's exactly the problem that Place Alliance etc are pointing out. They continue to design roads to out of date standards that build in encouraging car travel over alternatives. For example, having lots of culs de sac that make it impossible to serve with convenient bus routes and that increase walking and cycling distances to the point where hardly anyone will bother. High speed distributor roads without safe and convenient crossing places or cycle routes. Once you have built these problems in it is very hard to do anything about them in the future, car dependency is locked in. That's why it is so important to get the new development right in the first place. It isn't 'blinkered' to focus on stopping new housing adding to the existing problems. In places like Didcot and Swindon that are experiencing very high growth the effects of poor planning are being felt now, with lots more traffic making trips that could easily have been cycled if only relatively low cost changes had been made at the planning stage. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: Richard Fairhurst on January 26, 2020, 18:00:59 Where they to remove their design focused blinkers and actually look at many local planning authorities' policies and national planning policy they will see that the underlying intent is there The problem, at least in this part of the world, is that policies don't get followed through to reality. Oxfordshire's LTP4 is quite good and its Cycling and Walking Design Standards are really good. The standard of design being waved through in countless developments around the county is much less so. There's a real mismatch going on here. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: CyclingSid on January 27, 2020, 07:01:09 I presume that you are talking about Oxfordshire CC, not Oxford City, who appear to be having a funny (peculiar not haha) turn over cycling.
Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: broadgage on January 27, 2020, 16:57:12 When I applied for planning permission to replace a window, I had to explain "in what way my proposed development would encourage sustainable transport choices"
And also the impact of my proposed works on flood risk. Nothing about newts though. Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: Richard Fairhurst on January 27, 2020, 17:21:24 I presume that you are talking about Oxfordshire CC, not Oxford City, who appear to be having a funny (peculiar not haha) turn over cycling. Indeed. (Oxfordshire CC is the highways authority, though a few day-to-day things are delegated to Oxford City Council in their area.)Title: Re: Planning Incentives 'lead to housing estates centered on car use' Post by: stuving on January 30, 2020, 22:51:34 Here's another report I haven't read yet. I thought it was only relevant because this thread had already strayed into general housing design and even aesthetics, but in fact transport is mentioned quite a lot in the text. It's the final report of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/861832/Living_with_beauty_BBBBC_report.pdf), titled "Living with Beauty: Promoting health, well-being and sustainable growth".
This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |