Partager l'article
An article by Beate Kubitz
Planning Inspectors must consider how well new housing development is connected before approving (or refusing) planning permission. Without public transport and good cycling and walking paths, developments risk forcing their inhabitants to be entirely dependent on cars, giving rise to the concept of the ‘cow pat development’- an area of new homes plonked on a field without transport to connect it to existing services and opportunities. Planning officers recognise that this has negative consequences for traffic in the surrounding area (and isn’t very beneficial for the health of people living there).
“The uncertain future of rural bus services in South Gloucestershire has meant that a proposal for 75 homes on the outskirts of a village has been refused.”
The precarious funding for buses in the UK can play a role in limiting development. A recent case of small development in Tytherington was refused by South Gloucestershire Council because of the lack of secure funding for the local DRT service – The Robin - and a fixed timetable service – Y2C. Both the Y2C and the DRT services are funded on what is described as a ‘trial’ basis only, with the funding for each due to end in March 2026.
Padam Mobility has supported the development of the Robin and watched it grow. However, the intermittent and short-term funding is consequential. It creates uncertainty in service planning, impacts individuals who don’t have the confidence to rely on the bus in the long term, which further limits participation in the wider economy by reducing access to jobs and opportunities. In addition, the structural impacts on planning and development are visible. The planning decision outlined shows that without public transport, new developments for much-needed homes are not going forward.
In this case (as reported in The Planner), the PINS inspector, JP Sargent, noted that the nearest major shopping and employment centres to the proposed homes were in Thornbury, between 2.5km and 4km from the site and with unsuitable pedestrian and cycling routes. The site is covered by one of the ‘on-demand’ DRT bus service zones, which operates three eight-seater vehicles serving an area with roughly 12,000 homes. Whilst it was accepted that it provided connectivity for the areas, Sargent was not convinced that the “accessibility, capacity and dependability” of the DRT service had been established. On the day of the appeal hearing it was announced that a fixed timetable service – known as the Y2C – would be introduced, which has subsequently started operating. However, while the inspector accepted that the Y2C service would be suitable to improve the accessibility of the appeal proposal, its future funding is far from clear.
“A ‘trial’ implies some judgement has to be made as to whether or not either continues, and I have little knowledge of the terms of those trials, so am unaware as to how they are progressing. Therefore, while I have no firm evidence to show the funding will stop, neither do I have any to show it will continue,” commented Sargent.
The inspector concluded that the residents of the proposed homes would be overly reliant on private cars. The area does not have a housing land supply, which the development would address; however, this was not enough to convince Sargent that the appeal should be allowed.
Details reported from The Planner: email.theplanner.co.uk/c/1mvkAavZOWfeOZEQxu3Ys5640fh
