Isn’t that still ribbon development in this context?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Planning Rules Have Failed To link New Homes To Public Transport - study finds.
- Thread starter yorksrob
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Yes it is and I think it would be better than spreading development throughout the countryside as it makes better use of the transport infrastructure.
bramling
Veteran Member
Development in semi-rural areas causes massive problems for sure. Round here every village has had developments of houses, and many of these villages have little if any services beyond a basic corner shop (one round here doesn’t even have that). This must be creating an absolutely massive number of car journeys into and out of nearby towns, and this is borne out by visible increases in traffic congestion.
Many European countries have higher levels of car ownership than the UK. Swiss car ownership per capita is similar to the UK yet many of us on this forum regard Swiss public transport as among the best in the world. High car ownership need not mean poor train and bus services; more relevant is housing density and zoning (or lack of) for residential, business, leisure etc. use.
Last edited:
Facts show that it is.
Home building stats show continued increase in starts and completions despite pandemic
Statistics show the number of completed homes almost hit 50,000 in the last quarter – the highest number in over 20 years.
That shows 81% are houses although it’s a snapshot. Another poster put up the data indicating just 23% are flats.
That’s changing the goalposts. We are clearly referring to nation level development where the facts show apartments are less than a quarter of homes built. That major cities with limited land / high land values, constrained borders and so are away from that average is hardly a surprise.
My point was of course about low rise vs high rise, noting low rise of course includes a major share of the flats proportion.
It may be astonishing to you, but there is a huge area of the country that isn’t London or St Albans, and even in the latter I suspect low rise accounts for 100% of builds - noting again it was low rise I was talking about (say upto 5 floors).
Travelling a bit wider will see massive urban sprawl in the last few decades in nearly every town and village. Hence why overall what has been built in major cities pales by comparison. True high rise will be what, low single digit % of homes and so largely irrelevent to a wider public transport system.
Whilst the pros/cons of low rise development are an argument in themselves, the ever greater political push for “more homes” does not seem to be changing anything away from overwhelmingly low rise development with as posited, public transport being fundamentally unsuited to it vs point to point. So far nobody has made any credible suggestion how low density development can work with any kind of effective or efficient public transport.
The current and historical data on housing completions in England is here:
www.gov.uk
Table 254 gives the house/flat breakdown for completions by region and the percentage splits for houses and flats in 2023/24 are:
England 83/17
London 4/96
South East 71/29
East 80/20
South West 88/12
North West 92/8
West Midlands 94/6
East Midlands 96/4
Yorkshire and Humber 97/3
North East 98/2
Note this has been edited because I didn't read the source table properly, first time I quoted the figures for private enterprise only, missing out housing association properties.
I can't find a more detailed regional breakdown. The East is the region I know best and there will be a huge difference between places like St Albans or Cambridge, where the proportion of flats will be well above 20%, and rural villages in Norfolk or Suffolk, where the proportion of flats will be tiny.
Note these figures are completions in each year not the total housing stock.
The clearest message is that London, the South East and the East are very different from the rest of England.
Live tables on housing supply: indicators of new supply
The latest data tables on housing supply: indicators of new supply.
Table 254 gives the house/flat breakdown for completions by region and the percentage splits for houses and flats in 2023/24 are:
England 83/17
London 4/96
South East 71/29
East 80/20
South West 88/12
North West 92/8
West Midlands 94/6
East Midlands 96/4
Yorkshire and Humber 97/3
North East 98/2
Note this has been edited because I didn't read the source table properly, first time I quoted the figures for private enterprise only, missing out housing association properties.
I can't find a more detailed regional breakdown. The East is the region I know best and there will be a huge difference between places like St Albans or Cambridge, where the proportion of flats will be well above 20%, and rural villages in Norfolk or Suffolk, where the proportion of flats will be tiny.
Note these figures are completions in each year not the total housing stock.
The clearest message is that London, the South East and the East are very different from the rest of England.
Last edited:
Very interesting, although I’d quibble that the SE/E are much different from the rest.The current and historical data on housing completions in England is here:
Live tables on housing supply: indicators of new supply
The latest data tables on housing supply: indicators of new supply.
Table 254 gives the house/flat breakdown for completions by region and the percentage splits for houses and flats in 2023/24 are:
England 83/17
London 4/96
South East 71/29
East 80/20
South West 88/12
North West 92/8
West Midlands 94/6
East Midlands 96/4
Yorkshire and Humber 97/3
North East 98/2
Note this has been edited because I didn't read the source table properly, first time I quoted the figures for private enterprise only, missing out housing association properties.
I can't find a more detailed regional breakdown. The East is the region I know best and there will be a huge difference between places like St Albans or Cambridge, where the proportion of flats will be well above 20%, and rural villages in Norfolk or Suffolk, where the proportion of flats will be tiny.
Note these figures are completions in each year not the total housing stock.
The clearest message is that London, the South East and the East are very different from the rest of England.
Only London is overwhelmingly flats, the rest are all overwhelmingly houses, hence the average is that.
As I stated some time back, but its good to see it proved.
Of course even with the flats, I suspect the majority are in low rise buildings rather than high rise, probably in London also.
Yep. And then the anti motorists come out and say look at the congestion cars cause and why cant they all cycle/walk/crawl or compost at home like they do. Well of course they do if you add 10s of % or more population to an area and don’t build any roads.
Meanwhile its apparantly awesome to build railways that fill up or get used more yet these require massive subsidy and roads have been Govts most profitable investment ever.
Integrated transport not having moved an inch since it was so astutely parodied in Yes Minister.
Never in human history have we done this so stupidly.
Last edited:
Facts show that it is.
That shows 81% are houses although it’s a snapshot. Another poster put up the data indicating just 23% are flats.Home building stats show continued increase in starts and completions despite pandemic
Statistics show the number of completed homes almost hit 50,000 in the last quarter – the highest number in over 20 years.
The current and historical data on housing completions in England is here:
Live tables on housing supply: indicators of new supply
The latest data tables on housing supply: indicators of new supply.
Table 254 gives the house/flat breakdown for completions by region and the percentage splits for houses and flats in 2023/24 are:
England 83/17
London 4/96
South East 71/29
East 80/20
South West 88/12
North West 92/8
West Midlands 94/6
East Midlands 96/4
Yorkshire and Humber 97/3
North East 98/2
Note this has been edited because I didn't read the source table properly, first time I quoted the figures for private enterprise only, missing out housing association properties.
I can't find a more detailed regional breakdown. The East is the region I know best and there will be a huge difference between places like St Albans or Cambridge, where the proportion of flats will be well above 20%, and rural villages in Norfolk or Suffolk, where the proportion of flats will be tiny.
Note these figures are completions in each year not the total housing stock.
The clearest message is that London, the South East and the East are very different from the rest of England.
My apologies and I stand corrected, yet again learning the lesson that one’s experience does not prove a opinion.
I did look for some data, but evidently didn’t look hard enough.
telstarbox
Established Member
Yes and no. Car trips per person have actually been falling since the 1990s. Flexible working, supermarket deliveries and fewer new drivers are part of this.
I'm here now
Member
But there’s still more people having to do so…
To be fair, initial searching only threw up masses of links detailing conversions and total numbers. It was surprisingly hard to get a breakdown, google is not what it was.
I suspect most of the c.20% flats are in low rise, but stats seem thin on the ground.
Going back to the point, I don’t think low rise works well with public transport due to the time penalty of lots of stops (routing and dwell) to give coverage of an area. Someone must have researched this though.
I also think the growing size of towns (which is significant) works against centralised things like railway stations because of the “travel in to travel out” time growing. Adding parkway stations slows the travel time.
These 'issues' require addressing unless folk are to remain dependent on cars, or walkability. How have the Garden Cities and New Towns with their relatively low densities stood up to the passage of time with its increasing and unsustainable requirement for cars. Is it 'beyond the wit of man' or only a shortage of will?
Personally I think “its physics jim”, and that car numbers will plateau as per any natural “S shaped” system, thus a “finalish” road system could be conceived. Well, unless you keep adding lots of population that is.
That points to the core issue that is unsustainable which is growth of population and resulting density at the development model we have ended up in (after trying hi/rises and largely rejecting that as rubbish).
Which then points at our economic model being based on spending future generations tax and thus reliant on growing the population to even begin to square that.
This simply isn’t true. The kind of areas that had high rises before now have far more of them, and town centres all over the southeast that didn’t have them before are now getting them.
Indeed- the views from on high are often good- towards the hills or sea; however they are not good for families and the maintenance of 'common areas' can be problematic. Densities of high-rise are often similar to those of dense low-rise. DINKIES and single folk like the proximity to townlife, and no garden to look after, that flats can provide. A good mix is required rather than ghettos of all-the-same.
There’s not a lot of choice round here. Large numbers of homes are needed and between the green belt and heathland SPAs etc there isn’t space to build enough houses - so they build towers in the town centres.
TBF it is good for the high street to have lots of people living almost literally on top of it.
And personally I think they provide a bit of vertical interest in a fairly flat area, and I like the effect of the random windows lit up at night.
Families of all socioeconomic groups seem to live fine in apartments in central locations all over Europe. Often these are located above shops and other commercial premises which gives town and city centres more life all through the day and facilitates cost effective public transport.
Chicken and egg, but there isn’t the supply of high quality higher density family properties here, because developers don’t perceive the demand nor the profit margin. Our ownership model doesn’t help either. So even where there are larger city centre properties they tend to be occupied by house-sharers rather than families. A huge challenge for urban planners in the UK.
Chicken and egg, but there isn’t the supply of high quality higher density family properties here, because developers don’t perceive the demand nor the profit margin. Our ownership model doesn’t help either. So even where there are larger city centre properties they tend to be occupied by house-sharers rather than families. A huge challenge for urban planners in the UK.
daodao
Established Member
The Anglosphere (USA/Canada, UK/Ireland, Australasia) prefers low rise house-with-garden developments for new homes, which sets it apart from the rest of the world, including continental Europe. This hinders land-use development that generates local population densities that are favourable to public transport, with the exception of certain very large conurbations such as New York or London. The other problem with land-use development conflicting with encouraging public transport use is building major public facilities such as new acute hospitals on the edges of major towns rather than close to town centres that have existing public transport hubs.
The UK and Ireland have traditionally (and to some extent still do) embraced low rise, terraced housing, sometimes with yards/gardens, achieving comparatively high population densities outside of the capitals.
This seems more aligned to continental European norms and suitability for public transport than the rest of the Anglosphere.
Indeed - Hengrove Park Leisure Centre in Bristol being an example. There's so much room for development in Bristol - why build such a facility on the edge? Easier to drive to (for those with access to the ring road) but a lot less convenient for public transport users.
Compare that to Haverfordwest. And it isn't unfriendly to drivers either as it includes a large car park underneath.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Agree with almost all of that, but with one proviso. If buses are running with London-style frequencies and through ticketing is available, then it's not at all unrealistic for people to get two buses to an office. I live in London and it's not at all unusual that I'll make a journey that involves something like a 10 minute bus ride then a 5 minute wait for a bus that I know comes with that kind of frequency, followed by another 15-20 minute ride. That's not at all impractical. And plenty of people round here have a commute that involves taking a bus to the local station then a train.
Of course if you're outside London and the buses run every hour, then you're correct that taking 2 buses to work would be unrealistic.
daodao
Established Member
That was true before WW1, due to the need for most people to live close to their place of work in the absence of motorised transport. The development of railways and then tramways allowed some suburban sprawl, but mostly only for those better off who could afford to pay the fares. It was the vogue for garden city developments, combined with the ready availability of independent motorised transport (both cars and motorbuses) that allowed the development of low density housing estates, both private and municipal, in the years after WW1. Thus in the last 100 years, housing developments have in UK/Ireland have deviated markedly from those in foreign lands across the English Channel and have mirrored practice in the rest of the Anglosphere.
In the 1920s, the larger municipal tramways such as that in Manchester did attempt to serve the new suburbs, in some cases with reserved track lines, but then gave up as the costs became prohibitive, and there were often half-finished routes, or roads built with unused central dual carriageways. Examples in Manchester, where tramway development ceased in 1929, include the tram route to the vast Wythenshawe estate which was cut short at Southern Cemetery, and Mauldeth Road West in Chorlton-cum-Hardy, where the empty central reservation was eventually used in part for the second generation tramway opened 85 years after the road was originally built.
Last edited:
That's true to an extent, however terraces and maisonettes have been built to the present day, and even a lot of our semis have a comparatively restrictive footprint
Ribbon development is not that efficient or good for congestion. Better to have more of a "hub and spoke" model so you can build around the train station for instance with decent walking routes and a good bus interchange.
"hub and spoke" is also not that great unless the hub is really the centre of attention for an area, like london is. what you really want is "beads on a string", so most places can access each other, or you need multiple connections across the spokes depending on how long they are. a lot of car traffic is for these journeys between spokes because there are very few connections between them, or if there are connections they are a significantly worse service than the spoke itself
That's why I said "build around the train station" which should have a decent bus interchange relatively close and decent shops within a 5-10 minute walk too.
Building dead-end cul-de-sacs is the worst way to get people out of cars.
Last Hurrah
Member
Quite a few new school developments in Cardiff & surrounding area were built/are being built, near stations enabling the option of a short commute by rail
Haven’t we done this?
Development is sub 20% flats, which accounting for low rise means say half or less is high rise.
My old city has demolished what it built, new low rise development there instead.
The idea of cities in the sky is dead as a dodo, even if in a few highly urban areas a few more are going up - they’re a small minority of the numbers.
Are you saying that stat was once higher than 20%?
How can building high be dead when they are building loads of high residential blocks in places they weren’t before!
Take a trip along the Lizzie…
have you seen Canary Wharf recently, or Acton? Or Manchester City centre?