(07 Feb 2022, 7:53 am)Rob44 wrote [ -> ]Just read this on BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60245980
It makes sense really when you think about it. Maybe the should build the local amenities first, then sort out a bus route to and from the area THEN start building the houses??
New developments can be a nightmare for planning committees, because you cannot refuse a planning application based on buses not serving it. There's very few actual reasons you can refuse a planning application on, but there's generally a lot of work that goes on to use the Community Infrastructure Levy (or s106 money) to pay for infrastructure and services. Though that only contributes to a losing battle, rather than actually fixes any problems.
We've spoken on here at length in the past that new developments are often abandoned by operators, leaving it down to either CIL/s106 money to fund or the local authority to find some money for a secured service. Biddick Woods and (until very recently) Teal Farm are two good examples of this, where it's relied on Nexus to provide a service until very recently the 82 was redesigned to serve there and Waterview Park.
To a larger scale, you could ask why Washington was allowed to become one of the largest towns in the UK not on the rail network, when it was designated a New Town less than a year after the Leamside branch closed to passenger services.
As much as I think bus operators would like it to be the case, it's not as simple as throwing all your s106 money at it either. There's usually a shopping list of what it is necessary to spend that money on, such as expanding schools, GP surgeries and creating shared open spaces. The planning for the future whitepaper promises a complete overhaul of CIL anyway, likely with the addition of a land value tax, so it'll be interesting to see what that looks like in the future.