In a rare bout of fairness to housing developers, though, quite a lot of this is down to local pressure to avoid "rat runs" being created - A number of houses are being built on a large plot of land in visual distance of my abode, and that was a common mention in objections, leading to no access through the site, merely from both ends. Despite the blame they get (mostly by avoiding talking to locals), developers are mainly interested in getting their applications through first time, so will see which way the wind is blowing and adapt accordingly. (Said development was initialyl withdrawn and revised to take into account feedback before a decision).
In a public consultation for another larger-scale development (built on farmland - the developers know they are never going to win the hearts and minds battle), they told me they have specifically designed a road for buses in mind, and have sought guidance from the council as to where they would like stops and which route might use it. They also demolished the idea that they had refused to build a GP surgery (the successor to the Clinical Commissioning Group said they'd rather just improve current services), refused to build a school (council modelling said birth rate was declining so could be covered by existing provision) and had decided to put the smaller units down the hill (town end) and the bigger units up the hill (suburbia end) because that's what the council advised they wanted, despite some locals suggesting they'd prefer smaller properties further up. I thought I came prepared, but they were more prepared than I was... it simply isn't in developer's interests to insist "oh no, we really want to build a school/GP surgery/bus route despite what we're told by the planning authority"!
I will get around to writing some more general thoughts on this topic eventually, but the design of the estates isn't entirely down to the developer - if the council doesn't think they need a bus route, they won't provide the space for one, as it's fair to say a still significant number of local councillors up and down the country seem to think we live in a regulated era, or because they subsidize some contracts, they can "take the contract away" for commercial services too!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
To adjust the presentation of this point ever so slightly, Arriva withdrew the route on safety grounds, because at least two drivers were assaulted in road rage attacks by drivers using it illegally, in the wrong direction, despite traffic lights. Residents do not desire it to be a road open for all and support bus gate provision, because again, it is used as a rat run by non-locals, usually at speed.
To keep the road closed whilst they work out what to do with it (the council and residents and at that point Arriva, probably now Chalkwell, would like to reopen it as a bus gate; there remains little to no desire by those immediately connected to open it as a regular road), physical barriers - wooden gates with large chains and padlocks - were put in. In the space of 11 days they were vandalised and then physically removed (source: selected highlights from https://www.kentonline.co.uk/sittingbourne/news/safety-gates-ripped-out-after-11-days-256471/, https://www.kentonline.co.uk/sittingbourne/news/rat-run-blocked-by-security-gates-255778/ and https://services.swale.gov.uk/meetings/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=140&MID=2272#AI8119).
When faced with that sort of desperation on the part of other road users, I'm not really sure cameras (which were already there, see the articles) are going to be an effective deterrent.
Last edited:
