"Car dependency" - a depressing report

Labrat
Posts: 170
Joined: 3 Mar 2014, 11:58am

Re: "Car dependency" - a depressing report

Postby Labrat » 29 Jan 2019, 11:30am

I thought the planning game was pretty well settled now.

1) Apply for planning permission, including lots of proposals for cycle friendly infrastructure, landscaping, children’s play areas, community facilities etc.

2) Get awarded planning permission

3) Apply for a variation removing requirement for cycle friendly infrastructure, landscaping, children’s play areas, community facilities etc. Stating that project no longer financially viable unless removed.

4) Cash your bonus cheque having saved the developer half a million quid off the project cost.

basingstoke123
Posts: 145
Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm

Re: "Car dependency" - a depressing report

Postby basingstoke123 » 29 Jan 2019, 10:45pm

Labrat wrote:I thought the planning game was pretty well settled now.

1) Apply for planning permission, including lots of proposals for cycle friendly infrastructure, landscaping, children’s play areas, community facilities etc.

2) Get awarded planning permission

3) Apply for a variation removing requirement for cycle friendly infrastructure, landscaping, children’s play areas, community facilities etc. Stating that project no longer financially viable unless removed.

4) Cash your bonus cheque having saved the developer half a million quid off the project cost.


I think you're being a bit cynical with step 3.

Step 3 is not needed, provided you know how to do a planning application (which takes a lot of work, resulting in many detailed and very technical documents).

Briefly: you include a Transport or Access Statement (or something similar) which details access, how it will have negligible effect on existing traffic, a section on the importance and benefit of walking and cycling, and that the site is within easy cycling distance of key destinations. Of course, if you don't want the cost of building good (or any) cycle infrastructure, then don't include it in the detailed technical plans, and hope no one notices the omission. Easy, really.

Few people are able to read plans and technical drawings and understand exactly what is being proposed. You might assume that line next to the access road indicates a pavement, because the Access Statement had an excellent paragraph on the importance of walking. Are you sure? Or is it a boundary line? Or the edge of the hedge? If it doesn't explicitly state "pavement", "footway" or similar, with a width (e.g. 2m), then it probably isn't. If there is a footway, or shared use path shown, how good are you at understanding whether it is of a high standard and is useful, from looking at the plans? You might assume that things like dropped curbs are too detailed to be included and will be sorted out at the building stage. Really? Uh, no.

And before Labrat says something about pots and kettles, I wish I was being cynical. But, unfortunately, the above is what actually happens. Time and time again.

brynpoeth
Posts: 11246
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: "Car dependency" - a depressing report

Postby brynpoeth » 30 Jan 2019, 1:55am

How is Basingstoke planned/built for cycling/driving/walking?
Entertainer, kidult, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we love life

pga
Posts: 259
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 9:40pm

Re: "Car dependency" - a depressing report

Postby pga » 4 Feb 2019, 6:07pm

Sadly most motorists do not see it that way. They love their cars, however much harm they do to themselves and the rest of us. Politicians of all parties take the short term view and protect the status quo. Even Caroline Lucas does not appear to ride a bike. The media does not help either.
Even the Guardian, the best of the lot, is not immune from criticism on this forum.

Perhaps less time spent on forums, which many of us are guilty of, and more time challenging politicians and the media might help.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14008
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: "Car dependency" - a depressing report

Postby mjr » 4 Feb 2019, 6:21pm

basingstoke123 wrote:Briefly: you include a Transport or Access Statement (or something similar) which details access, how it will have negligible effect on existing traffic, a section on the importance and benefit of walking and cycling, and that the site is within easy cycling distance of key destinations. Of course, if you don't want the cost of building good (or any) cycle infrastructure, then don't include it in the detailed technical plans, and hope no one notices the omission. Easy, really.

It's even worse than that. You include it on the detailed technical plans and then agree with the responsible planning officer that you won't build it like that because it's not required by any binding policy, standards or planning condition (the planning condition is usually worded simply as needing the planning officer's approval for the highways plan, not as meeting specific standards). The final highways plan apparently doesn't have to be published anywhere before it becomes part of the Definitive Map unless there's a Freedom of Information Act request for it.

This rotten mess needs sorting out.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
NUKe
Posts: 3738
Joined: 23 Apr 2007, 11:07pm
Location: Suffolk

Re: "Car dependency" - a depressing report

Postby NUKe » 4 Feb 2019, 9:49pm

Mick F wrote:
I feel sometimes that whole streets should be one wide zebra crossing and all traffic has to give way to all pedestrians at all times.

What you desire is called Shared space, there are several places in the uk where this has been used. Felixstowe has this for half of the town centre and all though it has its critics, I am a big fan. Unlike pedestrian zones Cycling is not frowned upon and those that need motorised access still have it, all be it at a pedestrian pace.
NUKe
_____________________________________

brynpoeth
Posts: 11246
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: "Car dependency" - a depressing report

Postby brynpoeth » 5 Feb 2019, 2:19am

Shared space is rubbish, it is welcomed by the motor lobby as it allows vehicles to go everywhere, PoFs are no longer protected by kerbs
Visited Bohmte, shared space town in Germany, on the road from the station into town there are tactile stripes for blind people on both sides. Both were blocked by parked vehicles. Felt a bit queer, wanted to sit on a bench, did not dare because it was not protected by a kerb. Had to sit uncomfortably on a wall instead
Continued my enquiries at the cop-shop where I was told there had been fewer injury 'accidents' during the summer regime. I would avoid the shared space area as far as possible, keeping people away out of fear could reduce 'accidents'
Entertainer, kidult, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we love life

brynpoeth
Posts: 11246
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: "Car dependency" - a depressing report

Postby brynpoeth » 5 Feb 2019, 6:08am

Does Ms Lucas cycle, does her party favour cycling?
Entertainer, kidult, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we love life