http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: WANTED - examples of planning failure en Sun, 17 May 2026 14:39:23 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11493#post-131479 Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:31:35 +0000 neddie 131479@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>And some recent bad examples of unnecessarily enlarged junctions at recent developments:</p> <p><ul><li>West Granton Access/West Granton Road</li><li>Waterfront Broadway, incl Morrisons Square</li><li>The entrance to Western Harbour</li></ul> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11493#post-131477 Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:29:26 +0000 neddie 131477@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Some things that could be added to the guidance:</p> <p><ul><li>10% of the contribution agreed for car-based expenditure should go on cycling (as target is 10% of all trips by bike in 2020)</li><li>Road junctions should not be widened unnecessarily where traffic levels do not justify the exposure faced by pedestrians and cyclists at these junctions</li><li>Roads/junctions should be designed with a "sense of place", as per Designing Streets guidlines</li></ul> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11493#post-131473 Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:22:41 +0000 neddie 131473@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><strong>Draft Guidance on Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing</strong></p> <p>The Council’s approach to developer contributions and affordable housing is being revised. The approach is set out as draft Guidance on Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing.</p> <p>A draft version of the new approach has been prepared to allow consultation on its content. The draft Guidance sets out the circumstance in which developers will be required to make contributions to ensure that necessary mitigation is delivered with new development, and the housing, economic and mixed use developments listed within the LDP are delivered.</p> <p>The draft Guidance can be downloaded from the Council’s website at <a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planningguidelines" rel="nofollow">http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planningguidelines</a></p> <p>Responses to the draft guidance should be submitted to the Council by Friday 13th December 2013 to <a href="mailto:kate.hopper@edinburgh.gov.uk">kate.hopper@edinburgh.gov.uk</a> or by mail to: Kate Hopper, Business Centre G3, Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11493#post-130506 Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:26:40 +0000 chdot 130506@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There's the whole '<a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10555&amp;page=2#post-120366">signs at Canonmills Tesco saga</a>'. </p> <p>This is no doubt a failure of the planning system generally more than direct 'failure to get more money/facilities' from the owner/developer. In this case it was just a minor detail change. </p> <p>It's disappointing that Tesco didn't go to CEC before the opening of the Rodney Street Tunnel and propose a better walk/cycle access to their store </p> <p>I don't know if CEC has ever approached Tesco about improving access there generally - and looking at ways of widening the path - but it would be good if the planning system/planners could be more proactive. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11493#post-130503 Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:01:08 +0000 Morningsider 130503@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Not sure about this - there are serious restrictions on what can and cannot be covered by conditions attached to planning permission or form part of a planning obligation (also known as planning gain, planning agreement or Section 75 agreement).</p> <p>Relying on developes to provide cycling infrastructure (except cycle parking and other on-site facilities) is really a non-starter in my opinion. Yes, encourage best practice but you have to accept the limittions of this method of securing cycle infrastructure. Also, this is how you end up with comedy infrastructure - like 10 foot long cycle lanes. Developer funded infrastructure may be a useful add-on, but no substitute for sustained, long term public investment. </p> <p>If you want an exmple of the limitations of this system then you only have to look at social housing provision. Over the last 10 years or so, local authorities tried to get developers to provide social housing through planning obligtions - the amount of soical housing provided plummeted over the same period and only picked up when local and national government decided to invest directly in its provision. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11493#post-130498 Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:32:35 +0000 chdot 130498@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Note - planning related, not just 'transport' though obviously things like failing to include new accesses or sensible paths through developments would count - also inadequate bike parking (public and also for residents/workers). </p> <p>"</p> <p>members of Spokes Planning group are meeting with CEC Planners (next week) to discuss better ways of getting developer contributions for cycling from the planning process. I've been looking for some specific examples of where the process has failed us in the past. I have a few examples but could do with more. So I wonder if I could appeal to your web readers on CCE?</p> <p>The examples could be major developments, or smaller ones, but they need to be about planning rather than transport, ie related to the built environment; sites where we could have got more out of the developers with little extra cost. It would be very useful to have photos.</p> <p>" </p>