http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Road proposed over existing cycle path en Tue, 19 May 2026 19:35:43 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=3#post-292939 Fri, 05 Oct 2018 17:33:16 +0000 southsider 292939@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>No the barriers are just over 3m apart now - it's the path width next to one of the barriers which is only 1.4m. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=3#post-292868 Fri, 05 Oct 2018 10:55:48 +0000 Arellcat 292868@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>So the barriers are still 1.5m apart? Still unusable then because it requires a turn of such small radius that the torpedo is not capable of making.</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/talloplanic/status/1034198606301949952" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/talloplanic/status/1034198606301949952</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=3#post-292857 Fri, 05 Oct 2018 09:37:57 +0000 southsider 292857@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Arrelcat it was actually done about 2 weeks ago. The gap beside the northernmost barrier - which has not been moved - is about 10cm less than the 1.5m "absolute minimum" required in Cycling by Design. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=3#post-292770 Thu, 04 Oct 2018 13:26:35 +0000 Arellcat 292770@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>nearly compliant</em></p> <p>In what way is it thus still not totally compliant? I've been on the motorbike the last couple of days, so the work must've been done yesterday or today. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=3#post-292736 Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:14:31 +0000 HankChief 292736@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Good work all </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=3#post-292735 Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:13:16 +0000 southsider 292735@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Finally the Meggetgate chicane has been adjusted so it is nearly compliant with Cycling by Design. The contractor has just shifted one of the Sheffield stands a few metres up the path so the chicane is now the right way round with a 3m gap.<br /> CEC's latest response from the locality team said that they are unable to review the need for this chicane as it forms part of an approved planning application. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=3#post-290289 Tue, 04 Sep 2018 18:21:56 +0000 Morningsider 290289@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>ejstubbs - you are right about time limits for planning permission. However, what constitutes commencement of development is nothing short of scandalous. All you need to do is send a guy round with a spade, dig a small hole, take a photo and then fill it in again. Hey presto - your planning permission lasts forever. </p> <p>Think this doesn't really happen? That is exactly what the Craighouse developers did, to keep alive an old permission for an expansion of the site as a university. They had no intention of actually building that development - but it helped their case for housing development on the site to have this live permission. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=3#post-290288 Tue, 04 Sep 2018 17:51:59 +0000 ejstubbs 290288@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><strong>@Frenchy</strong>: That condition appears to have been deleted as a result of 11/01988/FUL being granted. However, that is because the <a href="http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/files/78D9602AAE8634643701ACB26B5FD2BA/pdf/11_01988_FUL-SITE_PLAN-1208063.pdf">revised site plan submitted as part of 11/01988/FUL</a> includes the "vehicle barrier or barriers" required by condition 8 of 09/01757/FUL - as two little dots labelled as "NEW BOLLARDS".</p> <p><em>However</em>, I <u>believe</u> that both 09/01757/FUL and 11/01988/FUL lapsed before the development was started - AFAIK planning permission only lasts for three years from date it is granted. Hence why new permission was applied for under 12/00789/FUL. This was granted in October 2012 (and the decision letter specifically states that: "The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.")</p> <p>The <a href="http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/files/17540D97CFE42A096DB6616784046B66/pdf/12_00789_FUL-VEHICULAR_ACCESS_PLAN__09_-1433271.pdf">Vehicular Access Plan</a> for that 12/00789/FUL shows "Chicane type cycle barriers at the request of CEC" at the location in question.</p> <p>Long story short: yes, the barriers are part of the planning permission. Since they are marked as "at the request of CEC" then I see no reason why CEC can't insist on them being installed in compliance with CEC's own published standards for such things. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=3#post-290276 Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:54:15 +0000 Frenchy 290276@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Dug through the various planning applications for the site.</p> <p>The barrier is a condition in 09/01757/FUL (from 2009):</p> <p>"Prior to the commencement of building of any part of the nursing home a vehicle barrier or barriers shall be erected at the west most point of the existing pedestrian cycle route and retained in perpetuity. The barrier shall extend from the rear boundary of 15 Allan Park Crescent in a north easterly direction to meet the existing gated entry to the Network Rail sidings, at the east most point on Meggetgate." </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=3#post-290275 Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:44:15 +0000 southsider 290275@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@acsimpson - yes a single bollard would be fine but sadly 'they' appear to have decided that the existing cycleway should give way to a new acces road used by a few tens of vehicles per day, and that painted give way markings would not be enough to achieve this.</p> <p>Once corrected the chicane will be more inclusive, but sadly less convenient for the narrower cyclist as like @gembo says can currently just go round the outside. Sigh. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=3#post-290272 Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:34:49 +0000 southsider 290272@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Further reply to my chasing-up, this time from CEC South West Locality - Roads:</p> <p>"Thank you for your enquiry regarding the newly installed cycle chicane on Meggetgate.</p> <p>I have now had the chance to investigate this further and can provide you with the following the information. The chicane was requested by The City of Edinburgh Council (Development Control Team) during the planning stage of this development and was included as one of the conditions associated with this development. The reason the chicane was requested was to reduce cyclists speed prior to entering the shared surface.</p> <p>The chicane has not been installed to the correct specification and I have now confirmed with the developer they will be returning to correct this and to install this to the correct specification. I have been assured by the developer this matter will be treated as urgent. The chicane will be installed as detailed in the “Cycle by design” Transport Scotland document – with 3 metres spacing between each section." </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=3#post-289500 Thu, 23 Aug 2018 21:58:45 +0000 acsimpson 289500@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>What would be acceptable? A single bollard in the centre of the path? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=3#post-289487 Thu, 23 Aug 2018 19:59:45 +0000 chdot 289487@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“they are in discussions to have these removed”</p> <p>What’s to discuss??</p> <p>Remove and bill!</p> <p>“or replaced with an acceptable replacement”</p> <p>Really?</p> <p>REALLY??? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=3#post-289481 Thu, 23 Aug 2018 19:22:35 +0000 southsider 289481@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Reply from activetravel@cec:<br /> <blockquote>"I’ve contacted the team who look after this area of the city (southwest.locality@edinburgh.gov.uk) and they have advised these barriers were installed without their knowledge, and they are in discussions to have these removed or replaced with an acceptable replacement."</blockquote> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=3#post-289394 Thu, 23 Aug 2018 06:49:40 +0000 gembo 289394@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Yes @trixie I am guessing descending you spot them and brake then cycle round them as there is space. I ant pundits the, the other day ing up the way </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=2#post-289391 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 22:48:10 +0000 Trixie 289391@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Looking at them, they appear more like bike racks stuck in the middle of the path in a snit. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=2#post-289384 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 21:47:08 +0000 gembo 289384@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I mentioned these in the chicane thread. The photo clearly shows how easy it is just to cycle round them. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=2#post-289354 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 13:54:52 +0000 chdot 289354@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Ex-Cycling Champion, but still local councillor, has contacted Northcare - seems they installed it. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=2#post-289347 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 12:22:43 +0000 I were right about that saddle 289347@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>If I remember rightly the phrase used was 'cashed out of the family business'. That'll learn me to believe folk. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=2#post-289342 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 11:38:09 +0000 Morningsider 289342@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Were they a "wonder horse"? Might be an improvement.</p> <p>(For our younger readers: <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047703/fullcredits)" rel="nofollow">https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047703/fullcredits)</a> I actually had no idea this was so old - still being shown on Saturday mornings in the late 1970's early 1980's. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=2#post-289334 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 11:20:01 +0000 Frenchy 289334@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There was certainly someone else who wanted the gig when the champions were appointed.. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=2#post-289333 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 11:18:48 +0000 chdot 289333@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“the (possibly ex-) Cycling Champion“</p> <p>Yes, (genuine) personal reasons.</p> <p>Next CC ‘under discussion’.</p> <p>Don’t know if that means no one wants to do it or if it there may not be a replacement, or... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=2#post-289332 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 11:15:04 +0000 chdot 289332@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@ejs</p> <p>Ta</p> <p>“Could have been a bit of a "quid pro quo" from the council to persuade the developer to drop the appeal”</p> <p>Mmm </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=2#post-289329 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 10:59:45 +0000 Frenchy 289329@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>In case it's useful, <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/492720/response/1191027/attach/3/Chicane%20Detail%20GR.PDF.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1">this pdf</a> is the council's standard design for chicanes. It differs slightly from the layout shown in <em>Cycling by Design</em> in that it shows the barriers overlapping. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=2#post-289328 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 10:52:33 +0000 ejstubbs 289328@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><strong>@chdot</strong>: <em>What happened with “Permission refused. Developer to appeal”?</em></p> <p>The application for the demolition of 25 Allan Park Crescent (13/04491/FUL) was withdrawn 31/01/2104. There are no other applications on the portal relating to that property. It looks like the developer abandoned the appeal and access to the care home is via Meggetgate as originally approved, not Allan Park Road.</p> <p>AFAICT the current development has been carried out under application 16/04350/FUL. This was an amendment to the original approved application 12/00789/FUL, increasing the care home capacity from 60 to 72 bedrooms. The amendment was granted on 25/04/2017. Could have been a bit of a "quid pro quo" from the council to persuade the developer to drop the appeal re 13/04491/FUL? Perhaps with the council agreeing to install the (apparently non-compliant) obstruction to the cycle path at the junction with Meggetgate on the QT as part of the deal... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=2#post-289327 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 10:50:44 +0000 Frenchy 289327@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Local councillors are listed here, and include the (possibly ex-) Cycling Champion: <a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/councillors/specificWard/13/fountainbridgecraiglockhart" rel="nofollow">http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/councillors/specificWard/13/fountainbridgecraiglockhart</a></p> <p>The barrier was most likely installed by the locality team, who can be contacted at southwest.locality[at]edinburgh.gov.uk </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=2#post-289326 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 10:07:43 +0000 Arellcat 289326@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>What on earth? The only reason CEC could have for installing this is to slow down pesky cyclists before reaching the lunar landscape that is the new junction to the care home, and the only reason CEC would have installed a chicane in that manner is with the intention of fencing in either side of it. Think Balgreen near the tram stop.</p> <p>My velomobile will not fit through that chicane, and I use this route every single day because there are no safe or convenient alternatives.</p> <p>@southsider, thanks for bringing this up. I'm on holiday at the moment so haven't been commuting. This would have been an unwelcome surprise. To whom should I write at CEC? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=2#post-289321 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 09:44:57 +0000 chdot 289321@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@ Southsider </p> <p>Impressive you remember ‘right’ thread - and looked for it. </p> <p>Haven’t been following this development. </p> <p>What happened with “Permission refused. Developer to appeal”? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=2#post-289319 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 09:29:44 +0000 HankChief 289319@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That's not compliannt with Cycling by Design.</p> <p>Apparently CEC have only authorised 1 chicane since 2016 so I would suggest asking if this is approved.</p> <p><a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/site/custom_scripts/proxy.php?file=/documents/19809/19809%20Response.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/site/custom_scripts/proxy.php?file=/documents/19809/19809%20Response.pdf</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11549&page=2#post-289318 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 09:25:28 +0000 southsider 289318@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>New, very narrow, unnecessary, ineffective and inconvenient chicane has just appeared at junction of remaining cycle path and Meggetgate.</p> <p><img src="https://i.imgur.com/jyN8ATM.jpg"></p> <p>Have asked CEC why. </p>