http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: “Calls for new road to ease Edinburgh Airport traffic bottlenecks” en Tue, 07 Apr 2026 19:09:07 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083&page=2#post-357138 Wed, 24 Nov 2021 22:09:57 +0000 acsimpson 357138@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I received an email letting me know that my objection would be forwarded by the council. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083&page=2#post-357131 Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:57:35 +0000 Morningsider 357131@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The Council should forward all objections received to the planning application to the DPEA (bit of the Scottish Government that handles the administration of planning appeals), which will then be considered by the Reporter (makes decisions on behalf of Scottish Ministers in all but a handful of "recalled" planning appeals - which I reckon could happen in this case). </p> <p>You can send another submission directly to the DPEA, although it is unlikely to make any difference. More info:</p> <p><a href="https://www.gov.scot/publications/planning-and-environmental-appeals-division-guidance-on-taking-part-in-planning-appeals-and-other-cases/" rel="nofollow">https://www.gov.scot/publications/planning-and-environmental-appeals-division-guidance-on-taking-part-in-planning-appeals-and-other-cases/</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083&page=2#post-357129 Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:41:43 +0000 neddie 357129@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>So what do we have to do now? Do we have to resubmit objections? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083&page=2#post-357124 Wed, 24 Nov 2021 14:34:39 +0000 urchaidh 357124@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Will they appeal to Scot Gov? </em></p> <p><a href="https://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?ID=121934">Yes, they have done</a>. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-353999 Tue, 24 Aug 2021 14:24:06 +0000 neddie 353999@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>What's really shocking is that the airport can build as much parking as they want, without need for planning permission.</p> <p>Multi-storey after multi-storey.</p> <p>IT. WILL. NEVER. END. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-353992 Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:43:25 +0000 gembo 353992@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Will they appeal to Scot Gov? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-353991 Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:37:37 +0000 jonty 353991@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There's a certain poetic justice in "The application proposal is based on a functional road design which has prioritised movement before place." Presumably this is at least in part because they've tried to soften the plans by developing their bizarre "crosswinds" vision for essentially a new town centre within a few hundred metres of an operational runway, which happens to include the long-aspired for new link road nestled amongst it.</p> <p>You can't help but feel if they'd been honest and said "we want to build a big new isolated tarmac road in a field to let more cars get to our airport" they might have sidestepped the need to justify the "sense of place" created by the new road. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-353865 Fri, 20 Aug 2021 11:39:00 +0000 toomanybikes 353865@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Planning permission refused. </p> <p>4 reasons:<br /> <blockquote><br /> 1. The nature of the proposed development is contrary to the existing National Planning Policy 3, the Strategic Development Plan and the Local Development Plan (LDP) specifically Policy Emp 4 - Edinburgh Airport in that it is not supported by an approved airport master plan.</p> <p>2. 2. The proposed development would be contrary to Local Development Plan (LDP) Policy Des 2, Co-ordinated Development, parts a) and b) and would fail to deliver coordinated development in West Edinburgh. The application is premature<br /> and may compromise the development plan strategy for West Edinburgh. </p> <p>3. The proposed development would be prejudicial to the implementation of Local Development Proposal T9, Gogar Link Road specifically the delivery of proposed new roads, network improvements and public transport proposals.</p> <p>4. The proposed development would be contrary to Local Development Plan (LDP) Policies Des 1, Design Quality and Context, Des 8, Public Realm and Landscape Design, part c) and has not addressed requirements of the Edinburgh Street Design Guidance. The overall design concept has not sought to draw up the positive characteristics of the surrounding area or demonstrate how it would contribute to a sense of place. The application proposal is based on a functional road<br /> design which has prioritised movement before place.</p> <p></blockquote></p> <p>None of which seem to be 'building a new road to make it easier to drive to an airport during a climate crisis is disaster fuel'. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-348153 Sat, 13 Mar 2021 16:12:32 +0000 gembo 348153@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@acsimpson, of course because they have gone on and spotted the objections from here so yes organized. Upthread the feeling is this road will be built so the aim now is to argue for decent cycling infra </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-348149 Sat, 13 Mar 2021 15:27:39 +0000 acsimpson 348149@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I wonder if someone is campaigning for people to support the application. I was sitting at one objection 2 days hours ago. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-348110 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 22:06:46 +0000 HankChief 348110@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>43 objections &amp; 57 supportive comments just now... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-348088 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:30:35 +0000 Frenchy 348088@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Apologies, comment deadline is Sunday! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-348075 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 15:59:39 +0000 Frenchy 348075@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Deadline for comments is today. Link to do so: <a href="https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&amp;keyVal=QN4EJ4EWKTZ00" rel="nofollow">https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&amp;keyVal=QN4EJ4EWKTZ00</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-348053 Thu, 11 Mar 2021 21:52:41 +0000 acsimpson 348053@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I've added my slightly less eloquent objection to it now too. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-348021 Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:30:19 +0000 CycleAlex 348021@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Unfortunately I think the road will go ahead (either on approval or appeal), so it's useful to object to the dire cycle provision (both to the airport and for the QR9 crossing) too.</p> <p>Some policy arguments I came up with, which I believe LTC are using:<br /> <blockquote>The omission of a segregated cycleway in the application is a critical failure and without the inclusion of this, the application must not be approved. Without a segregated cycleway, the application fails to comply with several CEC and national policies, commitments, and aspirations.</p> <p>The application fails to comply with the Edinburgh Local Transport Strategy, specifically PCycle2: ”cycle lanes, or where appropriate physically segregated cycle infrastructure, in all schemes involving main roads (except where this may not be necessary if the speed limit is 20mph).”. The application also fails to provide Advanced Stop Lines at any signalised junctions, a further failure to comply with PCycle2 and the Local Transport Strategy.</p> <p>The application fails to satisfy the West Edinburgh Transport Appraisal Refresh (WETA). The WETA clearly states: “Sections 1 and 2 should include a fully segregated cycleway.” This has not been achieved and is unacceptable. A shared use footway does not achieve this and trying to claim that it does is simply misleading. There is a clear distinction between segregated facilities and shared use facilities in the WETA.</p> <p>The application fails to comply with the City Mobility Plan, specifically Movement 15: “Expand and enhance the citywide network of cycle routes to connect key destinations across the city, including increased segregated cycle infrastructure on main roads.” and Movement 23. “Mitigate conflict in shared spaces Mitigate conflict between those walking, wheeling and cycling on shared paths and spaces through infrastructure design, signage and awareness campaigns.” By proposing a shared use footway, this will lead to built-in conflict between pedestrians and cyclists, directly opposing the policy goal to reduce this conflict.</p> <p>The application fails to support the Edinburgh Active Travel Action Plan (2016) by significantly degrading the comfort, safety, and quality of QuietRoute 9. This application will negatively impact the attractiveness of the route and reduce the potential for modal shift.</p> <p>There is a consistent failure throughout the proposals for crossings to be on the desire line. The Transport Statement alleges: “These facilities are direct and on the main walking and cycling desire line, where appropriate.” This is categorically untrue. Numerous proposed crossings, both controlled and uncontrolled, are located far from the desire line. This shows a clear failure to acknowledge the Transport Hierarchy.</blockquote> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-348018 Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:01:15 +0000 toomanybikes 348018@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>the designs for that 'cycle lane' are just depressing. up to 27 objections now. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-348016 Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:53:45 +0000 gembo 348016@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@neddie someone called Ed H tell them on Twitter, I think you know Ed H quite well? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-348015 Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:32:47 +0000 HankChief 348015@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I would also add that the plans are very opaque about what will happen to the important East-west cycle route round the North of the Gogar roundabout. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-348012 Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:21:43 +0000 chdot 348012@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>TS on the case</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/transformscot/status/1369971471515344896" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/transformscot/status/1369971471515344896</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-348004 Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:00:25 +0000 neddie 348004@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It's possible they don't know about it.</p> <p>Please could someone inform them. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-347999 Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:18:59 +0000 chdot 347999@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Could do with some more visible objections/campaigning from Transform, Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, FoE etc </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-347994 Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:00:17 +0000 neddie 347994@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Urgent!</p> <p>Could do with some more objections </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-347985 Wed, 10 Mar 2021 23:26:25 +0000 gembo 347985@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>18 objections now, 1 supporting </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-347981 Wed, 10 Mar 2021 22:45:51 +0000 neddie 347981@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Planning application is in for a new access road to the airport: 21/00217/FUL</p> <p><a href="https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning-applications-1/view-comment-planning-applications" rel="nofollow">https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning-applications-1/view-comment-planning-applications</a></p> <p><strong>Deadline is 12th March</strong></p> <p>The new road will induce more traffic and more flying, which completely flies in the face of actions needed to reduce climate breakdown. The active travel provision is also very poor.</p> <p>Please object.</p> <p>There are a good set of reasons for objection to be found here:<br /> <a href="https://lowtrafficcorstorphine.org.uk/edinburgh-airport-new-access-road-active-travel-route/" rel="nofollow">https://lowtrafficcorstorphine.org.uk/edinburgh-airport-new-access-road-active-travel-route/</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-317455 Fri, 08 Nov 2019 16:46:03 +0000 Murun Buchstansangur 317455@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Let's face it, this road is little to do with "reducing congestion on the current airport road" (not that it would even achieve that) and is all about enabling the commercial exploitation of all the land between Gogar and the airport (including one of the airport's own runways). As such, I hope it's unanimously rejected. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-317453 Fri, 08 Nov 2019 16:29:16 +0000 EdinburghCycleCam 317453@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Considering how busy the East exit from the Gogar roundabout is at rush hour, I can't imagine this new road will make things particularly pleasant for anyone... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-317450 Fri, 08 Nov 2019 16:07:41 +0000 jonty 317450@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Seems like a no-brainer to make the access road public transport-only. A bit more tricky if it'll be an access to a new business district, but doable. Drivers on Twitter often seem convinced that it's buses causing all the congestion so surely should make access road free-flowing? If you let taxis on the new road it genuinely might (for a while). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-317448 Fri, 08 Nov 2019 15:59:27 +0000 Frenchy 317448@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Not just inducing more road traffic, but more flights too. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-317447 Fri, 08 Nov 2019 15:57:55 +0000 neddie 317447@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>The road would be “full accessible to general traffic” and is being provided to reduce congestion on the current airport road.</em></p> <p>Nope. A new road will not reduce congestion because of induced-demand. When will they learn?</p> <p>This is just business as usual. Keep building more and more roads. Keep inducing more and more private motor traffic.</p> <p>We are supposed to be in a climate emergency, for goodness sake. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19083#post-317442 Fri, 08 Nov 2019 14:48:03 +0000 Stickman 317442@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/traffic-and-travel/long-delayed-edinburgh-airport-second-access-road-plans-be-handed-over-amid-calls-public-transport-be-prioritised-919895" rel="nofollow">https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/traffic-and-travel/long-delayed-edinburgh-airport-second-access-road-plans-be-handed-over-amid-calls-public-transport-be-prioritised-919895</a></p> <p><blockquote>The councillor overseeing planning in the city has called for the new road to integrate cycling and pedestrian access for proposed housing developments as well as helping to ease traffic in the west of the Capital.</p> <p>Planning convener, Cllr Neil Gardiner, said: “The council has commissioned a study of the west of Edinburgh – it’s very important that is taken into account in any proposal. The council is trying to bring different parties together to find a framework for the future. I think it’s important to work with the planning department and find joined-up solutions.</p> <p>“There’s obviously the West Craigs development to the east. What we are looking for is pedestrian and active travel-led solutions to the area so not everything is going down the A8 and to limit the amount of cars coming into Corstorphine, which is already too much.”</p> <p>He added: “It needs all parties to come together so that any proposal that come forward don’t form a barrier but invites good connections across the railway to West Craigs and equally through the roundabout at Gogar.</p> <p>“I think the developer needs to look at the strategic content. It’s seeking to take cars off the bypass, which is probably welcome to reduce the amount of traffic on the A8 corridor because that’s overloaded.”</blockquote> </p>