"
Dear Karen,
Ref 10/01663/FUL, supermarket on site of former Big W, Brunstane
We object to this application, on grounds of inadequate provision for cycling.
1) National Cycle Route 1 (NCN 1) crosses the car park at the southern end of the site but there are a number of un-dropped kerbs, the route is not clearly delineated nor marked for traffic to be aware of it, and the bridge over the railway at the east side has a flight of steps both up and down - the latter clearly also failing DDA requirements, and either preventing access to the supermarket from the east altogether, or making it very awkward with buggies etc, thus discouraging access via walking and cycling, and encouraging car use;
2) The cycle parking as proposed in the plans is poorly located and virtually invisible, tucked away in the NE corner of the site. It is also not covered. This parking should be close to the main entrance, covered, marked by a sign or signs, and with signage at the perimeters to indicate where it is;
3) Another major path runs along the west side of the site. It's not clear from the plans or the photo whether there is a connection into the site at the north end, opposite the main entrance, but it appears not. Clearly such a connection is highly desirable since it avoids walking south to the far end of the car park, then back through the car park (with potential conflict with vehicles). In fact there IS a gap in the hedge at the right place at present, but this needs to be formalised, and properly signed as a pedestrian/cycle entrance. Indeed this would be the preferred entrance for peds/cyclists from all directions except the east.
4) Finally, I had some email correspondence at an earlier stage with the agent, Alistair Wood, which I will forward to you. All the above points were raised there. Mr Wood, as you will see, offered to forward my comments to the engineers, but he never got back to me. Furthermore, in the Pre-Application Consultation Statement which is part of the current documentation, these comments are not even mentioned.
Thus, it may be that some of our points have been taken on board, and are just not shown on the plans. I doubt it - but if so, we have not been told anything.
I hope these points will betaken into account when the application is considered by the Committee. If granted, it should be with conditions to satisfy (2) and (3) above. (1) is probably out of the owners' jurisdiction as they do not own the bridge, but they could be asked for a substantial developer's contribution towards replacing the steps.
Yours etc,
Peter Hawkins
CTC Lothians
"
posts
