CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Road proposed over existing cycle path

(75 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by neddie
  • Latest reply from southsider

  1. neddie
    Member

    """
    There is a proposal to demolish a house at 25 Allan Park Crescent, Edinburgh and put in a new access road through to the site at Meggetland. This new road will cross over an existing cycle path which runs from the Union Canal down to Slateford Road. Obviously as a local resident I do not wish this planning application to be approved and as I daily use the cycle/foot path, I feel that Spokes should be aware of this.

    If you are able to object to this, please visit the Planning portal and the planning application reference is 13/04491/FUL.
    """

    Posted 11 years ago #
  2. crowriver
    Member

    The main problem I can see is the stupid bloody chicanes they are planning to put in. Surely inappropriate for what will presumably be a very quiet access road? You should certainly contact Spokes directly about this.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  3. neddie
    Member

    Sorry, should've been clearer in my OP:

    The 'local resident' (who is not me) has already contacted Spokes.

    I thought I'd put it up here in case any CCEers have comments/objections...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  4. Arellcat
    Moderator

    This development isn't entirely unexpected. The refurbishment of the access road from Slateford Road to Slateford station and yard cannot overcome the incredibly poor sightlines created by road alignment under the railway bridge. Housing developers are, of course, absolutely desperate to take advantage of all the green space at Meggetland.

    Access to North Meggetland from Colinton Road is also probably considered restrictive. The proposed connecting road (because it will become such) will have to prevent rat running.

    I will, sadly, be objecting to the whole principle because it will lead to building on the green space–though I note that North Meggetland is already that corridor. The better access to the cycle path and the canal would however be welcome.

    I will be also objecting to the provision of the bollards, because there is absolutely no reason for them. The cycle lane from the new piece of road to the canal will remain the useful link, and the remaining part from the new road to the station will be less used by cyclists because of the extremely poor access to and from Slateford Road by the railway bridge. I will also object on the grounds that the spacing of the bollards will prevent me from using the path in my velomobile. The path is the best alternative to cycling up Craiglockhart Avenue.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  5. chdot
    Admin

    All docs -

    https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=MVFCGKEWLO000

    Detail from -

    http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/files/DF2A352B97FB8AE3080A0640376CE136/pdf/13_04491_FUL-PROPOSED_NEW_ACCESS_ARRANGEMENTS_04_-1694672.pdf

    I'm a bit surprised that there is any more land available for building. I 'thought' it was supposed to be playing fields.

    But then CEC is hard up...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  6. kaputnik
    Moderator

    How about campaigning for bollards (realistically a carriageway restriction to single-file) on the road instead of the pre-existing cycle path. If cyclist safety is their justification (as per drawing above) then we'd all be a lot safer if vehicles using the road were obliged to come to a dead slow and negotiate an obstruction, rather than the other way around. Otherwise as Arellcat says it will just be a rat run.

    I'd also like to see the green cycle way in the drawing above kept at a constant level, with the road meeting it as an extended speedbump.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  7. EddieD
    Member

    Doesn't the owner of 25 Allan Park Crescent object to this?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  8. ianfieldhouse
    Member

    @EddieD I can think of hundr£ds of thousands of r£asons why th£y don't.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  9. EddieD
    Member

    Can they do a CPO for this? Otherwise, if it was me, I'd hold out for that mystical thing called the right price - and given it's a nice house in a nice area, I'd want the money to buy a nicer house in a nicer area - which in Edinburgh is mucho wonga

    Posted 11 years ago #
  10. Morningsider
    Member

    EddieD - no, only certain public authorities have compulsory purchase powers. This would provide a second access to the care home that is to be built behind these properties. I imagine the developer has offered the home owner a good price for the house, with the sale dependent on the award of planning permission.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  11. ianfieldhouse
    Member

    There are two planning applications for a care home on Meggetland neither of which who's plans seem to tie in with this proposed access road. I'm interested in where this proposed access road is going to go.

    Application 1

    and

    Application 2

    Since planning has been granted for the care home development with the potential to have this new access created the fear is (as a local resident) that this would increase the traffic into what is essentially a cul-de-sac residential area. This isn't perhaps too much of an issue if the development is indeed a care home but it wouldn't surprise me if it is revised to become residential flats with the potential to have a much greater volume of traffic.

    The current access to this plot of land via Meggetgate is unsuitable for any traffic, in my opinion, due to the poor sight lines when trying to join Slateford Road.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  12. chdot
    Admin


    No. 25

    Locals (that I came across) not happy. Expecting visit from ENews at 2 today.

    Pleased to hear that 'cyclists are taking an interest' and 'hope they will object'.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  13. chdot
    Admin

    From Gavin Corbett letter to local residents -

    "

    It is very much up to you if you want to make your voice heard (for or against). If you decide to do that it is important that what you say is based on what are called “material considerations”. These include matters like: the impact on traffic and parking, noise and disturbance and the appearance of the area. Planners will also look at existing policy on demolitions (Policy Hou 6 stated above). Do please bear in mind that you are only commenting on the proposal to demolish a house and create a new road, NOT on the care home itself, which already has planning permission.

    "

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/1oob3nlex9zsh5g/Letter%20to%20APC%20November%202013.doc

    Posted 11 years ago #
  14. neddie
    Member

    Have now objected

    Posted 11 years ago #
  15. weiss
    Member

    @ianfieldhouse - I think it is Application 2, although the first one does look remarkably similar, maybe it was a previous application that failed, and was superceded by the latter?

    Am I right in understanding from reading the "Proposed new access arrangements(04)" document that at the point the cars and the bicycles cross, bicycles have right of way? There appears to be some kind of give way signage on the road surface of the drawing?

    Alternatively, from looking at the details of 12/00789/FUL, I am reading into this that there has been a change of mind being considered for access, because before it was going to be the road that runs alongside the rail track, but now they are thinking about demolishing the aforementioned house and thus providing access via Allan Park Crescent. Or am I misunderstanding the documents?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  16. EddieD
    Member

    The letter from Gavin Corbett rings a loud bell for me - when they demolished the warehousing and the old Clock Inn (the most menacing droothy I can ever remember) on Dalry Road, we were sent the planning application for a small housing development - which seemed fine - but this was subsequently changed to the Lidl it is now, and I don't remember getting notification of the change, signs just went up advertising a wonderful new supermarket. I'd be worried that the "care home" may suddenly metapmorphose to "housing".

    I'll have to work out an objection.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  17. SRD
    Moderator

    @weiss given that the diagram claims that they'll put in bollards (which look like chicanes in the pick) to 'protect cyclists' I rather think they're expecting us (and walkers) to slow down and give way to cars

    Posted 11 years ago #
  18. ianfieldhouse
    Member

    Seems the EEN have been round for a photo op.
    Anger at ‘Trojan horse’ road plans over flats fear

    Posted 11 years ago #
  19. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I've objected over the detail in the drawings which needlessly obstructs the established foot and cycle path for the benefit of a small volume of motor traffic. I've suggested that the path level is maintained as a flat crossing, with motor vehicles crossing it as a speedbump, and that the gates be replaced with a central warning bollard. Otherwise we'll end up with something exactly the same as the bridge over the railway at back of Easter Road.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  20. neddie
    Member

    TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997
    Proposed demolition of existing dwellinghouse and formation of new access road to facilitate access to adjacent site (consented application no. 12/00789/FUL). at 25 Allan Park Crescent, Edinburgh, EH14 1LE
    REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/04491/FUL (SCHEME: Scheme 1)
    CASE OFFICER: Brian Fleming PHONE NUMBER: 0131 529 3518.

    Notification of Decision
    I am writing with regard to the above noted application, to which you raised representations.

    This application was withdrawn on the 31 January 2014

    Posted 10 years ago #
  21. Arellcat
    Moderator

    New planning application lodged for care home and townhouses. Reference 15/01556/FUL .

    https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NM4WX1EWN4V00

    The only schematic available of the cycle path doesn't show any chicanery, or raised road tables, or anything infrastructural.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  22. chdot
    Admin

  23. gembo
    Member

    I had spotted the posters in the back garden going up the private road to link to canal. Presume the new build aiming to be on waste ground to the left near the rail track. I suppose they get round the access issue by having the rest of the private road as way in if necessary. There is a plot near me that the developers are waiting on one further house to sell and then that will get knocked down but some chance we will be able to object because no other access road that won't disrupt safer route to school. Though the site on the other side where people I know objected to plans on the old railway spur is now being built on following the filling in of the railway cutting.

    They are also building houses on a very steep site at the blinkbonny turn which has been waste ground for ever. Seems relentless.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  24. crowriver
    Member

    Edinburgh is a growing city: population rising. Folk need houses to live in. Whether these are being built in the right places is another matter...

    Posted 9 years ago #
  25. chdot
    Admin

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Video Plugin

    Posted 9 years ago #
  26. Fountainbridge
    Member

    If objecting please remember that they already have approved planning permission to use the narrow lane (Meggetgate) alongside Slateford station - https://goo.gl/BkiwQZ see Proposed site plan

    I'd much rather see traffic going across the pavement at one point than having to negotiate the already narrow Meggetgate.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  27. chdot
    Admin

    "please remember that they already have approved planning permission to use the narrow lane"

    I'm really surprised that they got permission for that.

    My 'faith' in Planning process/Department/Committee has sunk even lower.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  28. SRD
    Moderator

    http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/reject-planning-application-15-01556-ful-to-demolish-house

    I do agree with fountainbridge that the other access road is really bad too. can't see how it could be safe for pedestrians or cyclists if used by any number of vehicles.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  29. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Where Meggetgate emerges onto Slateford Road is an incredibly dangerous little junction. The short stretch of footway between there and Allan Park could have been improved enormously—widened, corners opened up—but no, they rebuilt the kerb at full height. Fixing that footway for cycling would be preferable to demolishing the bungalow, but motorists, and there will be many, especially those visiting the care home, would inevitably crash into other motorists emerging from under the railway bridge.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  30. SRD
    Moderator

    agree, but it's also quite narrow. can't see how there could be room for pedestrians, cyclists and cars to pass.

    Posted 9 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin