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
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Road proposed over existing cycle path
(75 posts)-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
Reply from activetravel@cec:
"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."
Posted 5 years ago # -
“they are in discussions to have these removed”
What’s to discuss??
Remove and bill!
“or replaced with an acceptable replacement”
Really?
REALLY???
Posted 5 years ago # -
What would be acceptable? A single bollard in the centre of the path?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Further reply to my chasing-up, this time from CEC South West Locality - Roads:
"Thank you for your enquiry regarding the newly installed cycle chicane on Meggetgate.
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.
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."
Posted 5 years ago # -
@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.
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.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Dug through the various planning applications for the site.
The barrier is a condition in 09/01757/FUL (from 2009):
"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."
Posted 5 years ago # -
@Frenchy: That condition appears to have been deleted as a result of 11/01988/FUL being granted. However, that is because the revised site plan submitted as part of 11/01988/FUL includes the "vehicle barrier or barriers" required by condition 8 of 09/01757/FUL - as two little dots labelled as "NEW BOLLARDS".
However, I believe 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.")
The Vehicular Access Plan for that 12/00789/FUL shows "Chicane type cycle barriers at the request of CEC" at the location in question.
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.
Posted 5 years ago # -
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.
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.
Posted 5 years ago # -
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.
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.Posted 5 years ago # -
Good work all
Posted 5 years ago # -
nearly compliant
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.
Posted 5 years ago # -
@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.
Posted 5 years ago # -
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.
Posted 5 years ago # -
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.
Posted 5 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
