Taylor Wimpey have taken over from EDI to develop Newcraighall North
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Newcraighall consultation event Friday 3 September 2010 (Brunstane developments)
(85 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Doesn't mean they own the land (yet) - 'subject to planning consent'...
Posted 11 years ago # -
Pity about Angela Blacklock, one of the few of my councillors that bothered to reply to my e-mails.
Still, no harm in dropping her a line about this I suppose.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The obvious, traffic-free route is to retain the bridge and run the cycle path over the top, and to repair the old Lothian Lines embankments parallel to the East Coast Line as far as Musselburgh station, where it can then join the existing "path" through Mucklets estate. Can fix the inadequacy of Mucklets route as a later date, as at least it is very quiet.
It is the red line on the map above. Any other route is quite obviously the work of a designer who's never actually tried to get from Brunstane to Musselburgh on the NCN.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Another threat to the route has arisen: Network Rail want to infill the bridge under the live railway at the SW corner of the site - cheapest way to avoid having to repair it - they own the land, and apparently are legally entitled to do this.
Again please mention this other bridge also needs to be preserved to maintain the (potential) route
Posted 11 years ago # -
I think the best councillors to write to are the Portobello ones:
David Walker - he lives locally
Maureen Child
Michael BridgmanPosted 11 years ago # -
@edd1e - which particular bridge do you refer to here? Can't quite figure it out in my head
Posted 11 years ago # -
Posted 11 years ago # -
It's time I had a 'site visit'.
Peter Hawkins of Spokes mentioned both bridges at the recent Access Forum and Leslie Hinds agreed to look into the whole issue of the (potential) route from ASDA to Musselburgh Station.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Got it. That's where the North British Mainline (ECML_ passes over the Lothian Lines.
Considering the trackbed of the latter is built over by A1 at Newcraighall, I assume a future plan would be to link up to the path where it passes under the A1 as a rough track up opposite DFS?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yes.
If you look on Google (sat view) you'll see a variety of desire lines through the field.
It was cultivated until about six years ago. Presume someone hopes to build houses on it - though it would need a new access, probably from back of DFS.
The ASDA - Newcraighall route used to be used a lot more than it is now and SHOULD have been a proper route to Musselburgh before QMU was built.
One longstanding problem was the 'burning bank' between Newcraighall and Musselburgh Station.
But that was dealt with years ago.
CEC has always concentrated its resources on routes within the city - rather than ones that were 'cross border'.
This may be changing.
A LOT is about to be spent on the Forth Bridge route and connection between Lasswade Road and Straiton is due to be done this year.
Just needs the path alongside the Borders Railway (under the bypass) to be done...
Posted 11 years ago # -
Letter sent to Portobello/Craigmillar councillors:
"""
Dear Councillors Walker, Child and Bridgman,(Also on copy, my local councillors, Godzik, Main, Howat & McInnes)
I understand that the developers of the site at Newcraighall North (13/00562/PAN, Taylor-Wimpey) are proposing to demolish the (intact) former railway bridge, abutments & trackbed across Newcraighall Rd/Newhailes Rd. on the East side of the site. The reason given for this is to remove a 'bottleneck' in the (already 30mph) road and widen the footpath underneath slightly.
This bridge & the trackbed, however, could form a useful and more direct extension to National Cycle Route 1 (NCN1), connecting Newcraighall Station and Musselburgh/Queen Margaret University (see attached picture: possible_NCN1_improvement.png). The innocent railway and NCN1 already provide one of the most useful & commonly used cycling routes out of Edinburgh. The existing route unfortunately meanders through two housing estates (difficult to navigate), Newcraighall Park (narrow path) and a main road section (Newcraighall Rd).
In addition to providing a segregated crossing, the bridge and trackbed form the last remaining heritage of the former mining activities in the area, as well as being a useful traffic calming device (S-bend) on Newcraighall Rd (30mph).
Furthermore, a second underpass at the South-West corner of the site is under threat from Network Rail who wish to infill the bridge to avoid maintaining it. This underpass could provide a direct pedestrian/cycling link from the new development to ASDA/Newcraighall retail park. Thus the two new potential routes would improve conditions for cycling through the area, improve amenity for future residents (green space) and make the development more sustainable by reducing car journeys to shops/schools etc. (see attached picture asda_newcraighall_route.png).
Indeed, the council's own policy is to preserve former railway lines, bridges and accesses, where they can be used to create cycle/pedestrian paths.
Please could you do everything in your power to preserve this network of old railways for future use as cycle/footpaths.
"""Posted 11 years ago # -
No real chance of "new underpass" - the existing one closer to ASDA would be fine if there was a proper path round the edge of the field (or diagonally across it).
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yes, I can see now there is already an underpass under the A1, to the North of the field (near ASDA, but on the other side of the single track):
Posted 11 years ago # -
Very disappointing, but TIE...
"""
Dear Councillor Hinds
With reference to your email to Eric on 12 April re Newcraighall North and the representation made by Spokes to the Portobello Ward Councillors, EDI has the following comments:
1. Cycle and Pedestrian links – EDI had extensive discussions with CEC Planning and Sustrans when developing the strategy now forming its Minded to Grant PPP (10/03449/PPP). As a result of those discussions EDI believes the proposed development will provide good connectivity and a choices of routes giving improved pedestrian and cycle links. For example, the new proposed north-south route in the middle of the development, designed as a shared space street, offers a shorter pedestrian & cycle route from Brunstane / Gilberstoun to Newcraighall Road and Newcraighall Station.
2. The removal of the bridge and northern abutment will greatly improve pedestrian connection east-west of the village. The current pedestrian connection, which only exists on the north side of Newcraighall Road, is very narrow with the pavement width being restricted by the abutment. At EDI’s public consultation events they received the support of local residents to the improvement of the pedestrian route here. EDI are not proposing any change to the layout of the road itself and the s-bend will remain.
3. The two bridges over Newcraighall Road restrict public transport access through the village and only single-decker buses can use the route. The removal of the eastern bridge will allow the promotion of improved public transportation through the village.
4. EDI fully understand the promotion for segregated cycle routes for long distance cycling and leisure purposes, however, the delivery of a new overhead bridge for cycle and pedestrian paths is not feasible nor is viable at present. The second set of existing abutments, further east, will remain for potential future consideration of such a route.
5. Much of the “green corridor” will be tidied up and be preserved however in order to promote “Secured by Design” (the UK Police initiative of designing out crime) for the benefit of the proprietors of the Whitehill Street cottages it is proposed that public access be discouraged. New east-west streets will be created within the proposed development which will be suitable for public access.
8. EDI are supportive of maintaining the existing pedestrian link under the live railway bridge which lies outwith the western boundary of the development. However Network Rail require to carry out bridge reinforcement work and their preferred method is to infill this gap, closing access off. EDI has made representation to Network Rail to ask them to reconsider this position for the benefit of the community who use the route. Unfortunately, after several discussions, EDI understands that Network Rail still intends to carry out the infill works.
I trust this is of assistance and would be happy to further discuss any point above as required.
Regards
Kuan
Kuan Loh
Development Manager
(d) 0131 474 7813
(m) 07767 611344
(t) 0131 220 4424
(f) 0131 220 4425
(e) kuan@edigroupscotland.co.uk
(w) http://www.edigroupscotland.co.ukThe EDI Group Limited SC110956
EDI (Industrial) Limited SC119939
EDI Construction Limited SC239678
EDI Market Street Limited SC261283
Edinburgh Retail Investments Limited SC212911
Clocktower Edinburgh Limited SC114525
Gyle Developments Limited SC209693
Ratho Ventures Limited SC203721Registered Office: Dolphin House 4 Hunter Square, Edinburgh.
"""Posted 11 years ago # -
Was there a covering note - particularly about CEC making representations to Network Rail?
Posted 11 years ago # -
... the delivery of a new overhead bridge for cycle and pedestrian paths is not feasible nor is viable at present...
Is a pretty poor excuse, IMHO. If the developer can demolish a bridge, they can also build a new one. How about:
Build a new bridge on the existing (unbridged) abutments first then demolish the old bridge.
Not demolish a perfectly good (albeit needing a bit of decking & a lick of paint) old bridge then think vaguely about building a new one sometime in the long distant future, if possible.
This kind of stuff makes me furious.
Posted 11 years ago # -
It makes me think that developers/politians/councillors still don't get it.
You have to build in cycling infrastructure from the start, and you have to start NOW!
Posted 11 years ago # -
...segregated cycle routes for long distance cycling and leisure purposes...
Brushes off the significance of cycling as "only for leisure and therefore unimportant"
The fact is, these routes will be more often used for commuting, shopping & visiting friends
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
Instead of shareholders, Network Rail has two general categories of members - industry members and public members - drawn from a wide range of stakeholder organisations. The majority of its 116 members are public members. The Scottish Government is a public member of Network Rail....
Under the Railways Act 2005, Scottish Ministers will in future specify and fund the outputs to be delivered by Network Rail within Scotland.
"
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/rail/rail-industry-in-scotland/network-rail
Time to talk to MSPs.
http://www.kennymacaskill.co.uk/news/newcraighall-development
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
Transform Scotland (@TransformScot)
06/05/2013 12:15http://www.capitalrail.org.uk tomorrow evening at 7.30pm have Nigel Wunsch from @NetworkRailSCOT speaking: http://www.bit.ly/Ypt585 #edinburgh
"
Posted 11 years ago # -
Response from Cllr McInnes:
"""
Dear Councillor McInnes
NEWCRAIGHALL NORTH DEVELOPMENT – PLANNING REF.13/00562/PAN
Thank you for your email of 23 April 2013 regarding Mr H. email of 22 April 2013 concerning the proposed development at Newcraighall North.Current Council policy is to retain disused rail lines and infrastructure as future cycle and pedestrian links. This is set out in the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Proposed Plan which states (Policy TRA 8) that:
- Planning permission will not be granted for development which would:
- prevent the implementation of proposed cycle paths/footpaths shown on the Proposals Map
- be detrimental to a path which forms part of the core paths network or prejudice the continuity of the off-road network generally
- obstruct or adversely affect a public right of way unless satisfactory provision is made for its replacement
- prejudice the possible incorporation of an abandoned railway alignment into the off-road path network.
Therefore, Transport would normally expect to see the existing eastern rail bridge retained. However, in this case there are a number of issues which work against the retention of the bridge:
- the continuation of the former rail line to Musselburgh Station is compromised by coal seams which are apparently still burning despite considerable effort by Network Rail to extinguish them. The Council and Sustrans have pursued completing this link over the last 20 years or so but, as the embankment is adjacent to the main east coast line, the liabilities are such that this has not been possible;
- the existing bridge abutments restrict the width of Newcraighall Road leaving pedestrians with a very poor footway on the northern side of the road and no footway on the southern side. The footway is narrow enough to warrant a guardrail to provide additional protection. The proposed developments to the north and south of Newcraighall Road are likely to mean significant additional numbers of pedestrians on this footway and the removal of the bridge gives the opportunity to make significant improvements;
- the proposed development access on the north side of Newcraighall Road to the east of the existing bridge deck and abutments would result very poor sightlines for traffic. The removal of the bridge etc. gives the opportunity to address these road safety concerns.
Please find enclosed Sustrans consultation response on the approved Planning in Principle application for this site which you will note recognises the constraints and accepts that, in this instance, an at grade crossing would be acceptable.
With regard to the infilling of the western bridge, it is my understanding that this is permitted development (under the relevant railway acts) and as such the Council’s powers are, at best, limited. However, I intend to continue to pursue this with Network Rail and I understand that my staff will be meeting them later this month. There are likely to be ongoing costs to such an agreement and I would wish to make it clear that I cannot give any guarantee that the underpass can be retained.
On a more positive note, Transport is seeking improvements to the cycle and pedestrian routes through the site which will improve both National Cycle Network Route 1 and the links between Gilberstoun and Newcraighall Primary School. These matters will be highlighted in Transport’s response to the planning application in due course.
Should you require further information in respect of the planning application please contact Matthew Simpson in my Development Control Team on 0131 529 3426. The issue of infilling the bridge is being pursued by officers in my Cycle Team and should you wish to discuss this in more detail please contact Chris Brace on 0131 469 3602.
Yours sincerely
Ewan Kennedy
Policy and Planning Manager"""
Posted 11 years ago # -
prevent the implementation of proposed cycle paths/footpaths shown on the Proposals Map
Question is: Where is, and what is "the Proposals Map"....?
Posted 11 years ago # -
There have been developments 'behind the scenes' in relation to the Network Rail plan to fill-in under the bridge that would block a walk/cycle route that is currently used a bit and should be used a lot if/when new houses are built.
There was a meeting recently between CEC and NR.
The only 'progress' was that there is now apparently a date for the work - November.
I have also seen an email from NR, which basically says -
'we're going to do what we want to do unless someone designs an alternative, pays for it and guarantees to maintain it'.
There is still room for a sensible solution - and there is still political pressure being put on NR.
In my terms the sensible solution would be to realise the PR advantages of just getting on with it (providing/maintaining access) and spending the tiny amount of money involved. This would also reduce the chance of one of its main paymasters - the Scottish Government - wondering if it is getting value for money when considering the wider social benefits and particularly the "five Strategic Objectives" - "a Scotland that is Wealthier and Fairer, Smarter, Healthier, Safer and Stronger and Greener".
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
The Scottish Government’s purpose is “to focus Government and public services on creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth”. By providing a safe, high performing and affordable railway, at the same time as delivering key enhancement schemes to meet significant growth projections, Network Rail will play a pivotal role in achieving this goal....
We are very aware that our plans include higher costs than were assumed by Government. However, these plans also provide for substantial investment to address the remaining areas of underinvestment from previous decades; to modernise the railway reducing its future running costs; and to provide further capacity to allow for growth. We must avoid simply cutting costs instead of achieving real lasting improvements in efficiency. Trying to reduce costs too fast and without the necessary investment would increase the risk of under performance in delivering the planned outputs.
...
The climate will continue to change:
we will seek to understand and optimise our resilience to extreme weather events and climate change. We will provide climate change scenarios to help the regulator understand the basis for our resourcing requirements and to protect the value of our assets
in recent years governments have introduced a suite of measures aimed at improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions. There is a greater national recognition that we all have a role to play in delivering positive environmental outcomes. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 sets targets to reduce Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions by 42 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050 (including international aviation and shipping)."
Etc.
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=30064784327
Posted 11 years ago # -
A sign has now gone up at the Newcraighall North site - it says "Newcraighall Village, Coming Soon". I wonder if the Newcraighall villagers agree with that.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Grr. Trees hacked off embankment. Embankment breached.
Path which split off from NCN1 gone.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Path which split off from NCN1 gone."
You mean the one from Brunstane to the old footbridge at Newcraighall?
That's a Right of Way.
"Embankment breached."
This was 'planned' many years ago (though only a smaller section) so that the NCN route from QM could go 'directly' rather than along Newcraighall Road, with a new path east to ASDA. Of course that option has gone because Network Rail removed the bridge and created a new embankment there...
Didn't realise this development had actually got planning permission.
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
