CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

West Craigs Planning Application

(52 posts)
  • Started 8 years ago by acsimpson
  • Latest reply from acsimpson

No tags yet.


12

  1. acsimpson
    Member

    From what I can see on the council and DPEA sites for the larger part of the West Craigs site:
    On the council site there is correspondence from the end of July when the developers wrote to the council requesting that the deadline be extended by 2 months (8th October rather than 8th August). The council agreed this although no reason appears in the letter.
    The DPEA meanwhile has extended their deadline to the 21st of September. At the glance the correspondence on their site seems to point mainly to disagreements around education as the reason.

    For the small Taylor Wimpey plot adjacent to Maybury Road. The council planning site suggest that the Planning in principal application is "Minded to grant". They will then need to apply for detailed planning permission.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  2. acsimpson
    Member

    It looks like this one is still rumbling on. Meanwhile the developers have submitted a sneaky proposal for the land north of Craigs Road which they tried to get in under the radar (3rd Dec 2018 Consultation on New Development on Maybury Road.)

    The latest on West Craigs is a meeting scheduled for January:
    "It seems to the reporters that the only significant area of dispute is the education contribution. They have considered the submissions from both parties in this regard. However, the individual positions of the parties are not easy to reconcile with the previous evidence, the previous heads of terms or the notice of intention. Indeed, they raise further questions in the minds of the reporters.

    Accordingly, rather than requesting further written submissions, the reporters consider that the most efficient and effective way for them to close out this matter is to reopen the hearing purely to discuss education contributions. The reporters propose either Tuesday 22 or Wednesday 23 January 2019 for the hearing which should last no more than half a day. Please advise your availability as soon as possible so"

    Posted 5 years ago #

  3. jonty
    Member

    An RSO has been published which I think relates to this...

    https://www.tellmescotland.gov.uk/notices/city-of-edinburgh/traffic/00000217832

    The statement of reasons seems to suggest they're just redetermining a bit of pavement as road to form a new access road, but it seems to be getting rid of huge swathes of pavement on Maybury Road to widen the road.

    I think there's a new path proposed further in, but I've no idea why the roads need to be widened. I thought the planning application said it was going down to two lanes with central turn lanes, which would surely require a narrower road if anything.

    Anybody got any more context? I will probably object. Will be interesting to see if this causes three years of delay to the whole project or if it's only certain objections to certain projects which cause that...

    Posted 5 years ago #

  4. acsimpson
    Member

    Thanks Jonty. At a glance on my phone it appears to be what you are describing. If that's so it's the first I have heard of it.

    I have put an objection in too, although as it's late and I'm not a shopkeeper I suspect it will be dismissed. I can recall the statutory grounds for objection. Is removal of parking one?

    Posted 5 years ago #

  5. CycleAlex
    Member

    I think for an RSO it's anything? TRO has specifics.

    Posted 5 years ago #

  6. jonty
    Member

    Looking more closely at it, most of the redetermination seems to be verge. This matches up with the planning permission, which has the road staying the same width but the path being set back from the road as a verge.

    The reason the RSO seems misleading is possibly because footway -> verge isn't really a redetermination (I guess they're both types of footway really?), so the only real redetermination that is happening is footway -> road for the junctions.

    Still a bit odd as most of the road will still be hatching anyway! Perhaps worth objecting on those grounds but, as I say, not as bad as it looks.

    Posted 5 years ago #

  7. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    My concern would be if the existing footway is ripped up or otherwise denied to use before the new path is constructed. As previous threads have shown, many people feel safer cycling on the footway than in the carriageway there, not surprisingly.

    Posted 5 years ago #

  8. acsimpson
    Member

    I got a reply saying I'm too late but that this is purely to do with access roads and no widening is planned.

    The worst case would be the West pavement being unusable as I don't think the East is affected. Although it has more pedestrians so likely to cause conflict. The next best would be temporary changes which accommodate pedestrians but are awkward for bikes.

    The final design will incorporate a shared space but with numerous road crossings.

    Posted 5 years ago #

  9. CycleAlex
    Member

    Planning application for the ped/cycle bridge of the railway: 20/01148/AMC / https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=Q6X3E6EWL2200

    Posted 4 years ago #

  10. acsimpson
    Member

    Good spot Cyclealex,

    It's good to see that it is on the factory boundary rather than where the existing bridge is.

    I wonder why they feel the need to spiral the path at the south rather than just bend it round. There's no shortage of space.

    The path then heads to the station where they instruct you to dismount before riding past. Rather than going straight to the A8 path. I suppose it makes sense as the bridge is aiming to connect to the underpass but still likely to lead to some conflict outside the station.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  11. HankChief
    Member

    @Ac I did ask why there was a corkscrew, but I can't remember what the answer was. I think I was satisfied with it, which would mean it was sensible...

    I'm pretty sure we also talked about routes further West but my mind is drawing a blank on that too.

    One thing I do remember is asking for, and now getting, is steps for those who want a more direct route, so I'll take that as a win. :)

    Posted 4 years ago #

  12. acsimpson
    Member

    @hankchief, yes steps good and avoid a desire line forming.

    Corkscrew no big deal but good to know there was a reason.

    Perhaps they need to formalise the route past the station and put in zebra stripes to remind bikes to give way to pedestrians going to/from tram. I suspect that is outside the scope though.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  13. Frenchy
    Member

    On the north side of @CycleAlex's diagram, what's the deal with the wee path on the east side, goes under the bridge, and then joins the larger path on the west side? Why not just connect to the north end of the path coming over the bridge?

    Also looks like a chicane barrier on the western path.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  14. HankChief
    Member

    Frenchy - I have asked why the chicane is necessary.

    I've also asked how Crosseind will link up with the bridge.

    Will let you know..

    Posted 4 years ago #

  15. HankChief
    Member

    Good news (and a fast response from the developer)

    Chicanes seen on the map will be a single bollard :)

    Connecting to paths further West is a question for CEC. I will ask...

    Posted 4 years ago #

  16. Frenchy
    Member

    Good work!

    Posted 4 years ago #

  17. CycleAlex
    Member

    19/05051/AMC approved for the Taylor Wimpey site. First time I've had a look at it and it seems fairly decent really. Delineated paths, parallel crossings and a new signalised junction where it can be a bit of a pain to cross at the moment.

    03B) DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT gives an overview.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  18. acsimpson
    Member

    It generally looks quite good. 2 minor niggles are the sharp bend in the cycle path at the north west corner and the lack of a pedestrian crossing of Maybury Road at the Southern path exit.

    South Maybury Road now looks like it will become wooded on both sides which goes against the Council talk of making it more urbanised. The images look like Dreghorn Link.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  19. CycleAlex
    Member

    lack of a pedestrian crossing of Maybury Road at the Southern path exit.
    In the legal agreement from 16/05681/PPP there's a developer contribution of £50,000 for a toucan there. I assume it's not in the plans as CEC will built it.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  20. acsimpson
    Member

    Ah, that would make sense. The Maybury Road transport feasibility study includes one at the junction.

    Did you manage to obtain a copy of the study report?

    Posted 4 years ago #

  21. CycleAlex
    Member

    @acsimpson I didn't, PM'd you my email if you had a moment to send it along though (thanks!).

    Posted 4 years ago #

  22. acsimpson
    Member

    The plans are in for the Craigs Road/Maybury Road junction. As usual you wont be able to follow this link and will have to search under reference 20/01884/AMC citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=Q9UNCQEW09Z0020/01884/AMC

    The junction has single stage crossings on all arms which is excellent, it will mean all arms go green at once facilitating diagonal crossing in a single phase if you desire.

    There is no pavement on the southern edge of Craigs Road for the first section but I can't think of any journeys where this would be a problem because there will be an entrance to the estate further south.

    Cammo Walk retains vehicle access which I thought was being removed but that was part of the Cammo development so I guess unrelated to this. My only real complaint about the design is that Cammo Walk will have a raised table to cross the SUP but it doesn't appear to give visual priority to the path.

    The application is open for comments until the end of the month.

    Posted 4 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin