CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
Planning application has gone in to build on the back of Tesco's car park at D Mains with a new access raid coming through from Main Street.
Potentially the chance to get the cut through from the NEPN turned into a really useable route, but it has a couple of 90degree corners on the proposed route which it calls a new "footpath"...
If the path was wide and allowed cycling with sensible corners & sight lines this could be a good proposal but I expect we are going to have to fight for it.
From their application:
> The site is bound to the north by open space, which is a disused railway line linking Cramond Road South to Silverknowes
They seem to be ignoring that they are building on the current cycle path and obstructing it.
Pretty unacceptable proposal here.
“They seem to be ignoring that they are building on the current cycle path and obstructing it.”
I doubt it.
They will be aware - ‘there’s an official signposted Sustrans cycle route parallel, what’s your problem?’
The route into the back of Tesco’s carpark (once Safeway’s) has been something of a problem/problem/opportunity for more years than I can remember.
In the past there was a standoff between Safeway and CEC (in fact it must go back to EDC days) about who owned the land. NOT both claiming ownership, rather ‘nothing to do with us guv’.
Presumably land titles are now all in order...??
In a well ordered society the developers would be keen to make a selling point of ‘directly connected to the fabulous North Edinburgh Path Network and main local supermarket’.
(Haven’t looked at all the plans, but I presume the site is fenced all round?)
Yep, mainly fenced site and various right angle turns.
The plan shows a fairly narrow path on the foot of the embankment
They also reckon they can provide 70 cycle spaces on a smaller footprint than two car spaces- so must be impressively high rised.
When do objections / comments have to be in by?
Monday 13TH April so you'll need to be quick.
The transport statement has the following to say about non motorised users:
3.3.1 The site layout recognises the need to create accessible and well-connected developments which are integrated to their adjoining catchments. In addition to the pedestrian footway provided at the site entrance, a new pedestrian link will be incorporated to the north of the site, creating a connection with the established cycle path which extends between the Tesco site and Cramond Road South and the residential catchment located to the north east of the site.3.3.2 Within the site, footways will be provided either side of the internal access road, with the overall layout according with key principles of Designing Streets guidance.
So in the first point they are calling the existing link a cycle path but then adding a pedestrian link to it?
They they claim there will be footways on both sides of the roads while the map on the same pages shows this isn't the case.
Then under parking they have:
Application of these standards would equate to an overall provision of 43 spaces. The proposed development contains 30 spaces. Although this is below the number stated in CEC guidance, SYSTRA believes that, due to the accessible location of the site, this is an appropriate level of provision.
They are billing 2 of the blocks as being 3 stories with a developed roof. Which really means 4 stories including a penthouse with a large balcony.
Spokes objection, amended slightly.
Objection from Spokes, the Lothians Cycle Campaign (edited slightly)
We object to this application on a number of grounds, but principally the poor design of the proposed new pedestrian/cycle path along the north side of the site, to replace the existing route across the car park.
In general we support the proposal on the basis that it is residential, on brownfield land, located close to many amenities, and well situated for public transport and for cycling and walking (National Cycle Route 1 runs fairly close by); thus reducing the need to travel, and hence reducing car use, and meaning that residents will not need to own a car - which all supports sustainability.
We also welcome “ the new connectivity with Main St for cyclists and pedestrians” (Design and Access, p.23).
In addition we welcome the inclusion of 70 cycle parking spaces (for 36 flats), and the reduction in parking provision (from standard 43 spaces, to 30), though in view of the good location of the site for amenities, active travel, and public transport, we would welcome an even bigger reduction.
However, the proposed replacement path for the east-west route, along the north side of the site, can only be described as a disaster, and is totally unacceptable.
This east-west route is “well-established” (as the documentation acknowledges); it connects NCN1 not only to the Tesco supermarket, but also to the paths beyond Davidson's Mains, via East Barnton Gardens, leading to Davidson's Mains Park, the Royal High School, and Barnton; in the other direction, to Silverknowes, Blackhall and other localities, including the city.
First, there is no indication (in any of the documentation we have seen, including the D+A, the Planning Statement, and the Transport Statement) of the width of this path, but from the drawings it appears to be the same width as the footways elsewhere in the plans, ie about 2m.
This is completely inadequate for a path which will be fenced off (from woodland) to the north, and from the residential block - the “Cottage Flats” - to the south, presumably by a high fence. This is meant to be a 2-way path for pedestrians and cyclists, the recommendation for which is 2.5m unbounded, but an extra half metre must be allowed for each restricting boundary, making a 3.5m minimum width in this case.
With right-angle bends and restricted edges, the path would have to be even wider on the corners, to comply with regulations; and there is also the issue of access for maintenance vehicles.
(Since this path is sometimes called a “footpath”, it might seem cycling is excluded, but then “the principle of pedestrian/cycle routes from east to west over the northern part of the site is well-established” (Tpt Statement, 2.2.3, p.8) shows that 'footpath' is being used here loosely; indeed there is plenty of (welcome) mention of cycling throughout the documentation).
Second, the security issue: the path would lie between woodland/scrub on one side and a high fence on the other, meaning it would not be overlooked. Even worse, there is to be a double right-angle bend at the east end; with the fences, these would be blind bends, meaning again that parts of the path would be out of sight, and certainly there would be no clear view along the whole length of the route and beyond.
The route would be hemmed in and feel like a tunnel. It would be totally off-putting at night, and probably during the day too.
The consequences are that this location would become a perfect recipe for anti-social behaviour, and it is difficult to imagine that any security audit would accept it.
Unbelievably, none of these issues are addressed in the documentation; the relevant page of the D+A, on 'Accessibility, Transport and Security', for example, p.23, has nothing to say; and there is no mention in the Transport Statement.
It is not our role to say what measures might be taken to remedy the situation, but we would suggest that the Cottage Flats be moved north to the site boundary, and the replacement path should run to the south of this building, where sight-lines would be good, an adequate width could be provided, and the whole site would benefit from this open-area path.
Where the path meets the new access road, since there would be little motor traffic here, the junction could become a focal feature of the site, with seats, planting etc - all well-overlooked and in a sunny, sheltered location.
That is our main cause for objection, but there are other aspects we are not happy with:
1 the lack of consultation: the current emergency is cited as a reason for the lack of a PAN, but with proper consultation our objections could have been aired and, hopefully, sorted out. The application should be delayed until consultation can be carried out.
2 the path to Silverknowes, east of the site boundary up to Silverknowes Rd (a distance of about 180m), is currently metalled, and quite rough. The developers could gain much public support if they agreed to part-fund a bit-mac surface, under a S75 agreement.
Also, the route through the site must be kept open during the construction period, as it’s an important route for children going to school.
Good objection
But
WHY
ONCE AGAIN
Does Spokes have to do ‘all the work’???
Not only should all this stuff have been made legal requirements years ago, but (more) developers should have moved away from ‘what’s the minimum we can get away with?’
MORE IMPORTANTLY
A development like this has almost certainly already been the subject of discussions with CEC officials - who should have been able to say ‘we won’t accept this’.
Unfortunately SG has made LA planning functions more difficult to operate in much more than the interests of developers under implicit and explicit ‘presumption for development.
Presumably there are local groups that Spokes is in touch with?
@chdot - some local individuals.
This planning development wasn't on our radar - someone got in touch with us.
And agree, of course, that it's exasperating that Spokes has to do the kind of full assessment which should be done by developers using active travel standards. It was the same with the trams to Newhaven. We should be charging consultancy fees. Properly, we should be doing a few tweaks.
But WHY ONCE AGAIN Does Spokes have to do ‘all the work’???
If there's no penalty for the developer not doing the work and someone else is going to do it anyway why would they do it?
“ why would they do it?”
Well yes.
As above -
Should be stronger guidance and firmer laws.
Developers ought to consider that taking a wider view of better walking/cycling facilities and easy access to open space, might actually make it easier to sell houses and for more money (in certain places).
I’m a D Mains resident, and was copied in by Spokes. It looks as if the Monday deadline is no longer in force, so there will be more time to respond. The local community association is now in the loop, and I’m helping to draft a response from the primary school parent council. I’ve also copied in the local Facebook group. I think all that should generate a fair number of comments.
Hopefully that will all have a positive effect.
“Hopefully that will all have a positive effect.”
Yes!
What are local councillors saying?
@chdot - I would guess that part of Edinburgh's attraction to youthful techy types is its green credentials, and you would think it would be in developers' interests to design for that.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18367908.edinburgh-among-worlds-eco-friendly-travel-destinations
Yes
But
It’s about tourists
“
The fast-growing capital has been named the UK’s most environmentally friendly destination, with researchers singling out biking opportunities, parks and vegan restaurants as reasons to pay a visit.
“
I have objected with the following, which is a simplified version of Spokes, with a couple of additional points about continuous footway along Main St and the cycle parking:
I object to this application on the following grounds:
1. Poor design of the proposed replacement path for the east-west route, along the north side of the site, which is totally unacceptable:
This east-west route is “well-established” (as the documentation acknowledges); it connects NCN1 not only to the Tesco supermarket, but also to the paths beyond Davidson's Mains, via East Barnton Gardens, leading to Davidson's Mains Park, the Royal High School, and Barnton; in the other direction, to Silverknowes, Blackhall and other localities, including the city. It could eventually form a complete off-road path, avoiding Silverknowes Terrace and Silverknowes Drive, completing the missing “off road” link of NCN1 and upgrading NCN1 to a contiguous, safe, off-road route.
The path width is inadequate and does not meet “Cycling by Design” guidance. It should be increased to at least 3 metres and ideally 4 metres.
The right-angle bends and restricted edges on the path are unacceptable - this will create conflict between pedestrians and cyclists; create danger due to obstructed sight-lines, and; make the path inconvenient and undesirable for cycling.
There are security issues: the path would lie between woodland/scrub on one side and a high fence on the other, meaning it would not be overlooked. Even worse, the double right-angle bend at the east end; with the fences, these would be blind bends, meaning again that parts of the path would be out of sight, and certainly there would be no clear view along the whole length of the route and beyond.
The route would be hemmed in and feel like a tunnel. It would be totally off-putting at night, and probably during the day too. This would exclude vulnerable users and women due to fears of anti-social behaviour or worse.
2. Poor design of the footway where it crosses the entrance to the site on Main St.:
The footway along Main St is heavily used by shoppers, businesses and residents. Given that the new development forms a cul-de-sac, this footway across the main entrance to the development should be continuous footway with proper pedestrian priority (both visual and actual), steep entrance and exit ramps for vehicles, per Edinburgh Street Design Guidance.
3. Cycle parking:
The inclusion of 70 cycle parking spaces is welcome, however those spaces appear to cover the footprint of approximately 3 car parking spaces. Normally, the footprint of 1 car parking space would be expected to accommodate 12 bikes. Therefore, only 36 bikes could actually be properly accommodated in the proposed design. It is important that bike parking is designed properly and is accessible to all bike users and bicycle types i.e. adequate spacing between the racks, “Sheffield” racks (not “wheel benders”); no lifting of bikes required (which would exclude weaker or disabled cyclists); covered to protect from rain/wind; can accommodate cargo or other non-standard bikes. The footprint allocated to bike parking should be increased to allow 70 bikes to be stored in a proper manner, as described above.
4. Due planning process:
It is unacceptable that this planning application has gone ahead without following due process, citing the current COVID-19 emergency as a reason for the lack of a PAN and without proper consultation.
5. During construction:
The route through the site must be kept open during the construction period, as it’s an important safe route for children going to school.
Additional comment:
The path to Silverknowes, east of the site boundary up to Silverknowes Rd (a distance of about 180m), is currently metalled, and quite rough. The developers could gain much public support if they agreed to part-fund a tarmac surface of adequate width, under a S75 agreement.
Strangely, despite living a couple of miles away in East Craigs I received a neighbour notification for this development earlier in the month. I assume this is because I commented but I don't recall that happening before.
I see that the Roads Authority have now responded and made many of the points which we have highlighted above (not enough cycle parking, cycle path design is below required standard, etc.)
@acsimpson - I got one too, despite living in Gilmerton. I don't recall this happening before either.
Me too. I was suspicious of this. Have they submitted a new application?
@neddie, I can't find one. Although I threw out the notification before considering checking the number matches.
Whatever happened to this PA?
Upgrading the Silverknowes to Tesco path seems to be back on the agenda as a distraction from plan to remove PfA from Silverknowes Road.
Point 4
It was refused, with the reason given being:
"The applicant has failed to secure the necessary legal agreement and therefore, the appropriate infrastructure to mitigate the development has not been provided contrary to policies DEL 1 and HOU 6 of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan.
Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP) Policy DEL 1 Developer Contributions and Infrastructure Delivery clearly identifies that development will be required to mitigate any infrastructural impacts from a proposed development. In particular part a) addresses transport infrastructure and part b) of the policy provides the basis to seek education contributions.
LDP Policy Hou 6 Affordable housing sets out the Council position on the delivery of 25% affordable housing on sites for the development of over 12 units."
Thanks
And they haven’t re-jigged/re-applied?
Know anything about ownership status of path?
You can find out for £3+VAT if you want: https://scotlis.ros.gov.uk/property-summary/MID69034/1
I've no idea why you would even conflate the improvement of this path with the removal of the Silverknowes South scheme and say it's more important, but that's the Lib Dems for you.
Is there a reason why the old railway embankment running parallel to the NCN route is not a cycle path?
And they haven’t re-jigged/re-applied?
Not yet. This building warrant from last year is for the same address and gives permission for demolishing buildings. So presumably they're planning something.
(Not sure if link will work long-term - ref. no. is 21/03285/WARR)
This may or may not be related to development.
‘Action’ on unmade path to Tesco car park
“
Travelling Safely – Active Travel Path
Action agreed by Committee on 16.11.2023 to engage with Tesco on active travel path to Silverknowes
Business Bulletin
Daisy Narayanan Place
Date to be confirmed following discussion with Tesco
“
Whether that means longstanding standoff between CEC & T about ownership is over…
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts