It appears that the Dalton Scrapyard on Yeaman Place is finally going to be developed.
This is a long awaited opportunity for canal access along the most densely residential part of the canal.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Canal access - Yeaman Place (consultation)
(26 posts)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
"The development will enable a new pedestrian and cycle route to be provided through the site, linking the Union Canal to Dundee Street. A new stepped access is also proposed from Yeaman Place to the Union Canal. Providing these much-needed connections will benefit not only future residents of the development but also the wider surrounding community."
Would be better (for local residents) if the Yeaman place access wasn't stepped. as it is, the design does more to facilitate through cycle traffic, rather than local residential benefit.
"The development of the site will enable the delivery of an active travel route from Yeaman Place to the Union Canal which is safeguarded by the Edinburgh Local Development Plan. It is proposed that the connection from Yeaman Place to the Union Canal will be stepped with an adjacent ramp for ease of pushing bikes up and down when using the steps. A level connection will also be provided from the Union Canal through the site to Dundee Street. This will enable a more direct connection from the Union Canal to the Telfer Subway and onto the existing footpath / cycleway. This will allow ease of access to the proposed Roseburn Path to Dalry Community Park link which has been approved by City of Edinburgh Council. "
Posted 2 years ago # -
also baffled that I first heard about this *after* the so called 'live consultation'. this is what happens when Gavin Corbett resigns as local councillor.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Good to have a link between the canal and Dundee Street here. As ever, the design could be better. The route involves a diagonal crossing of a shared use courtyard. This builds in pedestrian/cyclist conflict and reduces sight lines between the canal and the street, which may be a personal safety concern for path users.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Probably easier for cyclists to use Gibson Terrace in most instances?
Although if they are directed down this new route from the Roseburn link and Telfer subway, I can see it getting busy.
Posted 2 years ago # -
We really should ban developers and politicians from talking about "strategic links" or "cycle routes" when referring to basically-pedestrian spaces bikes are grudgingly permitted to ride through.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Now back at proposal stage. Objections to initial stage seem to have been ignored.
22/03556/FUL
Deadline Wednesday!
Posted 1 year ago # -
What are "we" meant to do with this? Object? Support? Are the active travel routes sufficient?
A short summary of what the issues are and how we can respond would help.
Posted 1 year ago # -
@neddie IIRC it boils down to: they were given planning permission with plans they would provide an accessible(ie, ramped) way to access the development from the canal in addition to the stepped access to the street, but they pulled the old "we've decided that's too expensive so we're not doing it" during the design stage and changed it to stepped access, and both they and the council have been studiously ignoring the constant stream of people pointing the issue out ever since. So we should be objecting on that basis; they shouldn't be allowed to continue the project until they restore the accessibility feature that was promised. No ramp also means the promised "active travel route" is a nonsense since you'll have to dismount and hump your bike down a set of stairs.
Someone had a twitter thread up about it a few days ago but I'm afraid I can't recall who. EDIT: Ooop, found it: https://twitter.com/davidfkey/status/1556576306179067905?cxt=HHwWgsC-uej5iJorAAAA
And this is the reply that indicates it should be there: https://twitter.com/fountainbridge/status/1556677775515418628
Posted 1 year ago # -
I had missed that totally! Thanks for the share. Paul Fountainbridge is a treasure.
Posted 1 year ago # -
There is no canal access between Viewforth and Harrison Rd for those who live on the south side of the canal, and it is the most densely populated section of the canal.
Yeaman place access would make a huge difference to people in the area, but steps won’t help anyone with mobility issues (nor bikes).
Posted 1 year ago # -
Done!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Last day!
The actual comment process is easy and short - just a free text box.
There are 70+ documents to look at... But the important one is the "PLANNING STATEMENT" 4TH from the bottom.
My comments (you can all critique/ write better)
For what it's worth, here is my input: While there are some positive aspects to this development, I object on two grounds, linked to the City Plan and the local plan policy, and the needs of this dense residential neighbourhood.
1. The lack of ramped access to Yeaman Place. The proposal claims that ramped access is "unfeasible and potentially unviable", but fails to adequately explain why. I understand that council undertook a study into the possibility of ramped access here some years ago. I hope this can be 'found' and considered. Given that there is currently ramped access, it should surely be both feasible and viable.
The south side of the canal between Viewforth and Harrison Rd is the most densely populated section of the canal, but this almost 1 mile long stretch of land has no canal access. Access from Yeaman Place would remedy this, in a way that access to Dundee St does not. But ramped access is essential for young families (with buggies, scooters etc), elderly residents, and those with limited mobility.
For local residents this is a hugely significant change to our local area, and it would be devastating for this opportunity to give us access to the canal was missed.
The approved city plan specifies that ramped access should be provided to Yeaman Place in the event of development. If council officers and residents representatives approve this without requiring ramped access, it will make a mockery of the city's commitment to active travel and neighbourhood access to green space, as well as the city plan.2. This neighbourhood is densely populated. It does have some amenities, but it is broadly a residential area. however, many families are being priced out of the area. Meanwhile, a number of student-specific developments have recently been built in the immediate area. The increase of student numbers brings with it some challenges, but the loss of families to out of town developments is even more detrimental, and also risks increasing traffic into the city.
Given the existing levels of student accommodation, the proposal seems contrary to local plan policy Hou 8(b).
Posted 1 year ago # -
"Given that there is currently ramped access, it should surely be both feasible and viable."
I didn't understand this bit - there isn't ramped access there at the moment is there?
Posted 1 year ago # -
yes, there's an access to the land off yeaman place for vehicles.
(I suppose not an access to the canal per se)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thanks. I've submitted an objection. It looks like a lot of other people have too.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Revised plans now out!
https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=REWMMAEWFVW00"From feedback received, a further review of this access route has taken place and a fully DDA accessible ramp has now been incorporated which looks to balance the need for level access and the requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance, Secure by Design Guidance and Historic Environment Scotland."
haven't had a chance to look more closely yet.
Posted 1 year ago # -
B1 LOWER GROUND AND GROUND FLOOR looks like the relevant plan. 2m wide ramps.
Posted 1 year ago # -
At Development Management sub-committee next week (Officers report, recommending approval).
Anyone looked closely at the proposed ramp?
Posted 1 year ago # -
A 2.8 metre wide pend from Yeaman place, followed by a ramp with a 1.8 metre wide hairpin bend in it!
Talk about doing the absolute bare minimum!
This is typical terrible UK 'placemaking' at work again.
"Maximise the size of all buildings, don't care about creating unsafe and uninviting spaces"
Oh, and use the "challenging constraints" and "Heritage Site" excuses. Aye, like you could actually just reduce the footprint of your ugly flats...
I'll never be able to get the Helios tandem around that hairpin, so that's that route out with the kids
Posted 1 year ago # -
More details here -
https://twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1635220151003144193
Posted 1 year ago # -
@neddie We used the tandem on all the crap ramps on the routes towards Haymarket and Rutland square. Is this that much tighter?
Agree it would be lovely if our access was given precedence over building, but the link to Dundee street seems more likely to be used by cycles anyway? And looks to have no problematic ramps.
My sense - perhaps wrong - is that the Yeaman Place access is most relevant for local access.
This is the problem with the city relying on developers to provide points of access. That's what needs to be challenged, but won't happen in this budget climate.
Posted 1 year ago # -
It's not really about "my tandem" though - there are many non-standard cycles that will struggle to get through that ramp (as well as the crappy ramps at Haymarket/Rutland/McEwen Sq)
All these groups are potentially being excluded:
- Adapted/mobility cycles
- Cargo bikes
- Tandems
- Recumbents
- Trailers
- Trikes
- Rickshaws
- Velomobiles
- ...And there'll be conflict with pedestrians for all cycles.
Honestly, we'll never progress if we continually accept crap as "it's alright for me, therefore it's good enough"
Posted 1 year ago # -
@neddie agree those groups are potentially excluded, but likely many of them are excluded from the towpath anyway by width, bridges, cobbles, chicanes (the latter maybe a bit less now than in the past). All of which Scottish Canals have been able to wriggle out of for years.
Posted 1 year ago # -
My point was that those ramps (rutland sq etc) are usable, if less than ideal - from a cyclist perspective.
For local residents the access is almost certainly more about buggies, wheelchairs etc. as well as little kids on scooters, trikes, etc And a few of us local cyclists.
Cyclists using it as a through route and coming off the canal are surely more likely to be heading towards the Telfer subway (two other, better access points) or to Harrison Park - good ramped access.
Maybe I am lacking spatial awareness but this doesn't seem impossibly narrow for that sort of usage.
Maybe we need to make out a mock version and try it? I doubt we could get the torpedo down there (but not sure a torpedo pilot wants to be on the canalpath ... ditto rickshaws, etc!). My experience is that you have to proceed pretty cautiously on the Canal path with tandem + trailer. Is this worse than the ramp at Boroughmuir? Laidback might be best placed to comment on access for trikes?
What is particularly frustrating about the Rutland square etc access is that those areas seemed to have LOTS of room, but still managed to design really poor cycle infra.
After living a few hundred metres from this access point for almost two decades, I'm counting this as a win.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
