Alvis Retail Park breaches planning guidelines

Earlier this month, a planning application was submitted to Coventry City Council to remodel the facades and parking areas at the Alvis retail park, which is situated on the Holyhead Road, about a mile to the west of Coventry city centre.

This is not just a sprucing up, this is a major retrofit, and as car parking spaces are being modified, there is no reason why long overdue cycle parking cannot also be provided.

This is a full planning application, and it should therefore be subject to the supplementary planning guidance issued to cover provision for cyclists in 2009. Even this guidance is in addition to the Coventry local plan, which states in policy AM11 that consistent cycle provision should be made, and that the needs to disabled people should also be considered.

Moreover, I write as someone who is currently unable to drive due to a long-term health condition, so if blue badge car parking is provided, where is my blue badge cycle parking, or more to the point, any cycle parking at all? 

This failure to provide is a clear breach of the Equalities Act 2010, which states that companies must make reasonable adjustments to ensure that they do not discriminate against customers because of their disability.  Given that the traditional Sheffield cycle parking stands cost from just £30 plus VAT each to install, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the retail park to do this.

---

If you are someone who rides a bike in Coventry, please take a moment to add an objection to this development going ahead without consideration of the basic needs of cyclists. 

The reference is here – FUL/2013/0350

http://planning.coventry.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=745517

You can either fill in the form online or e-mail Kurt.Russell@coventry.gov.uk quoting FUL/2013/0350.

Please make sure your comments are made by 29th March 2013.

Thanks,

James Avery

Pickles' Parking Practicalities

Eric Pickles' suggestion that car users should be "let off" parking fines for "only" stopping for 10 minutes has naturally been derided by the cycling community, together with many others who have an interest in maintaining quality urban environments.

Ignoring the nonsense about the "war on the motorist" (he should try riding a bike), does Pickles at least have some element of a point when it comes to providing for very short term parking on the high street? Is there a way to allow brief stays without handing acres of space back to cars, thus reversing efforts to make the public realm more enjoyable?

Let's start such a proposal from the basis point that if the goal is optimum movement of traffic, then there should really be no stopping of any kind - apart from brief pauses by buses to drop off and pick up passengers. This is important to remember as a full bus can carry as much as 100 times the passenger load as a single occupancy car, yet the latter can would severely impede the former if given multiple segments of 10 minutes' free reign.

However, encouraging traffic that brings people to high streets,  only then to carry on straight after, is not the same things as encouraging greater footfall, and increasing dwell time, thus keeping the tills ringing. After all, cars don't buy things, and nor do buses - but they can bring people to the shops to make the purchase.

Meanwhile, people can also make their own way to shopping areas by bike or on foot. Whilst cycles typically use around 1/10th of the space of a private car for motion and for parking, we are all pedestrians for at least part of the journey, and it is as pedestrians that we enter shops, ready to part with our cash.

One of the most obvious concerns about the "10 minutes" argument is - what sort of trade are you likely to bring in during that time? Even if you were to grant such a grace period, what happens when the pensioner "nips" in to the post office, and comes out after 12 minutes to find they have still been fined? However, as a counter to this, a space with a 10 minute restriction might be used 5 or even 10 times within an hour, whereas a space with a limit of an hour may only be used once or twice.

Easy Park

Rather than give a general grace period (which would then have people parking on double yellows, clogging up school entrances and so on), I'd look into an on-street parking system which was based on the "Easy" pricing model, with the price rising sharply according to the length of stay. How about a 10p price rise for each 10 minutes after a grace period, such as:

• First 10 minutes - free
• Next 10 minutes (to 20 minutes) - 10p
• Next 10 - 20p
• Next 10 30p .... and so on

For a system like this to work, there would need to be some sort of ANPR camera or text activation based on a light sensitive camera. Given the technology we have, I doubt it would be particularly difficult to implement - after all, when the low cost airlines were first appearing in the UK almost two decades ago, people said nobody would book over the phone, then they said nobody would book online, and they were proven wrong both times.

Longer Stays

For longer stay parking, councils should be encouraged to build (or grant permission to build) more multi-storey car parks, wrapped either in attractive planting or other cladding, or simply encased within other buildings. 

Well designed car parks (and trust me, the concept does exist) should contribute to the urban form by removing any cars from the street which do not need to be there. Their entrances and exits should be directly on to the main arterial roads, and they should always be run on a for-profit basis, and not be subsidised by shops or employers.

Traffic Flow

In both the above suggestion, a concept is applied which the "war on the motorist" tribe LOVE to hate, namely a market driven pricing structure which puts a value on time spent occupying valuable street real estate. Meanwhile, high streets can encourage people to walk and cycle more, which also makes good business sense, as Dutch studies have shown that people who use bikes to get in and out of city centres tend to make more trips, and also to spend more overall, than people who use cars.

Time for Coventry's first Straight Through Crossing

One of my pet hates when cycling is having to deal with an army of "Cyclist Dismount" signs, followed by endless diversions up some side spout going away from where I want to be, only to be forced across a tight crossing and into a sheep pen, before waiting again to cross to the other side, turn around, go through the routine again, and finally start heading in the direction I want to go.

There are some much better solutions to this problem, especially with the Dutch or Danish "outer ring" style roundabouts, but it looks like these will have to go through a bit of testing first before they get approval.

A half-way house is to design crossings that enable pedestrians and cyclists to proceed through in one move, without all the horrid staggering.

Early next month, Coventry City Council will discuss a planning application for two new restaurants on the edge of the Arena Park retail development. Whilst the proposal itself is nothing contentious, and it will no doubt be nodding "straight through", the transport plan is sadly lacking, just as can be said for the rest of the site.

As freehold owners of the Arena Park site, Tesco could do something different here, and install the first "straight-through" crossing, at a point where it is much needed, on the western side of the main internal roundabout.

This is whatt I have suggested to the council:

Although Arena Park has two segregated cycle routes, they are inconsistent at junctions. Whilst the lack of integration with the Longford Road is a long held concern, the prospect of more development near the entrance can only increase the loading on the larger internal roundabout, where no crossing facility is provided on the western side. This is particularly dangerous[1], given that there is a huge variation in speed limits on each side, with wide approach lanes ensuring that the 30mph limit can frequently be broken. As part of the proposed development, the cycle route should be given priority over the minor access road to the catering units and the filling station, whilst a light controlled crossing is needed at the roundabout.
 Best practice for such crossings is to ensure that they are straight-through, with a small island if needed, but no staggering, as this creates a pinch point for pedestrians and cyclists, and increases wait times. There is no traffic management reason to introduce a stagger at this location.

---

[1] Accident rates for cyclists on roundabouts are approximately 2-3 times higher than at traffic signal junctions - Sustrans.

Walsgrave Hospital Access

Walsgrave Hospital Access for Cyclists and Pedestrians

Walsgrave Hospital has just confirmed its plans to open up a second entrance onto Brade Drive, which will be used by emergency services and a select number of key staff. This is part of a long-term plan to create a better access onto the hospital site, which would also eventually include an access road leading directly onto the A46 dual carriageway. Unfortunately, it looks like the trust has failed to seriously consider the root cause of the access and parking problems the hospital suffers from.

Parking

This is the same problem that applies to many industrial estates, business parks and housing developments across the country, namely that local authorities seek to limit car use by restricting the number of car parking spaces which are available, without providing a sufficiently high-quality range of alternative transport options. Thus, from day one, car drivers are complaining that access is insufficient, and the inevitable complaints about car parking charges soon follow suit, as there is little reason to justify dropping prices if the car park is already overflowing.

Cycling

Whilst hospital mandarins may be able to boast that the Walsgrave site currently has a speed limit of just 15 mph and that cycle parking provision for patients and visitors outside the main entrance is currently adequate, such a statement would miss the key point that speed limits alone are not enough to create a more cycle friendly environment, especially given the extremely high volumes of traffic coming in and out of the hospital. Additionally, the hospital main entrance junction is thoroughly dangerous from a cycling perspective, and the Homebase roundabout is even worse (arguably the second worst in the city after Allesley Village / Holyhead Road).

Buses

Meanwhile, despite hundreds of thousands of pounds being provided for a planning agreement to contribute towards bus lanes on the Binley Road, there is only one hourly bus service between the hospital and the city centre which uses this route. Most of the other buses to/from the city centre go via the strangle point of Ball Hill, guaranteeing the car will always win on speed, for those who have the option.

Worse still, from where I live to the west of the city centre, there used to be three direct buses going to either Walsgrave hospital or the nearby Walsgrave church, and now there are none!

Approach

First and foremost, the transport priority of a hospital should be to provide safe and fast access for emergency vehicles – but that should be taken as a given. Once such corridors have been provided, planning should revolve around creating the highest quality access for the pedestrian and the cyclist first, then for bus users and finally for the private car.

Access for people with restricted mobility is also a natural part of transport design, but this isn't just about creating disabled parking bays – all transport modes may include people with limited mobility, including cycling. Meanwhile, pedestrian paths should follow natural desire lines, rather than forcing people to make shortcuts through verges, as is the case in several places around the site.

Provision of a more people friendly environment usually also means that far more pleasant open spaces in which to dwell are created. This perhaps is the real disappointment of the new Walsgrave Hospital – despite being designed and built by Swedish company Skanska, it does not resemble a Swedish Hospital in terms of design. Unless you are unfortunate enough to be an inpatient in the Caludon Centre, there really is nowhere to go on the hospital site to just spend some time being outdoors in a pleasant, landscaped environment.

With regards to catering for the car, arterial roads are regularly clogged, and car parking provision is naturally over-subscribed, as almost all of it is in flat surface car parks, which are a waste of land. There is a suggestion that the new designs will feature a multi-storey car park, which would be welcome, but the new car park adjacent to the Caludon Centre is just another sprawling surface facility, squandering land which might have been much better designated for clinical use, especially as mental health provision in the region continues to be grossly inadequate.

                  

I strongly urge the trust to take a look at some of the more enlightened designs for hospital campuses in cities such as Utrecht. This particular Dutch city has a very similar geography to Coventry in terms of both size and population, yet around two thirds of traffic to and from this campus is either on foot or by bicycle.

Suggestions for improvements:

·                     The hospital trust should make a firm commitment that it will lead by example when it comes to active transport (walking and cycling) provision, and that this is vital in order to get the best return on health promotion efforts.

·                     A huge opportunity exists to improve access to the hospital with the proposed Cycle Coventry route along the Sowe Valley from the Homebase roundabout to Bell Green and beyond. However, this proposal must not be viewed as a substitute for a high-quality direct route to and from the city centre, as to use this route and to turn at Henley College would be a very long way round.

·                     Any new route on the Sowe Valley would need to be supplemented by suitable junction upgrades at the Homebase roundabout.

·                     The access road between the Caludon centre and School Lane should be designated as an official cycle route, with appropriate signage provided.

·                     In the medium term, funding for a continuation of the Sowe Valley route may be provided from the Coventry Gateway scheme. Space for an interconnection between these two sections of the Sowe Valley route should be safeguarded.

·                     Farren Road is an ideal quiet road on which to encourage cycling towards the city centre and other destinations. However, if using this road to approach the hospital, it is impossible for cyclists to make a safe right turn without using the pavement and then doubling back across the main entrance junction. This whole junction area should be upgraded to enable easier crossing for both pedestrians and cyclists.

·                     Cycle parking should be upgraded in anticipation of increased demand, especially outside the medical school, which is already extremely busy.

Sledgers Dismount

Just think of all those streets in northern towns with treacherous slopes and busy roads at the bottom!

I think it is absolutely outrageous that there may be children young and old out there enjoying themselves, without due care and attention to the perils car drivers at the main road at the bottom of the street might be facing.

Surely the first priority of all councils when they go about their business on Monday morning is to make sure that Sledgers Dismount signs are installed with the utmost urgency!

I can think of a few more that would be great:

• Cyclists dismount = 
• Pedestrians hop 
• Runners skip
• Drivers leave car
• Ferry passengers swim
• Flyers use parachute
• Buses switch off engines
• Engineers resign
• Train passengers walk to next station
• Sledgers only sledge uphill
• Fergie win in 90 minutes

Showpiece Bridges or Safer Streets?

For most of the last decade, I have been travelling up to south-west Scotland to spend New Year, and for the last two years I've taken the scenic route back home via Belfast. This year, I had a few hours to spare, so I headed up to Ballymoney to take a look at the impressive new bridge which has recently been installed at the town's railway station.:

Was this all just for show, or is there a justifiable case for such a seemingly extravagant structure?

Scenario

Prior to the construction of the new bridge, there was a temporary bridge at the station, and a level crossing beyond the Belfast end of the platforms.

Alternatives

The most obvious alternative would have been to have created an upgraded cycle path across derelict land just beyond the Belfast end of the platforms. However, when land is awaiting development, it is almost impossible to expect the landowner to be willing to allow passage through what they hope will soon become a construction site. If imminent development is planned, then a through route could be safeguarded as part of a planning agreement, but this did not appear to be the case.

Given that very few trains actually serve Ballymoney Station (planned for approximately 10 in each direction on weekdays once the line to Derry - Londonderry is re-opened), retention of a level crossing may have been much cheaper than a bridge. 

However, level crossings can't be installed across active station platforms, because of the level change, and even the existing crossing fell foul of the health and safety culture.

Cheaper bridge options?

Even a dog walker preferred to use the ramp rather than the (shorter) stairs

The station bridge at Ballymoney features a beautiful sweeping curve on the approach into the town centre, and this custom design would clearly have been more expensive than more typical rigid bridge designs. In fact, if local bridges here in the West Midlands are anything to go by, a structure that has been designed with love is infinitely more desirable than one which has been designed by engineers without any thought to a aesthetics. 

I only have to think of the absolutely hideous bridge at Canley Station to be reminded just how good we are at building bridges that looked like they belong in a prison compound. Perry Barr is even worse! Now even if you happen to take the view (which I don't) that everything we design should be function first, these conventional bridges are still anything but utilitarian. Try winding your way up the ramps at Canley station with any kind of shopping and you will have to negotiate unnecessary barricades, and you will have to turn corners which are far too sharp, even on a steady bike at slow speeds.

In Coventry, we have at least managed to achieve a bridge at Hill Street which is itself graceful, despite still having some of the blockages and sharp turns of Canley station.

I'd be interested to hear how much a so-called conventional bridge might have cost at Ballymoney. The bridge that has just been opened cost £1.3 million. This might seem like a lot of money given the low volume of rail traffic that passes below, but I think that only tells half the story. If this bridge had been built across a canal, then I doubt there would be so many questions about its usage, as the bridge itself appeared to be very busy during the short time I was there (and far busier for example than Canley Station bridge, which also replaces a level crossing). There are always two key aspects of developing bridges – what they cross and who crosses. 

As it happens, I didn't see any bicycles on the bridge, but they never seemed to be less than around five people on the bridge at any one time. Some of the local teenagers were also using the bridge for rollerskating – this may not have been the original purpose, but perhaps this is a useful bonus.

Where are the cyclists?

Sustrans route 96 passes over the Ballymoney station bridge, and this provides connections between the town centre, a major sports centre and a number of residential areas. However, a short walk up to the nearby crossroads shows where I still think we are missing out in terms of joined up thinking:



Whilst traffic volumes around the station are low, and there is little opportunity for speeding as the route is a dead end, a well marked feeder lane has been provided into the advance stop zone adjacent to the traffic lights. Note for Coventry - very few of our advance stop zones have these feeder lanes, thus massively limiting their usefulness.




Heading away from the town centre (towards the centre) a generous advance stop zone is provided, but access is only via the middle.



The approach to the same junction has no advanced stop lines from the other directions. This is typical of the sort of unjoined thinking that says "station to city centre is a designated cycle route, we don't need to provide for any other journeys". 

Advanced stop zones and feed in cycle lanes were provided from the station towards the town centre and heading back to the station from the other direction. On the other hand, no such facility was provided on the other two approaches to the traffic lights. 

Ballymoney clearly has a very iconic structure which appears to be already inspiring more people to walk around the town or even to take up rollerskating. There are also a couple of local off road paths which intersect near the start of the bridge. This should make Ballymoney an ideal place to demonstrate best practice in local cycling infrastructure.

This should include simple measures such as a 20 mph speed restriction across the town, Dutch standards of filtered permeability to create fast connections between residential areas and improved junctions. I find it hard to imagine that doing all of these things would cost anything like as much as the bridge itself, given that Ballymoney is a small town with a population just below 10,000.

However, any such future developments should not be considered in terms of should they have been done instead of the showpiece bridge. Given that this bridge was necessary anyway (under the terms of reference above), and given how poor most railway station bridges are, the bridge at Ballymoney should be welcomed as something that is truly inspirational. 

Completing the rest of the measures to promote more walking and cycling should further enhance the usefulness of what is already a very beautiful structure. 

Canley Housing Development Fences Itself In

Below is my objection to a proposed housing development in Canley, which I think falls a long way short of the kind of standards we need if we are to develop fully accessible communities:

Original drawing (scroll down for full size):

My comments (scroll down for full size):

I OBJECT to the current form of the site, which fences itself in, instead of providing better access to nearby land.

There is an opportunity to provide an east-west cycle route from the city centre via Hearsall Common, with one option being a branch using the subway at the end of Burnsall Rd.

Access to this subway, and hence towards the city centre by bike, and to Canley Station, should be enhanced, not ignored. There should be a direct link between the subway and the drive of Unit 52.

There should also be a link from Unit 105 to the Fletchamstead Highway. Whilst this route is not ideal for cycling, it does provide important access to nearby employment sites, and also to Sainsbury's and other shops in Coventry Business Park. Failure to provide such a link will merely make people more likely to drive to these locations.

Although this is a high density proposal, it still maintains many of the elements of "sprawl" by providing two parking spaces per unit, and by failing to provide "filtered permeability" (direct pedestrian and cycling connections) at all four possible opportunities to do so. This also means there are less opportunities for social interaction, jogging and dog walking.

A cycle route could run around the edge of this development site, and then along the southern side of the railway line until reaching Wolfe Rd. Funding should be provided as part of a Section 106 agreement for additional cycling improvements, to complement outline proposals contained within the Cycle Coventry scheme.

"Shared surface" is no substitute for adequate provision of play space, and direct access should be provided to Canley Community Centre. It is unclear from the plans whether the gap between 169 and 170 would contain a pathway.

If I was looking at a house on the northern side, I would be concerned about proximity to the pylons. However, this is not a reason for completely blocking off access to this area, especially as a fence does nothing to obscure the view of the pylons anyway.

There is substantial removal of green open space, yet the development itself does not even provide so much as a pocket park, whilst also blocking off potential through routes.

Whilst I welcome the opportunity to develop much needed new homes, I feel that this design is of a poor quality and should be refused.