Objection to redevelopment of Golden Square
23 Cross Lane
Mr. J.Groves 3 June 2002 Application No. A01/44253- Redevelopment of North section of Golden Square and new bus station. Dear Mr Groves Warrington Cycle Campaign still wishes to object to this planning application. We have had the opportunity to look at the recently submitted transport impact assessment Summary of objections
Current situation for cyclists in this part of Warrington Town CentreGolborne Street is identified as a cycle route on the cycle route map which is part of the council's Local Transport Plan. At present cycling is permitted only in a clockwise direction, however the council intended, prior to this planning application, to permit cycling in the anticlockwise direction in the bus lane and had advertised its intention in the local press. Golborne Street forms part of a proposed inner ring road for cyclists, with a continuous route around the town centre in both directions. Steps had been taken by the Council to reduce traffic travelling in the clockwise direction, which is its top preference measure for action to improve conditions for cyclists in its cycling strategy (CP1). Clockwise Golborne street is already a good cycle route. Measures to improve cycling in the anticlockwise direction would be possible. The present route takes cycles inside the route of most of the Golborne Street car park traffic avoiding cycle/car conflicts. Pedestrian cyclist conflicts are avoided by the grade separation provided by the link bridge to the car park. The following links to the ring road appear on the cycle route map. (i). From the West - Sankey Street (ii). From the North - Bewsey Street and Winwick Street (iii). From the East - Scotland Road (iv). From the South - Bold Street. In addition, the Warrington Greenway Study shows a route (22) across Bank Park to join Kendrick Street close to the North West Corner of the proposed development. Integration of all of these links into the proposed development will be required. Planning obligations for existing cycle routes.The Council is committed to protect the cycle network from development, through the cycling Policy of its draft UDP (Policy LUT5, points 3 and 4) and cycling policy of its LTP (CP8) The Council cannot therefore permit a development which closes Golborne Street without provision of an alternative which is at least as good as the existing route. Requirements for a replacement route.Whether on road or off road provision is used, the recommended width required for cyclists travelling in one direction is 2 metres. However, in view of the importance of this route in the cycle network, in our view 2.5 metres would be required in each direction, a total of 5 metres. The proposed width of Legh Street and the new East-West link road, and expected volume of car and bus traffic, make the proposed highway infrastructure inadequate as a replacement for Golborne Street. Additionally, the size and location of the new development do not leave sufficient space for any adequate widening or off-carriageway provision. The Council's cycling policy (CP3) says that they will adhere to national design guidance contained within IHT/DOT/CTC/Bicycle Association publication "Cycle Friendly Infrastructure". The route should adhere to these guidelines, in particular section 10.5 specifies a maximum gradient of 3% A gradient of 12.5 % on the East-West link road would be totally unacceptable. Transport Impact AssessmentThe comments on cycling in the transport impact assessment are minimal and appear to have been added on as an afterthought. In our view the planning committee should not be expected to make a decision on such a large development on the basis of a document which is so poorly written from the point of view of cyclists. Advice in PPG13 para. 23, endorsed by the Council in its draft UDP policy LUT12, requires that "the assessment should illustrate accessibility to the site by all modes and the likely modal split of journeys to and from the site. It should also give details of proposed measures to improve access by public transport, walking and cycling...". The submitted transport impact assessment does not do this for cyclists. In particular (i). The Transport Impact Assessment says that that the West footway of Legh street should be widened to three metres to permit shared use with pedestrians. Shared use is the lowest priority measure in the hierarchy of measures which can be adopted. PPG13 para. 80 says that "shared use of space with pedestrians should only be considered when other options are impractical." As this is a complete redevelopment of a site, other options must be considered. (ii). There is no detail at all of how cyclists are expected to cross the new junction between Legh Street and the new East-West link road. Cyclists would be expected to have priority over motor vehicles. This is to comply with the Council's cycling strategy CP4, "Measures will be provided, wherever possible, to improve cyclists safety and/or give cyclists greater priority (in terms of access and journey times) over other traffic on roads within the identified cycle network." and with the draft UDP LUT5 point 5 "requiring development proposals to incorporate measures to give cyclists priority over private cars". The Transport Impact Assessment says that cycle infrastructure will be provided at junctions in accordance with the Council's cycling policy. This can only be done with the proposed building design by substantially reducing the carriageway space available for cars. (iii). The assessment makes no comment about the access to the site from the South along the cycle route along Bold Street, for which we make some suggestions below. There is also no comment about the access from Scotland Road or the proposed Greenway route across Bank Park, although we do not consider that these will pose any problems. Suggestions for improvements to the scheme for cyclistsIn our view the size and location of buildings in the present scheme make provision of a through cycle route impossible. We give below an example of what could be done, but wish to stress that this is illustrative and by no means the only option. However no solution is possible with the proposed size and location of buildings. (i). The size of the development should be reduced by 5 metres on the West frontage onto Legh Street and by 5 metres on the North frontage onto the new East West link road. The available extra space to be used to provide a cycle route, either by widening the highway and allocating space to cycles or by providing an off highway cycle track (ii). One possible solution would be to provide a two way cycle track between Legh Street and the new multistorey car park. Conflict with vehicles exiting and entering the car park would need to be avoided. Solutions where the cycle track passed over a bridge over the proposed entrance and exit lanes would be possible provided they did not require gradients greater than 3% on the cycle track. (iii). To allow access from Bold street, the section of Golborne Street between Sankey Street and Regent Street should not be fully pedestrianised, but a cycle route should be retained through it on the West side. (iv). Regent Street should not be pedestrianised, but retained as a cycle only road (no motor vehicles) to link in with the route from Bold Street. (v). Continuity of such a track along the East-West link road is more difficult because of the change in level and the pedestrian bridge. Also the crossings of the car park exit and entrance will be more difficult to manage. For this reason an on-carriageway solution may be preferable, although steep gradients will have to be avoided. (vi). To link in to the Bank Park Greenway, a short stretch of Kendrick Street should have a contraflow cycle lane. (vii). The redesign of the Kendrick Street/ Midland Way intersection should take account of cyclists using Midland Way. We have considered alternative routes for cyclists. In particular, whether any solution would be possible where the route passes between the car park and the new shopping mall as at present. However, without substantial redesign of the buildings we do not think this is practicable. In particular PPG13 para. 79 says that "cycle routes should not be isolated from other activity so as to promote personal safety". Also any route through the development is likely to cause pedestrian cyclist conflict. Yours Sincerely M Leslie (Secretary, Warrington Cycle Campaign)
|