Warrington Unitary Development Plan - Deposit Draft
Warrington Cycle Campaign Objections
Contents
Summary
Warrington’s first Unitary Development Plan
UDP
has now been published for it's first formal round of public consultation.
At the end of this consultation, the Council will
consider all the comments made and decide whether
to make changes to the Plan in response. These changes
will then be the subject of a further consultation
exercise next year. Objections made originally and not
withdrawn as a result of changes, and also any
additional objections to those changes, will then be
considered by an Inspector at a Public Inquiry.
This document summarises the objections that the cycle
campaign has submitted.
Many policies imply minimum parking standards and or
work against the principle of more intense development.
These are both key elements in the strategy to reduce
car-dependency and thus help cyclists by cutting the
volume of traffic.
This explains the large number of objections to policies,
which at first sight do not appear to be
directly concerned with cycling
Cycling Policy
The Cycle Strategy
in the LTP won particular praise from the
Government when the borough was named as a centre of excellence
for integrated transport planning.
The strategy contains several policies that are relevant to the UDP,
including CP1, CP2, CP4, CP7, CP8, CP9, CP14.
The UDP should take note of all these policies and ensure that they
are referred to in appropriate policies. Some UDP policies (in particular LUT5)
are inconstant with the cycle strategy and should be amended.
This is our recommendation for a replacement for LUT5, which is consistent with
the cycle strategy and national policy guidelines.
LUT5 CYCLING
The Council has identified, through the Local Transport Plan,
a network of routes for cyclists. The council gives a high
priority to cycling and will encourage the use of cycles by:
- subjecting all land-use and highway development to a cycle audit to ensure that schemes include improvements to, or at least have no negative impact on the coherence, directness, safety, attractiveness and comfort of routes used by cyclists.
- requiring the provision of secure cycle parking and appropriate changing facilities within employment, retail, leisure, entertainment, education, health and community developments and at transport interchanges throughout the borough
- protecting the network from development that would cause disruption or other negative impacts.
- requiring the provision of safe, direct and attractive routes and conditions for cyclists in new development and in highway proposals, well related to the network.
- requiring development proposals to be incorporate measures to give cyclists priority over private cars.
- making use, where appropriate, of planning obligations to secure cycle infrastructure to aid cyclists and improve the network as a whole.
Community Plan Pledges:
Pledge 1 (5), (6)
Pledge 2 (1)
Pledge 6 (1)
Pledge 7 (2), (3), (8)
Policy Derivation:
PPG 12, PPG 13
LTP Cycle Strategy
Reason and Explanation:
- The procedure for undertaking cycle audits is described in: Guidelines for Cycle Audit and Cycle Review - Institution of Highways and Transportation/ Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions/ The Scottish Office/ The Welsh Office/ DOE Northern Ireland. Available from the Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT)
- Guidelines for good practice in design can be found in the IHT/DOT/CTC/Bicycle Association publication: Cycle Friendly Infrastructure, Guidelines for Planning and Design (1996)
- Measures to make the use of existing roads safe and convenient for cyclists will be implemented in preference to segregation. Route design will consider the following approaches in descending order of preference:
i. Traffic reduction.
ii. Traffic calming
iii. Junction treatment and traffic management
iv. Redistribution of the carriageway
v. Cycle lanes and cycle tracks
- The shared use of space with pedestrians should only be considered as a last resort, and only when all other solutions have been dismissed. Unsegregated shared use should be avoided, particularly in well-used urban contexts.
- The network of cycle routes which has been identified is comprehensive and, as it is gradually implemented, will provide opportunities for cyclists to make journeys safely to an increasing range of facilities and locations, and to park their cycles securely wherever possible. This network consists of a series of hierarchies and these hierarchies are an important factor in establishing priorities. The cycle network route hierarchies are: -
i. Major routes which serve specific utility cycled journeys i.e. Routes from residential areas to specific journey attractors, such as retail centres, schools and other educational facilities, major employers, transport interchanges and health, community and leisure facilities.
ii. Other connecting routes used for utility cycling, particularly inter-urban links.
iii. Recreational (greenway) routes linking green spaces, the countryside and local/regional tourist routes into the cycle network.
- The introduction of bus lanes on the key radial routes and transport corridors in the Borough (see Policy LUT7) will make a major contribution towards establishing the high priority links in the cycle network. The design of these facilities should take note of the fact that cyclists may be joining or leaving the route at different points to buses.
- The potential exists for the provision of some of the recreational routes within the developing network of greenways, as provided for in Policy LUT15. In the design of such provision, conflict with pedestrians will need to be avoided.
- Safe and secure provision for cycle journeys and cycle parking will be an important part of the long-term strategy of discouraging unnecessary car journeys to and from the town centre
- Employers will be required to provide cycle parking at workplaces through planning conditions in respect of new development and the promotion of Green Commuter Plans in respect of new and establishment businesses.
- The Council will adopt cycle parking design standards to ensure that cycle parking facilities are sufficient in number, secure and accessible, and where possible are well lit, sheltered and served by the cycle network. The level of security needed will depend to a large extent on the destination/location, the nature of the journey and the intended duration of the parking. For town or local centre parking for short stay shopping/leisure trips Sheffield type stands will be sufficient. For longer stay parking at workplaces and stations a greater level of security will be needed.
Area of Coverage:
Borough wide
Other Related Policies:
LUT1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 15, 17
EMP4, 6
DCS1, 2, 3
|
Parking Policy
Thjese notes on Parking Policy are attached to objections to policies:
TCD2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, LUT20, HOU2, 7, 10, 11, 12, GRN4 and Appendix 5
The availability of car parking has a major influence on the choice of means of transport.
Minimum parking standards are not consistent with
PPG3
or
PPG13
and are one of the key obstacles to achieving high-density development.
This is inefficient use of land and contributes to car-dependency.
Minimum parking requirements are implied in a number of the draft UDP policies and all
these policies should be amended.
There is plenty of choice of destinations for people who do own cars and
in general Warrington is overprovided with car parking.
The best locations to encourage walking, cycling and public transport use
tend to be those that are poorly served by car parking or even inaccessible by car.
The UDP should seek to promote such development so any references to
adequate car parking provision should be removed.
The problem is not requiring adequate provision of car parking but
preventing excessive provision.
The maximum parking standards (Appendix 5) have taken the
least restrictive possible interpretation of
PPG13.
These are upper nationwide limits and would be suitable for
remote rural locations where no realistic alternative to private cars exists.
Draft RPG13 recognises this and proposes more restrictive limits for urban areas.
Appendix 5 must be re-written to remove all reference to minimum parking standards.
Maximum parking requirements should be taken from the urban limits in RPG13.
Some of the policies seek to impose more restrictive parking standards at locations
well served by public transport, but this would act as a perverse incentive for
developers to seek the least sustainable sites. Lower parking levels should be sought
at all developments to encourage development at the more sustainable locations.
Relevant Policy Guidance:
PPG3:
"Parking policies should be framed with good design in mind,
recognising that car ownership varies with income, age, household type, a
nd the type of housing and its location. They should not be expressed as minimum standards."
PPG13:
"not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish"
PPG13:
"take care not to create perverse incentives for development to
locate away from town centres, or threaten future levels of investment in town centres.
While greater opportunities exist to reduce levels of parking for developments
in locations with good access by non car modes, local authorities should be
cautious in prescribing different levels of parking between town centres and
peripheral locations, unless they are confident that the town centre will
remain a favoured location for developers"
RPG13:
"These standards should generally be
more restrictive in urban areas to reflect local characteristics such as higher
levels of public transport accessibility and higher development density"
Sustainability Appraisal
OBJECTION: Sustainability Appraisal (p12)
18: Replace "Promote efficient movement of people and goods"
with "Minimise the need to travel - especially by private car"
14: Delete "Utilise available infrastructure capacity"
This is the opposite to sustainability.
We should try to minimise the demands we place on the infrastructure
so that that capacity is available for future growth.
11; Replace "Promote accessible transport"
with "Ensure access to shops, schools, services and the
countryside for those without a car"
The appraisal places undue emphasis on access by mobility.
Promoting access by proximity is a much more sustainable strategy.
(Support 9, 16, 17)
Part 1 Policies: The UDP Strategy
SUPPORT: LUT1
Particularly 2, 7, 12, 13.
OBJECT: TCD2
Object to last para: Town centre provision is promoted precisely
because of its good access to public transport - there should be
no requirement to provide access to car parking.
(see parking policy).
Support para 3: "fully integrated with the town centre"
OBJECT: TCD3
Object to 2nd para: Remove: "and car parking"
This is implicitly imposing a minimum parking requirement which is in conflict with
PPG13 "not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish"
There is plenty of choice of destinations for people who do own cars and
in general Warrington is overprovided with car parking.
The best locations to encourage walking, cycling and public transport
use tend to be those which are poorly served by car parking or even inaccessible by car.
The UDP should seek to promote such development so any references
to adequate car parking provision should be removed.
(see parking policy).
Support: "is welcoming to people on foot and cycle"
The most welcoming locations to encourage walking,
cycling tend to be those which are poorly served by car parking or
even inaccessible by car.
OBJECT: TCD4
As for TDC3 (see parking policy).
OBJECT: TCD5
As for TCD3 (see parking policy).
The problem here is not requiring adequate provision of
car parking but preventing excessive provision.
OBJECT: TCD6
4: As for TCD3 again (see parking policy).
SUPPORT: EMP1
Particularly 1, 5 & 6
OBJECT: EMP2
- OMEGA should not be developed
- OMEGA is severed from the rest of the town by fast roads
(subject to the national speed limits) and large roundabouts
and motorway junction making it a very hostile destination for cyclists.
- The only justification foe OMEGA in regional terms is as a
single large site. The site should be reserved for the sort
of large-scale development that could not be accommodated in a central location.
- ALL the suggested alternative uses of the site
would be more appropriately located in town centres,
urban regeneration sites or
mixed-use developments.
Permitting this sort of development at OMEGA would
compromise local and regional policies a
iming to regenerate urban derelict areas.
- The very fact that OMEGA is dependant for its viability on
junction 8 of the M62 means that any development on the
site will tend to generate unsustainable patterns of
transport in conflict with LUT2.
- If OMEGA is developed it is important that para 3 is enforced
(though hard to imagine how it could be achieved)
- Developing OMEGA would conflict with the policy of a
low housing land provision. Bringing 12000 new jobs would be
incompatible with a policy of restricting house building to 500 per year.
SUPPORT: GRN1
OBJECT: GRN2
- There should be much less safeguarded land
- The plan should allow for continuing recycling of
land and thus assume that 65% of new housing will be on
brown-field sites. The plan should also assume higher
housing density of 40 houses / hectare
(30 is the minimum permitted in PPG13 not the average).
Recalculating the example with these assumptions would require
50 hectares over 20 years so the 450 hectares identified
in the plan is excessive.
- If it turns out that after 2016 more housing land is needed
then this land should be chosen as the most sustainable given the
pattern of development transport infrastructure and so on.
However, the sites identified are simply those left over
from previous (car-oriented) planning policies and
many are poorly suited to sustainable development.
- The most sustainable option would be to develop a single site
large enough to support an urban-village style development.
- Some of the smaller sites such as (3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 16, 19)
offer good access to village centres and could be used to enhance
the viability of these centres within sustainable communities,
particularly if they were used for mixed development.
- Other sites such as (1, 6, 7, 8, 14, 17, 18, 20)
are at the edge of dormitory estates, well away from any local
facilities. Any development at these locations would continue
the trend towards car-dependency so these sites should be included with the green belt.
17 & 18 in particular should be protected because of the
scenic value of the area
OBJECT: GRN3
Generally support but: should not refer to "town cramming".
Green spaces should be protected where they have genuine community value,
but "town cramming" is just a pejorative term to describe the
intensive use of land, which the UDP is seeking to promote through
policies LUT1, DCS1, HOU5.
SUPPORT: DCS1
Particularly 3,4,5,9 and last paragraph
"In all its decisions on development proposals the council
will give particularly careful consideration to the impacts of
travel demand, as relevant to the aim of reducing the need to travel,
especially by car, as
expressed in PPG13."
OBJECT: DCS2
Generally support but: should refer to
Cycle Strategy
policy CP9 from LTP
SUPPORT: DCS3
Particularly 8,9.
Good urban design is important in ensuring cyclists are
provided for by the inherent layout of developments rather
than have "facilities" tagged on to fundamentally hostile
road layouts as an afterthought.
There is scope to extend this policy to cover issues such as privacy and landscaping.
OMMISION: SOC1
Support all sections, particularly 1,2.
Should note the importance of cycling for those unable to afford a car.
Part 2 Policies: Transport Integration
OMMISION: Strategies (p52)
The Cycle Strategy
in the LTP won particular praise from the Government
when the borough was named as a centre of excellence for integrated transport planning.
The strategy contains several policies that are relevant to the UDP,
including CP1, CP2, CP4, CP7, CP8, CP9, CP14.
The UDP should take note of all these policies and ensure that they are
referred to in appropriate policies. Some UDP policies (in particular LUT5)
are inconstant with the cycle strategy and should be amended.
(see cycling policy).
OBJECT: LUT2
Mode hierarchy should place cycling above taxis and public transport.
OMMISION: LUT3
- Reallocation of road space in order to create wider pavements.
- Pavements are for the exclusive use of pedestrians and the conversion of
footways to shared use by cycles will be avoided. (WP8)
OBJECT: LUT5
Policy is inconsistent with national and
local cycle strategies and also
PPG13.
Suport: Bit in bold 1,2,3,4
5: Change "measures" to "design"
6: Cycle Audit - Copy from cycle strategy CP7
7: Maintain continuity of cycle routes CP8
8: Planning Obligations CP9
Reason & Explanation:
1: "Special Measures" are not the answer -
"good design" is needed in the first place.
Avoid large roundabouts, high speeds, pinch points,
filtering, flared junctions and so on.
"Dedicated cycle facilities" have a poor safety
record precisely because of the extra conflicts
with other road users these cause at junctions.
Good design is important in ensuring cyclists are
provided for by the inherent layouts, rather than have
"facilities" tagged on to fundamentally hostile roads as an afterthought.
Good design features include wide kerbside lanes to permit overtaking,
bus lanes, roundabouts to continental geometry,
2: Support - should also mention 10% target from LTP CT1
4: Replace with hierarchy of measures from cycle strategy CP1, CP4
and hierarchy of routes CP2.
There is too much emphasis on greenways. These are only one component
(and the least significant one at that) of the cycle network.
LTP: proposals map
shows complete network, which is mainly based on the use of main roads
by measures such as junction treatments, bus lanes, traffic management, slower speeds.
PPG13:
"only considering the shared use of space with
pedestrians as a last resort, and only when all other solutions have
been dismissed. Unsegregated shared use should be avoided,
particularly in well-used urban contexts"
Mersey Valley Partnerships Greenways Study:
"recognises that a comprehensive network of routes,
providing access to employment areas, shops, leisure and tourist facilities,
cannot be achieved be Greenways alone"
8: Bus lanes are ideal cycle provision for links.
Not a poor substitute for off road provision.
(see cycling policy).
OBJECT: LUT7
Basically support but:
3: Bus lanes on the key radial routes and transport corridors in the
Borough will make a major contribution towards establishing the
high priority links in the cycle network (LUT5).
The design of these facilities should take note of the fact that
cyclists may be joining or leaving the route at different points to buses.
(see cycling policy).
OBJECT: LUT8
Omission: Using blocked section of Winwick Rd as a Bus/Cycle route from LTP.
Omission: Possible Bus Station - Rail Interchange
2(vii): makes no sense. Motorists will not be attracted to use Winwick park and ride unless a direct prioritised route (ie Winwick Road bus priority measuresare essential).
SUPPORT: LUT10
OBJECT: LUT11
Basically support this policy but it should be strengthened.
Omission: Must include infrastructure to enable children to walk.
Omission: Housing developments should also include a school travel plan
OBJECT: LUT12
The policy should include a statement that a cycle audit will be needed on
all applications likely to have significant transport implications.
SUPPORT: LUT14
OBJECT: LUT15
Basically support this policy - particularly 2(d)
2: Greenways do not, on their own, offer the potential
for a comprehensive cycle network.
They will at best be of marginal use for commuting and should be thought of
principally a leisure facility.
This policy is not rally a transport issue so should be renumbered GRN21.
The greenway network will compliment the
utility cycle network
planned in the LTP but unfortunately not shown on the UDP map.
Mersey Valley Partnerships Greenways Study:
"recognises that a comprehensive network of routes,
providing access to employment areas, shops, leisure and tourist facilities,
cannot be achieved be Greenways alone"
It should also be noted that only parts of the greenway network will be suitable for cycling.
OBJECT: LUT16
Any park and ride facilities should provide secure cycle storage facilities
to enable use as Cycle & Ride or Park & Cycle.
OBJECT: LUT17
Basically support this policy -
but would like to see specific protection for the Latchford high-level
former railway bridge.
This could be brought into use to complete a missing link in the
Trans Pennine Trail connecting Latchford Lock with the Black Bear Park.
OBJECT: LUT20
- This is a case of perverse incentives
- Lower parking levels should be sought at all developments to encourage development at the more sustainable locations.
- Last 2 paragraphs should be removed as the imply minimum parking standards
Appendix 5: Appears to take the parking standards from PPG13
with the least restrictive interpretation possible.
This is not in the spirit of PPG13 or RPG13.
(see parking policy).
OBJECT: Performance Indicators (p88)
1: Length of cycleways is an indicator of failure as these are a measure of last resort.
4: Park and Ride has little potential in Warrington during the period of the plan
Performance indicators should measure desired outcomes rather than outputs.
Suggest:
1: Modal share of cycling
2: Traffic reduction
3: Modal share using public transport
OMMISION: Cycle Parking
While Appendix 5 covers the quantity there is no mention of design quality.
This should be based on the
Cycle Strategy CP14:
"Design Standards for Cycle Parking" and Cycle Friendly Infrastructure
[1].
The policy needs to cover the quality of stand,
degree of security for long/short stay, location for security and convenience,
CCTV surveillance, lighting, covering.
It should explicitly state that front wheel clamps are inadequate.
Part 2 Policies: Housing
OBJECT: HOU2
Broadly support but:
2: Replace "access & car parking" with "restricts car parking"
Replace "accommodates buses and cyclists" with
"Design prioritises the movement of buses and cyclists"
3: Appendix 5 proposes minimum parking requirements which is inconsistent with
PPG13: "not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish"
(see parking policy).
It would not even be possible to simultaneously comply with both the
minimum and maximum requirements proposed in the appendix!
4: Also
"By Design- Urban design in the planning system: towards better practice"
OBJECT: HOU5
Support the principle but the policy needs strengthening.
The New Town has lots of low density housing, so new developments
should seek an even higher density to redress the balance.
Higher density should be sought at all locations to avoid the
perverse incentive to develop the least sustainable sites.
OBJECT: HOU7
4: implies minimum parking standards incompatible with PPG13:
"not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish"
(see parking policy).
OBJECT: HOU10
This sort of development should be encouraged to promote the intensive use of land.
Guidelines should be as flexible as possible in order to permit such development.
OBJECT: HOU11
As for HOU10
Replace "Permitted" with "Encouraged"
3: implies minimum parking standards incompatible with PPG13
(see parking policy).
OBJECT: HOU12
As for HOU10,11
3: implies minimum parking standards incompatible with PPG13
(see parking policy).
OBJECT: HOU13
This should be a matter for good design rather than reliance on
standards so should be included as part of policy DSC3.
The imposition of minimum distances conflicts with policies to
promote higher densities and much more intensive development.
This particular policy is included in the introduction of
By Design- Urban design in the planning system: towards better practice
"An aim of this guide is to encourage a move away from a
negative reliance on standards towards a more positive
emphasis on performance criteria.
Standards specify precisely how a development is to be designed
(by setting out minimum distances between buildings, for example).
Performance criteria are the means of assessing the extent to
which a development fulfils a specific planning requirement
(such as maintaining privacy).
Imaginative designers can respond to performance criteria with a
variety of design solutions."
OMMISION: Cycle Storage
A policy is needed to specify the quality and quantity of cycle
storage required within new housing development.
If in a garage then cycles should be directly accessible
without the need to remove a car.
If no garage then secure street level storage is required.
The minimum requirement for each house should be number of bedrooms plus 1.
OMMISION: New Housing School Travel Plans
A policy is required for all applications to build new housing
should include a route suitable for an unaccompanied 7 year old
child to walk to the nearest primary school.
The developer should be required to provide safe crossing
points where this route crosses busy main or distributor roads.
Part 2 Policies: Town Centres and Retail Development
SUPPORT TCD10, TCD11
OBJECT: TCD12
4: implies minimum parking standards incompatible with PPG13
(see parking policy).
Part 2 Policies: Economic Development
OBJECT: EMP3
Particularly 3: Limekiln & 4: OMEGA
Both these sites (especially 3) are severed from the
rest of the town by fast roads, large roundabouts, and junction 8.
These are intimidating to reach by cycle and would be difficult
to serve by public transport. The fact that both sites are dependant
for their viability on the construction of a new motorway junction
will mean that any development at these locations will
generate unsustainable travel patterns in conflict with policy LUT2.
If Limekiln is developed then it should be conditional on a developer
funded pedestrian/cycle bridge over the M62 to create a direct link to
OMEGA avoiding junction 8.
OBJECT: EMP4
Support in general but 3 should be strengthened.
Replace "satisfactory provision" with
"priority is accorded to the movement of cyclists and pedestrians to and within the site"
SUPPORT: EMP5, EMP6
These sorts of mixed-use developments will contribute towards establishing
sustainable transport patterns.
SUPPORT: EMP8
We support the policy as these areas are well served by public transport and
are ineffeciently used. Sites 3 and 6 give opportunities for expansion of
the town centre.
Part 2 Policies: Environmental Protection and Enhancement
OBJECT: GRN4
Generally Support but:
5: implies minimum car parking standards in conflict with PPG13
(see parking policy).
OBJECT: GRN13
Generally Support but:
6: "Town Cramming" is just a pejorative term to
describe the intensive use of land, which the UDP
is seeking to promote through policies LUT1(2), DSC1(4), HOU5.
Green spaces should be protected where they have genuine community value,
but this is a general purpose term used to prevent development on
derelict plots of land with little intrinsic value.
OBJECT: GRN17
3: We see no reason why the banks of the ship canal should be seen
as a particularly hazardous environment.
The Ship Canal Company has a record of hostility towards cyclists
(eg. Cyclists are prohibited from the Bridgewater Canal unlike the rest of the
canal system owned by British Waterways,
also see objections to cycling on Woolston New Cut).
We do not understand why the council should collude in this.
The ship canal banks offer some of the best opportunities
to extend the Greenway network and also the potential to
provide grade separated crossings where the
Trans Pennine Trail crosses Chester Road(A5060) and London Road (A49)
Part 2 Policies: Resourse Conservation
SUPPORT: REP9, REP10
Note the contribution that modal shift to cycling towards these goals.
Part 2 Policies: Miscellaneous Development Control Policies
SUPPORT: DCS6
Particularly 4: Good design is the key to ensuring cycle friendly development.
It is important to ensure cyclists are provided for by the
inherent layout of developments rather than have "facilities"
tagged on to fundamentally hostile road layouts as an afterthought.
OBJECT: DCS9
Excessive landscaping has been one of the causes of
low density development in the new town areas and represents an
inefficient use of space. (conflict with HOU5, LUT1).
Landscaped distributor roads make the new town areas very attractive
to drive through, but landscaping contributes to fear of crime so
discourages people from walking and cycling (conflict with DSC7).
New Town landscaping has also tended to use fast growing species in order
to establish areas quickly, but this is now causing problems of obstructions to paths.
The UDP should promote a more intensive high quality urban built environment.
SUPPORT: DCS10
The urban village design principles should be extended to the rest of the town.
Appendix 5: Parking Standards
OBJECT: Appendix 5
4: Minimum parking standards are not consistent with PPG3 or PPG13
and are one of the key obstacles to achieving high density development.
This is inefficient use of land and contributes to car-dependency.
(see parking policy).
The maximum parking standards have taken the least restrictive possible
interpretation of PPG13. These are upper nationwide limits
and would be suitable for remote rural locations where no
realistic alternative to private cars exists.
Draft RPG13 recognises this and proposes more restrictive limits for urban areas.
Appendix 5 must be re-written to remove all reference to minimum parking standards.
Maximum parking requirements should be taken from the urban limits in RPG13.
Map
OMMISION: Map
The map does not show the
utility cycle network
identified in the LTP.
References
1. "Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure", Department of Transport / Bicycle Association / Cycling Tourist
Club / Institution of Highways and Transportation, 1995, reprinted 1997
2. "The National Cycle Network, Guidelines and Practical Details", Sustrans, 1997
Links
Updated 14th August 2001
Pete Owens
|