COMMENTS ON ST JAMES CENTRE APPLICATION 08/03361 from DaveduFeu[at]gmail.com 6 October 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Although I live in Linlithgow I work in Edinburgh, getting around the city centre by bike for work, shopping and leisure, this being a particularly convenient and rapid mode of transport in congested areas. The proposals for this important city centre site are very disappointing from the transport perspective. Of course, as one might expect from a developer attempting to get planning permission, all the right things are said in terms of generalities, policies, etc. But when it comes to the actual proposals, things are very different. CAR PARKING First, at a time when every effort should be made to reduce motor traffic, for reasons of climate change, public health (obesity) and congestion, the developers propose an incredible 1800 car spaces. This in a site adjacent to the tram, with extensive bus services, within 15 minutes cycle and 30 minutes walk of hundreds of thousands of residents, and almost adjacent to Scotland's main rail station. To approve this would make a mockery of many of the commitments in the Council's recent Single Outcome Agreement. CYCLE THROUGH ROUTES AND ACCESS Second, I am disappointed with the developer's stance on cycle use, which appears to be very similar to the approach taken by the Caltongate developers in their initial documents. Namely they are happy to provide bike parking (knowing this is required by the council); and they are also extremely enthusiastic in general terms about how wonderful cycling is and how they want to encourage it. However, when it comes to cycle access through (and even access into) this immense city centre site, there appears to be virtually nothing. Even worse, there is what appears to be a downright falsehood, whether a pure mistake or an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the council (Transport Assessment, para 3.8), namely "The development has been designed to maximise permeability on foot/bicycle." This seems true for walking (paras 4-3-4.9 and fig 4.3). But it appears completely false for cycling (paras 4.10-4.11 and fig 4.4). The plans must be revised to make this statement a reality. As with the Caltongate developers, there is an implication (4.10) that because this is a central area site, with cycle facilities on the roads around it, therefore it is a wonderful development from the cycle-travel perspective. Yet this huge area, it seems, will be a no-go space for through cycle routes, and possibly even for cycling access to some or perhaps even most destinations within the site. A further reason to cater for cyclists is that conditions for cycling are likely to worsen on some parallel streets with the arrival of the tram. In some locations near the development site cyclists may be squeezed between tram lines and kerb edges, so alternatives really must be considered whenever opportunities such as this arise. If Edinburgh is to live up to the manifesto of the Council's ruling party, for a 'Model Cycle Friendly City' then it is critical that the opportunity is taken to provide European-style through cycle/pedestrian connections on the main axes and to all the main internal destinations. Crucially, there should be cycle/pedestrian links between Picardy Place, St Andrews Square and the East End of Princes Street. CYCLE PARKING Thirdly, a quantity of cycle parking is proposed, although it is not stated where this would be located or what type it would be. Parking racks (particularly for public parking) should be of the 'Sheffield' or 'Edinburgh' design, to support the bike properly and allow adequate locking capability. The public cycle parking should be distributed throughout the site, near main customer entrances, not solely on the periphery of the site, and easily accessible from the surrounding road system without dismounting. Finally, whilst the proposed quantity of staff cycle parking seems reasonable, I am not sure that 80 racks distributed across the site are adequate for public parking. Conversely, if the developers intend to locate them in one big parking block [which would be quite inappropriate] then 80 would be too many as many cyclists would take their bikes with them, and lock them to street furniture, or lean against windows, etc.