The cycle parking at the new residential development at Abbey Wall Works does not meet standards and is not inclusive.
The cycle storage provision proposed for the new development at Abbey Wall Works, Station Road, Colliers Wood S19 2LP (application 20/P1672) is wholly inadequate and gives no consideration to the site's proximity to existing cycle routes. (You can see the full application and submit your own comments on the Council website here.) Merton Planning Department’s acceptance from this applicant of repeat applications with this sub-standard provision, which can have a significant bearing on the ground floor plan, is surprising. Below are the comments MCC have submitted to the Council on the application.
The applicant, having
been able to maximise the ground plan through having to cater for disabled car
parking only, shows a reluctance to even give usable space for cycle parking,
despite showing on the access statement that the scheme is on a significant
cycle-path cross-roads. It is a blatant flaunting of Council Policy on active
travel for this applicant to offer cycle parking that is, for all to see,
inoperable. The effort of manhandling a bicycle into and out of a 1.8 metre
deep rack from a 1.5 metre wide corridor is enough to condemn the so-called
bike store to emptiness.
In Chapter 8.2 The
London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) define ‘Fit-for-purpose’ cycle parking.
In ‘Two tier’ stands
they recommend a 3.5 metre aisle width where there are racks on either side of
aisles. 2 metres wider than the 1.5 metres this applicant is offering.
The Council have
acknowledged the need to meet LCDS standards when dealing with cycling matters
so can this application please be rejected until such standards are met?
It might also be noted
that the LCDS warn of conflict with pedestrians using the surrounding area.
Whether the applicant has taken enough notice of this in placing the internal
bike stores opening directly onto the main entrance reception area is
questionable.
The LCDS also say
two-tier stands are not suitable for all users. Should there therefore be more
of a choice in terms of cycle parking, in particular for the younger and older
age groups?
We object once more to
this application and reiterate our previous point that the applicant should
also take responsibility for widening the Merantun Way arch of the Wandle Trail
if the widening hasn't been done by the time this job might be on site.