(I sent this response in on 13/10/17 using the form on the planning portal - which promptly mangled it by stripping out all the formatting, so I emailed it anyway.)
Application No: 17/01102/OUT
|Address:||Land At Salop Street/Peel Street/Pitt Street/School Street And Ring Road St Marks Wolverhampton|
|Proposal:||Outline application for leisure (Class D2), food and drink (Class A3), hotel (Class C1), retail (Class A1), drinking establishments (Class A4), multi-storey car park and public realm|
Wolves on Wheels Cycle Campaign supports this application on the basis of it providing new facilities for the people of Wolverhampton and the employment opportunities it creates. We do have some concerns on how it will affect cyclists in the area and comment as follows:
The provision of good cycle parking facilities sends an encouraging message. We urge the council to ensure that the number of places provided regards the numbers set out in their own guidelines (1) as a minimum, not as a maximum grudgingly allocated by the developer and whittled down as the design and build progresses. Consideration should be given to the different expectations of someone paying a short visit to a shop, visitors to a restaurant or cinema at night, and employees.
The removal of the section of Peel St running parallel to Ring Rd St Marks would imply that the western end of Salop St (between Fold St & School St) would become one way. If this is the case we would recommend that the redundant west bound lane be allocated for a two way cycle lane, physically separated from motorised traffic with a kerb or similar and separate from the footway. We feel this would be welcomed by both pedestrians and cyclists.
Drawing 14109 121 'Pedestrian & Cycle Route Plan' shows pedestrian/cycle routes in and around the development area. It is not clear what type these are; 'shared' or 'segregated'. Our experience of both types around the city centre is that problems can occur with either. For the path running parallel to Ring Rd St Marks we would recommend that serious consideration be given to having completely separate paths for cycling and walking as cyclists wishing to bypass the development will want to travel faster than would be possible on a 'shared' or 'segregated' path (where the only segregation is a line of paint). Such a separate cycle path could then link with the on-road facility described in (2) above. For the routes within the development area, where cyclists will be be slowing down as they reach their destination then a 'shared' path may be acceptable.
We have concerns over the routing of the cycle/pedestrian path shown crossing Ring Rd St Marks. The triangular refuge at the top of Great Brickkiln St is adequate at present for the numbers and type (pedestrian, pedestrian with buggy, mobility scooter, cyclist) of user crossing there but additional users coming from a different direction may lead to congestion and the danger of a user being stranded on the road when the crossing lights change.
The route Great Brickkiln St, Peel St, Salop St/Cleveland St is currently one that is popular with cyclists approaching the city centre from the West or South West. These are areas that were identified within the council's Active Travel Strategy (2) as being 'near market'; ie people within these areas who already cycle for leisure would not need great persuasion to take up cycling as a means of travel for utility or commuting.
We urge the council to make sure that the facilities (principally parking and cycle paths) provided by this development are attractive and provide a stimulus to residents taking up cycling as a means of active travel with all the benefits that provides.
Chair, Wolves on Wheels Cycle Campaign
CoWC Highways Technical Technical Guidance Note Part 3 Section DG16
'An Active Travel Strategy For Wolverhampton'