We lodged some objections to the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan.

Our principal gripe was to preserve the railway trackbed between Low Level Station and Fowler's Park as a 'Greenway' to enable easy access for the hundreds of people who will be living in the Canalside Quarter to a green open space.

The council mysteriously lost this sustained objection.

Wednesfield Road now crosses a solid embankment in place of the old bridge and the trackbed is being filled to be part of the Springfield Brewery development.

We may yet get a quiet route to the park but through the old brewery.

From: HOLMAN, David (AS Wolverhampton)
Sent: 12 August 2004 18:24
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.'
Cc: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; Ian Fardoe; 'Tom Brown'; Ric Bravery; Peter Foster; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.'
Subject: UDP first deposit - Objector 94
Dear Mr Oakley
I understand from Ric Bravery that you are now dealing with sections of the Unitary Development Plan after first deposit and would like to know if the Council's published responses have satisfied the objections raised by Wolves on Wheels Cycle Campaign. [Objector 94]
We made 10 objections. The council's response to 6 of these was satisfactory. We wish to uphold 4 objections.

       No.                                                                                                       Policy         Method        Status

  Ref:     276  Subject/SiteValleyPark pathway                                                     N4               Inquiry         Object

  Summary:Support policy but the proposals map does not appear to support the fact that the ValleyPark pathway is not part of the

                nature reserve. This may just be due to the amount of detail that can be included in the map, but would like some clarity on

                this issue.


                Would like clarity on this point to remove confusion.

  Council's Response:

                 Need to double-check the boundary of the Smestow LNR and respond accordingly. Pathway

                 appears to be within LNR:

                 "19: SmestowValley, Wolverhampton (SJ902014 - SO864978) The route of an old railway, now

                 converted into a walkway, the reserve is sandwiched between the Smestow Brook and the

                 Staffordshire and WorcestershireCanal." (EcoRecord)

  Council Proposed changeNo change

WoWcc Response. Objection withdrawn


 Ref:     277  Subject/SiteMisleading use of term 'road transport'                                EP3             Inquiry         Object

  Summary:Paragraph 5.4.1 states that emissions from road transport are a major cause of air pollution. Bicycles and electric vehicles

                 are forms of road transport that do not contribute to poor air quality. The statement is factually incorrect and misleading.


                1. Change the wording of para. 5.4.1 from "...road transport..." to "...unsustainable road



  Council's Response:

                 1. This paragraph refers specifically to 'emissions-generating' modes of transport in the sense

                 of air pollutants, rather than bicycles and electric cars, which are assumed as being

                 'emission-free'. The change suggested will not improve the wording of the text.


                 2. Reference is already made to Travel Plans (paragraph 5.4.4) within the supporting text.

  Council Proposed change1. No change


                                      2. No change

WoWcc Response. Not satisfied .  All vehicles are "emissions generating", be it heat, particulate matter or other wise. We believe the paragraph should state 'unsustainable road transport' . Or be completely rewritten to make the sense that the writer wanted because  it doesn't do so at present .


Ref:     279  Subject/SiteGreenways and Informal Education                                    R6               Inquiry         Object

  Summary:Omission of the value Greenways have for informal education. This would tie in with the City's Community Plan.


                Add the words '...informal education...' as one of the values listed in the first paragraph.

  Council's Response:

                 The proposed change would over-elaborate the policy, and would link in with Community Plan


  Council Proposed changeAdd "education" after "recreation".

WoWcc Response.  Not satisfied. "Informal Education" is a defined term for Local Nature reserves and should be upheld in a strategic planning document.

  Ref:     281  Subject/SiteAccess,Mobility & New Development                                  AM1            Inquiry         Object

Summary:  The words where appropriate referring to access around the development on foot and by bicycle could lead to developers dismissing the needs of pedestrians and cyclists.


                With reference to pedestrians and cyclists omit the words where appropriate.

  Council's Response:

                 The current wording provides a degree of flexibility and allows for the individual circumstances

                 of different development sites to be considered. It may not always be appropriate for access

                 around a development site to be provided depending on adjacent uses and land form. The words

                  "where appropriate" can, however, be removed without detriment to the policy.

  Council Proposed changeDelete words "where appropriate".

WoWcc Response. Not satisfied.  Although we agree that the words 'where appropriate' can be dropped a developer will always go for the easiest option, if that includes not providing facilities for cycling then they will avoid doing so. We find it galling that it may not "be appropriate for access" for cyclists and pedestrians but highly appropriate for other vehicles. So where is the commitment to a sustainable city there? If the the development is built only for cars, then people will only use cars. See Cannock for a local reference!

It would have been positive to have seen a commitment from WCC to increase the scope of developers range when putting in facilities, to get away from the fractured and pointless facilities that appear and only run the length of a developers area. Rather than tying in with a continuous network. A noteable example of how not to do this is Bowmans Harbour housing development, where obviously local residents only cycle around their housing estate, not too and from it.


  Ref:     282  Subject/SiteProvision of Cyclists                                                      AM10           Inquiry         Object

  Summary:Change the wording of the second sentence in paragraph 14.11.6 in order to reinforce the fact that segregation should

                only be done as a last resort as stated in the Hierarchy of Solutions found in Section 4.3 of 'Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure

                (Guidelines for Planning and Design. By DoT,CTC,IHT and the Bicycle Association.  Pub.1996 by HMSO).  This is

                reproduced in the Section 7 Continuation Sheet for reference.  A further improvement would be to adopt the Hierarchy, or at

                 least to make reference to it, in Policy AM10.  With the exception of this amendment we strongly support policy AM10

                Provision for Cyclists.


                14.11.6 Change the second sentence starting "Whilst segregation " to;  Although segregation

                may be required for safety reasons, cyclists should not be completely segregated from other

                road users as this leads to actual or perceived loss of personal security and safety.  Any

                segregated paths shall have continuity, specifically with regard to side entrances and road

                junctions.     Then insert the following extra sentence;    Reference should be made to the

                Hierarchy of Solutions found in Section 4.3 of "Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure (Guidelines for

                Planning and Design, By DoT, CTC,IHT and the Bicycle Association. Pub 1996 by HMSO) and

  Council's Response:

                 The Council accepts the principle of the objection and proposed alterations but not the detail. It

                 does not consider it appropriate to include reference to the document quoted for reasons of

                 brevity and the likely relevance of other documents which may supplement and in time replace

  Council Proposed changeDelete second sentence to paragraph 14.11.6 starting "Whilst segregation .." and

                                      replace with following sentence "Although segregation may be required for safety

                                      reasons, cyclists should not be completely segregated from other road users as

                                      this leads to actual or perceived loss of personal security and safety. Any

                                      segregated paths shall have continuity, specifically with regard to side entrances

WoWcc Response. Objection withdrawn. Desired main amendment achieved.


  Ref:     283  Subject/SitePark & Ride                                                                 AM11           Inquiry         Object

Summary:  Omission of the provision of changing and toilet facilities to allow commuters to continue journey and secure cycle parking for Bike and Ride.


                Add fifth requirement f) Where possible to include changing and toilet facilities to allow

                commuters to continue journey by bicycle and cycle parking for Bike and Ride.

  Council's Response:

                 Agree principle. Form of words proposed.

  Council Proposed changeProposed to amend clause e) to read "Where possible to include secure cycle

                                      parking and changing and toilet facilities to allow cyclists to make use of the


WoWcc Response. Objection withdrawn

  Ref:     284  Subject/SiteBike & Ride                                                                 AM2            Inquiry         Object

Summary:  Policy makes reference of facilities to improve transport, cycle and pedestrian facilities and other measures to address traffic congestion.  In the second paragraph the importance of Park & Ride sites is extolled but no reference is made to the contribution secure Bike & Ride schemes could make.


                Include reference to secure Bike & Ride facilities and the contribution they can make.

  Council's Response:

                 This is too detailed and is inappropriate for inclusion in a strategic policy. The principle of adding

                 a reference to policy AM11 has already been agreed and it is considered that this is sufficient.

  Council Proposed changeNone. Refer to amendment agreed in principle to policy AM10.

WoWcc Response. Objection withdrawn

  Ref:     285  Subject/SiteMajor Transport Schemes                                               AM3            Inquiry         Object

Summary:   Omission of the adoption of National Cycle Network Route 81 as a Major Transport Scheme.  The Sustrans Network is a major transport scheme and should therefore be included.  It would also underline the Council's commitment to Route 81.


                Include National Cycle Network Route 81 as one of the bullet points listing major Transport

  Council's Response:


  Council Proposed changeAdd bullet point to Policy AM3 to read "National Cycle Network Route 81"

WoWcc Response. Objection withdrawn

  Ref:     286  Subject/SiteDesign Standards                                                         B5               Inquiry         Object

  Summary:Omission of greenways in point 7 after the words 'existing footpaths'.


                After the word footpaths in point 7 include 'and greenways'.

  Council's Response:

                 Agree that proposed change would assist in promoting greater accessibility by a choice of

                 modes of transport.

  Council Proposed changeAmend Policy as requested.

WoWcc Response. Objection withdrawn


  Ref:     287  Subject/SiteCanalside Quarter                                                         CC12           Inquiry         Object

Summary:  The last two sentences of paragraph one state that "Improved linkages both into and through the area, especially for cyclists  and pedestrians, will be required to secure greater integration with the rest of the City Centre.  The areas historic buildings and features will be retained, refurbished and sensitively re-used".

With reference to key proposals I. Springfield Brewery and adjoining land and point iii.  Low level Station.  The adjoining land refers to building in the railway cutting beside M & B brewery, meaning that this section of the Great Western Railway formation looks like it will be lost, as it is not shown as a proposed greenway.  These two sections are vital to develop an alternative rout of to the adjacent section of National Cycle Network Route 81 avoiding hazardous bridges blind bends on the route's canal towpath.  Whilst developers are compelled to make provisions for cyclists individually and link to existing routes through policies such as D3, B5, H3 and most importantly CC5, a route already exists and its importance may not be appreciated.  In addition the UDP already states in policy R6 that Greenways can facilitate regeneration to every effort should be made to safeguard the existing infrastructure.  CTC Right to Ride Network and the Wolverhampton branch of Friends of the Earth both made representations about the use of the trackbed around Low Level Station for Cycle ways in the Public Consultation on the Canalside Quarter proposals in 2000.  See Appendix 1 of the Consultation Results.


                Clarify that the phrase 'Springfield Brewery and adjoining land' excludes building in the railway



 Ensure that the development briefs for the two sites appraise the benefits Greenways can bring to regeneration schemes and the importance of the route for safety reasons opposed to NCN 81 that follows the canal.  With particular reference to Policy CC5 (f) Walking and Cycling, this route would enable the achievement of developing a network of safe pedestrian / cycle links   between the quarters and the Shopping Quarter and City Centre generally and the surrounding neighbourhoods.  This is echoed by paragraph 14.9.13 that aims to protect redundant rail lines wherever possible to provide for future development of cycle and pedestrian facilities.


 Amend the UDP Map to show this land reserved as a Greenway in the same way as the sections of trackbed from Walsall Street to Bilston Road, Priestsfield and south of Priestfield Metro Station towards Spring Vale.


  Council's Response:

                 This matter is of a such a level of detail that it is better addressed in the development brief for [ remainder of sentence was missing]

  Council Proposed changeNo change

WoWcc Response. Objection NOT withdrawn. We are totally unsatisfied with the response.


The Campaign views the remaining sections of the former Great Western Railway trackbed within the borough as parts of the future Strategic Cycle Network in Wolverhampton. Also the Low-level station to Fowlers Park section would form a safe alternative route to the adjacent section of Birmingham Main Canal towpath proposed for use by National Cycle network route 81.

We feel the reviewer has not understood the wider implications of the UDP' s wording and mapping for policy CC12 and not grasped the proposed changes. We feel the case made out above to still be very strong and the wording of policy CC12 to be at odds with other policies and statements listed in the Plan and noted by us in our objection. We have only limited confidence in the development brief spelling out the wider UDP policy.

We wish to change the designated UDP land use for this section of former railway to Greenway just like the southern section on the other side of Horseley Fields railway tunnel. An immediate concern is to ensure the continuation of a through route as overbridges are replaced by adding a box culvert of similar underneath the new road bridges. This is, in our opinion, an urgent issue for the Wedsnesfield Road Bridge.

A by-product of our proposal would be to bring Fowler's Park, in the form of this railway route, into the Canalside Quarter development to the benefit of all its future residents. There are a whole host of possibilities resulting in changing this land to Greenway. E.g People from the north of the borough would be able to ride to the Wednesfield road entrance of the railway station [ or the Sun Street Metro Stop of the 5W's tramway as marked on the UDP maps] on a one mile-plus traffic free route [starting from the Science Park entrance to the towpath / NCN81] . It would e.g. allow the Royal Mail the chance to send cycle deliveries of post out towards the Science Park, Bushbury and Oxley.

The Wolverhampton City Centre Strategy and Action Plan has been out for public consultation. I would like to draw your attention to the ideas for Low-level Station posted in 3.128 and 3.130 ; namely the Wolverhampton Revolution cycling centre and museum and the mini-Eden project respectively . Both of these are to do with Green issues - the sustainable transport and healthy exercise that is cycling and the issues of Biodiversity, conservation and reduction in our harmful activities and their effect on our planet that is encapsulted in the message of the original Eden Project. Any cycling centre on this site should have a traffic free connection to the National Cycle Network on which people can arrive, depart and try out the different trial machines on offer. The real Eden Centre is blighted by motor traffic due to its huge popularity, is working hard with Sustrans and Cornwall Council to address this and provides every incentive for visitors to arrive by cycle including a seperate traffic-free cycle way with its own admissions booth [offering lower ticket prices]. If the council is serious about either of these ideas then changing the designated land use of this stretch of former trackbed to GREENWAY would show its intent.

I am prepared to present our Campaign's case to the Planning inquiry inspectors if the need arises.


I look forward to hearing from you


Yours sincerely


David Holman

Campaign Officer - wolves on Wheels Cycle Campaign

20 Green Drive


Wolverhampton WV10 6DW



Thursday 23rd April, 18:00 PM - 20:00 PM
Wolverhampton Cycle Forum April 2020
Friday 28th February - All Day
Wolverhampton Council Climate Emergency Consultation
Friday 28th February - All Day
Wolverhampton Council Climate Emergency Consultation
Saturday 29th February, 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Bike Repairs
Wednesday 4th March, 19:00 PM - 21:00 PM
Bike Maintenance Course
Wednesday 11th March, 19:00 PM - 21:00 PM
Bike Maintenance Course
Wednesday 18th March, 19:00 PM - 21:00 PM
Bike Maintenance Course
Wednesday 25th March, 19:00 PM - 21:00 PM
Bike Maintenance Course
Thursday 23rd April, 18:00 PM - 20:00 PM
Wolverhampton Cycle Forum April 2020
wow logo