Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Object

Representation ID: 5452

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford Cycling Campaign

We welcome approaches such as the prioritisation of projects which enable cycling and the intention to reduce the dominance of motor vehicles. It is right to require developers to demonstrate explicitly how they will prioritise cycling from the outset, rather than as tokenistic afterthoughts. We are pleased the Council recognises the urgency in this. We are disappointed, therefore, that the policy itself does not reflect this. SP7 refers to measures that ‘encourage’ cycling, a vague term which often means little. Instead, SP7 should repeat the welcome assertions in the discussion and explicitly state that cycling will be prioritised over vehicles. SP7 refers to ‘supporting the shift in road space’ from cars, but if cycling IS to be prioritised, rather than simply providing cycling corridors there must be equivalent disincentives to driving e.g. closing options for cars. This should be stated explicitly as an inevitable consequence of prioritising active travel.

Support

Representation ID: 5455

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford Cycling Campaign

Bradford Cycling Campaign welcomes the commitment to the protection and maintenance of active travel routes such as cycle paths and greenways. Paragraph A refers to, ‘where appropriate’, the network will be enhanced. There are many opportunities around the district for the enhancement of existing infrastructure that currently excludes cyclists, for example footpaths into cycleways. In some cases, this is a straightforward reclassification of suitable paths, while in others minimal development work would be needed. Such enhancements should be done ‘wherever possible’ rather than ‘where appropriate’ as these are quick wins for cycling and sustainable infrastructure development.

Object

Representation ID: 5501

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford Cycling Campaign

We welcome the emphasis on the provision of quality infrastructure and we support the intention to develop a network of on- and off-road cycle routes but we would expect to see a re-statement of the prioritisation of cycling over motor vehicles. There should be a consideration of closing roads to vehicular traffic in favour of exclusive use by sustainable active travel modes. On the creation of LTNs, it should commit to the use of such provisions ‘wherever possible’ to create a network of LTNs. Section E on highways suggests improvements to junctions and roads in the name of ‘efficiency’: ‘efficiency’ must be for ALL road users and highways developments should be subject to the continued prioritisation of cycling over motor vehicle traffic.

Support

Representation ID: 5505

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford Cycling Campaign

Bradford Cycling Campaign welcomes the recognition of the need to include environment considerations in all transport plans and find nothing in TR2 to disagree with. However, it feels like the aims in this policy should be overarching requirements in all policies rather than being considered as separate policy.

Object

Representation ID: 5513

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford Cycling Campaign

Bradford Cycling Campaign supports the idea of a hierarchy of development favouring ‘zero-car’ developments over ‘unsustainable’ developments which barely reduce vehicle. However, in Policy TR3 itself there is no reference to this hierarchy and how it would be used. TR3 B offers a very open-ended requirement: ‘contribute to’ and ‘appropriate levels’ for cycling versus public transport and highways will, in practice, be impossible to evaluate and rank. Instead, developers should be required to demonstrate how they have chosen to prioritise cycling/walking and public transport over car-use. LTN principles should be the default expectation so that it is easier or quicker to move around on foot or by cycle than by car. Looking at specific development sites, however, there is no sign of reference to these policies. Notes on potential sites include headings on Public Transport Accessibility, Sustainability, Habitat, Constraints/Opportunities and other Considerations, but no heading on active travel.

Object

Representation ID: 5519

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford Cycling Campaign

Bradford Cycling Campaign is disappointed by the lack of specific proposals for new walking and cycling infrastructure within the Shipley section although we do support the suggested improvements that exist. We are pleased that the crossing for Leeds Road is mentioned in the plan as a solution as this is well overdue. Detailed provision for reducing severance and flow and a description of active travel flows that exist and where new potential can be created is needed. To achieve real impact, the plan needs to make these things a focus of design instead of just “encouraging” a shift towards active travel without a clear means of achieving it. We strongly suggest that active travel routes need to be made preferable to driving options if you are to see any modal shift. The CROW principles of directness, safety, comfort and attractiveness will be key (or a similar tested methodology).

Object

Representation ID: 5523

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford Cycling Campaign

Bradford Cycling Campaign is disappointed by the lack of any specific proposals for new walking and cycling infrastructure within the Keighley area, beyond the rather vague ‘supporting opportunities [to] improve cycling and walking connectivity to and from the railway station and employment areas’. Rather than ‘supporting opportunities to improve’, we would substitute the words ‘create’ or ‘develop’ as a positive commitment towards improvement rather than mere aspiration. We would also take issue with the notion that the link to Airedale Greenway ‘is connected to the town centre via an on-road section of cycle lanes’ (Para 5.12.23). These lanes do not exist in any meaningful sense, nor in fact does any provision for cycling. This should be remedied urgently. Finally, we note that cycling and walking are not mentioned for any area of Keighley outside the Central area.