WAVERLEY BOROUGH CYCLING PLAN – SCHEDULE OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Respondent Comments Cycle Forum Response Proposed Change 1. Mr J Lander No comments from Chichester DC, but draws attention No change to Plan. (Chichester DC) to Chichester DC’s own detailed guidance on secure cycle provision.

2. J N Bennett Welcome the new plan. Specific comments as follows:-

1. With regard to cycling in villages, his Cycling Plan includes an Objective to improve the Objective 8 Action Point 3 be expanded with experience is that the main disincentive is quantity, quality and security of cycle parking facilities. the addition of the following:- due to a lack of cycle parking facilities in the The associated Action Points include a regular review village. Suggests that the Borough Council of cycle parking in the Borough to identify gaps in “The Cycle Forum will prioritise the gaps should ask all Parish Councils to provide provision. The Cycling forum will note the particular in cycle parking provision and identify the cycle hoops. In these could be point regarding Elstead and consider this alongside its best way of securing the additional anywhere around the Green. regular revue of cycle parking provision. provision.

2. Refers to parking at railway stations. Cycle Forum is very keen to promote better integration No change to Plan. Comments on lack of covered cycle parking of cycling with public transport. (See Objective 5). It facilities at Milford Station. In addition, the was very disappointed when South West Trains introduction of new rolling stock means there recently revised its policy for carrying cycles on trains. is very limited and inconsistent cycle storage In the light of this it is even more important that facilities on trains. As a result he has now adequate secure cycle parking is available at stations. had to cease cycling to the station and use It has noted the point made in relation to the provision his car instead. at Milford. The Cycle Forum already intends to carry out a survey of provision at all stations in the Borough in 2005.

3. D Ewing and N School has been successful in encouraging cycling to The targets referred to are targets in the LTP. No change to Plan. Edwards (Safer Routes school – the level of cycling has increased over the Forum to note comment concerning cycling targets. Team, Rodborough years. Delighted to see school cycling figuring highly in However, it is the County Council that has direct School) stated aims of the policy. However, not clear of precise responsibility for the LTP targets and for the Safe details of how to achieve the stated levels of school Routes to School initiatives. It is suggested that in this cycling use by the target date. particular case relevant officers from Surrey CC liaise directly with the staff at . Would like to meet to discuss school related cycling improvements with a view to moving closer to the LTP targets.

1 4. Mr A Cooke - Head of SIAD has recently prepared a Travel Plan, which This is linked to the comments made by Mr Dorman No change to the Plan Estate Services accompanied a planning application for the site. The (see below), regarding the need for employers and Department, Surrey Travel Plan includes a section on objectives to other organisations to make provision for cyclists in Institute of Art and Design increase the levels of cycling to and from the Campus. terms of secure cycle parking facilities and shower (SIAD) Would like to note the Institute’s interest in developing facilities. opportunities, along with Waverley Borough, in helping Support the principle of promoting cycling for a large to achieve some of the aims set out in the draft Cycling education establishment such as SIAD. Plan. Cycle Forum will also consider whether a representative from the Forum and/or the County Council should have a meeting with staff at SIAD to discuss how to facilitate increased levels of cycling by students.

5. Mr B Maher Concerned about lack of training for cyclists. Also Cycle Plan already has an Objective relating to It is recommended that Objective 11 be expresses concern about cycling habits of some training. Cycle training/testing is not compulsory so, in amended to read:- cyclists (such as failure to use lights, poor road sense). practice, there is little more that can be done. Asks if there is any way of ensuring that cyclists are “To promote safe cycling and to make compelled to obey the Highway Code. Suggest that Objective 11 be amended to include cycle training accessible to those who reference to the promotion of safe cycling. Forum require it.” could also review what advice is currently available in relation to safe cycling. Suggest that the issue of ‘safe cycling’ could be dealt with in an article in ‘The Link’ (see Objective 9 Action Point 1).

6. P A Dorman Welcomes any initiative such as this. Makes the (Chairman of the following specific comments:- Association of Residents) 1. Considers that a pre-requisite is to undertake Cycle Forum aware of the need to raise awareness of See comments above regarding the some sort of marketing. Also refers to need, the benefits of cycling. This is already addressed in amendment to Objective 11. in some cases, for cycle training. Considers the Objectives and Action Plan (particularly Objective that motorists could also benefit from some 9). Forum will continue to consider ways in which raising of awareness. awareness can be raised. It is also proposed that Objective 11 be amended to include reference to safe cycling (see above).

2. Should encourage employers and others to Not addressed specifically in the Plan although It is recommended that the following provide washing and cycle storage facilities, addressed indirectly in some of the Action Points (for paragraph be inserted after the existing especially given hilly nature of parts of the example under Objective 3 one of the Actions is to paragraph 2.6:- Borough. promote cycle access as part of all developments.) Can potentially be achieved in two ways. “In 2004, Surrey County Council, in 1. By encouraging existing employers to conjunction with 8 of the Surrey districts, voluntarily make this provision for published the “Cycle Friendly Employers’

2 employees. Guide”. This is intended to encourage 2. Where possible to ensure that such and support cycling to work. provision is made in new developments. This could be achieved, where it can be It is recommended that Objective 3 be justified, through a legal agreement amended to read:- attached to a planning permission (usually as part of an overall Travel Plan). “To promote utility cycling and to improve the safety and accessibility of Surrey CC, in conjunction with 8 of the Surrey Districts the town centres of , , has produced the “Cycle Friendly Employers’ Guide.” It and to their is suggested that a new paragraph be added after the adjoining residential areas and villages.” current paragraph 2.6 to refer to this document. It is also recommended that Objective 3, Objective 3 could be amended to include a reference to Action Point 2 be amended to read:- the promotion of additional utility cycling. Action Point 2 could then be amended to promote the provision of “Promote cycle access to all new cycle access to new developments and, where developments and, where appropriate the appropriate, the provision of cycle parking and shower provision of secure cycle parking and facilities. shower facilities for cyclists.”

A further Action Point could be added to encourage It is also recommended that an additional employers to make provision for employees wishing to Action Point be added in support of Objective cycle to work. 3, as follows:-

“Encourage existing employers to make provision for employees wishing to cycle to work.”

3. Considers the Network Plan to be good as The public consultation has provided an excellent No change to the Plan far as it goes but suggests a number of vehicle for identifying gaps in, and opportunities for, the potential additions:- strategic cycle network in Waverley. All suggestions  Sailor’s lane and Green Cross Lane from the consultation shall be considered positively as (useful though hilly); part of the annual review of the Waverley Cycle  A link from Elstead Church across the Network undertaken by the Forum in July 2005. military land?  There is a muddy but passable bridle path route from Great Pond up to Wishanger Lane (for ) and on past Barford Mill to Whitmore Vale Road, leading to Grayshott. Comments that Whitmore Vale Road is a dangerous rat-run with a climb at the end, but might have potential in a part of the Borough that is poorly covered

3 at present.  Could look at other quiet roads and bridle paths around ;  Considers there to be a good route from Elstead past Peperharow to Charterhouse, and thence Peaslake and Guildford.

4. Concerns expressed about the form of cycle In terms of on-road routes it is preferable to have No change to Plan. lanes. Dislike unless they are true cycle clearly identified cycle-lanes. However this is not lanes on a dedicated section of highway. always possible due to physical constraints. The Cycle Forum will continue to liaise with the Highway Authority over individual routes. However, the Cycling Plan itself does not promote a particular form of cycle route for these reasons.

7. Mrs I C Birch Considers Cycling Plan to be very good, but hopes it is Cycling Plan is intended to complement other No change to Plan. not at the expense of local bus services or footpaths. strategies to promote alternative means of travel. In relation to public transport it also seeks to provide better integration with existing public transport (see Objective 5). In relation to footpaths, Officers recognise that some cycleways may follow the line of existing footpaths. However Cycle Forum is very mindful of the need to ensure that in such situations the use by cyclists does not compromise use by pedestrians. This is a matter of detailed design.

8. Mr E Manley Specific comments concerning the cycle path provision Cycle Forum keeps under review schemes that are It is recommended that the prioritised list of at Coxbridge roundabout. Considers that existing considered to be a priority, based on experience of the suggested projects, relating to severance arrangements are dangerous. local representatives. With regard to the particular points and sections of the network, be added works at Coxbridge Roundabout, these are the as Annexe 12. It is also recommended that responsibility of Surrey CC and Mr Manley’s concerns a new paragraph 5.2 be added to read:- will be passed on to the relevant officer. The Waverley Cycle Forum has already identified the Coxbridge “In addition, the Cycle Forum has Roundabout as a priority severance point on the produced a prioritised list of suggested strategic cycle network. It is considered that projects relating to severance points and prioritisation list of severance points and sections of the parts of the network. This list is attached network (produced in December 2003) should be as Annexe 12. As well as keeping the added as a further annexe to the Plan. Action Plan under review, the Forum will review the prioritised list and the maps showing the Waverley Cycle Network annually.”

4 9. Mr R Evans Rambler’s Association generally welcomes aim of The Cycle Forum acts to bring together views from It is recommended that an additional action (Godalming and increasing levels of cycling in Waverley. Understand other vulnerable user groups. point be included in support of Objective 1 as Haslemere Group, 9. that the Plan will evolve to meet the needs of the follows:- Ramblers’ Association) second edition Local Transport Plan (LTP). Look forward to being consulted on specific proposals “Consult with other users for the regarding mixed use by cyclists and walkers. development of mixed-use routes.”

10. Capt. J Stratfield- Four main points raised:- James (RN) 1. Concerned that plan proposes more cycle Suggest that map of the Waverley Cycle Network It is recommended that the Maps parking provision without showing details of should show more detail. This would be achieved by:- accompanying the Cycling Plan be amended the cycle routes between them.  Adding the names of the towns and the main accordingly. villages; 2. Concerned that the map of the cycle network  Providing larger scale inset maps for in the Borough lacks detail. For example, it Farnham, Godalming, Haslemere and does not identify towns and villages by Cranleigh. name.

3. Concerned that the plan is suggesting It is agreed that safety and security are important No change to Plan. increased cross-country cycling without issues to consider in relation to all cycle routes (on or reference to day/night or weather conditions. off-road). The issue of safety on cycle routes is Failing to give an assurance of safety for already identified in Objectives 1 and 3. The Plan cross-country riders on lonely roads. acknowledges the need for safety and security for cycle users and would not endorse and promote routes that are potentially unsafe. On the contrary the Cycle Forum is keen to improve safety, for example, by seeking to eliminate severance points on the current network.

4. With regard to the plan overall, expresses Consider the Plan to be an important part of a wider No change to Plan. view that there are more pressing issues strategy to increase travel choice and reduce requiring Council funds dependence on the car.

11. Tourism South East Very pleased to see that cycling has been given a The issue is dealt with generally by Objective 1 and its It is recommended that Objective 6 be (TSE) discrete plan of its own. The Draft Plan highlights the aim to develop a strategic network of safe, convenient amended to read:- many advantages of cycling, something that TSE is and continuous cycle routes in the Borough. One of keen to exploit. the associated Action Points (No. 2) is to identify key “To exploit the potential for recreational destinations (e.g. public transport interchanges) and and tourist cycling in Waverley’s Suggest addition to Objective 6, which relates to establish a target for increasing accessibility over the countryside and to ensure that where exploiting the potential for recreational and tourist period of the Plan. possible, designated cycle networks be cycling. Suggest that it should indicate that it is equally linked to tourist attractions, pubs and desirable to ensure that designated cycle networks can As the issue was raised specifically in the context of food & drink establishments, nature be linked, where possible, to attractions, pubs, nature recreational and tourist cycling, it is suggested that reserves and public transport reserves, food and drink outlets and transport providers Objective 6 be expanded to include the additions interchanges.”

5 e.g. buses railway stations. Consider that this would recommended by TSE and that the Action Plan be maximise the opportunities arising from secondary revised to include an additional Action Point under It is also recommended that a further Action spend associated with cycling. Objective 6 relating to the identification of key Point be added in support of Objective 6 as recreational and tourist facilities that would benefit from follows:- improved accessibility by cycle. “The identification of key recreational and tourist locations where cycle access should be improved.”

12. Mr P Gregory Two points raised:-

1. Points out that Annexe 5 (the map showing Forum notes the existence of cycle parking on the No change to the Plan. cycle parking in Weyhill) should be amended forecourt of the Majestic Wine Warehouse. However, it to show the additional set of stands at the is not proposed that these be added to the map, as the Majestic Wine Warehouse. map is intended to show the main public cycle parking provision.

2. Comments on the related Sustainability An update to the original Sustainability Report has No change to the Plan Report and questions why the Social been produced. One addition is the ‘testing’ of the Sustainability Objective – “To reduce Poverty Plan objectives against the additional ‘social’ and social exclusion” was not used in the sustainability indicator referred to by this respondent. Sustainability Appraisal of the Cycling Plan. This has not raised any issues requiring modifications to the Plan.

13. Government Office Plan is consistent with national and regional planning Comments Noted No change to the Plan. for the South East policies and is clearly cross-referenced to the saved policy in the Local Plan, which it would supplement. No further comments. 14. Mr A Leggatt Admires the ambition of the plan but questions the The Objectives in the Plan are not set out in order of It is recommended that the Plan be amended priorities, if they accord with the ordering of the priority. However, the Forum has previously identified as follows:- objectives and the Action Plan. priorities in terms of severance point and other parts of 1. That paragraph 4.3, which Assumes the ‘Strategic Network’ referred to in the network requiring attention. This list of priorities precedes that list of objectives, be Objective 1 relates to routes linking major centres in was originally produced in order for Surrey County extended with the following:- the Borough. Considers there to be hardly any historic, Council to be aware of local cycling priorities as part of “(these are not set out in any economic or social connections between the towns. its planning of highway schemes. The Forum order of priority)” Potential cycle traffic minimal due to journeys being too considers that this list of priorities should be added to long and hilly. Considers the priority should be on the Cycling Plan as an annexe. It is the intention of the 2. The prioritised list of suggested utility cycling, primarily on safe routes to schools and Forum that these priorities will be reviewed annually at schemes/works be added as a then on commuting routes to work. The latter requires the same time that the Action Plan is reviewed. further annexe to the Plan. that plans should overlap political boundaries (for example linking Farnham with Aldershot and Farnborough, or Godalming with Guildford).

6 At first priorities should concentrate on relatively short routes (suggests up to three miles), feeding the towns, villages and schools. Refers to Farnham and states that he is aware of several calm routes in and out of town that are not designated as cycle ways. Considers that Objectives should be re-ordered as follows:- Safe routes to school (no. 4); Access to town centres (no. 3); Integrate with public transport (no. 5); Public awareness (no. 9); Cycle Parking (no. 8); Training (no. 11); Then 1,2,6,7 and 10

15. R S Dennis Makes the following comments:- 1. Considers cycle routes should be as direct Comments are noted. However there is no overall No change to Plan as possible. - Dislikes ‘meandering’ routes. policy concerning this issue. The type of route provided would depend in part on the type of cycle usage envisaged (i.e. utility or leisure).

2. Dislikes pavement options. Refers to hazard Again comments noted. Plan does not itself promote No change to Plan in relation to pedestrian/cyclist conflict and one type of route over another. This will depend on the other hazards such as trees, street furniture, individual circumstances. However, the Cycle Forum is driveways and the need to negotiate road very mindful of the importance that routes are safe and junctions. secure.

3. Considers safe and secure cycle parking to Objective 5, Action Point 2 relates to provision of cycle No change to the Plan be important. Would consider paying for parking at railway stations. Cycle Forum is committed locking storage facilities. Stations and town to working with railway operators to ensure that secure centre car parks would be prime sites for cycle storage is available at stations. Comments these. regarding willingness to pay for such a facility are noted. However, in the first instance the Cycle Forum considers that rail operators should be encouraged to provide such facilities free of charge.

4. With reference to the map showing cycle The map of cycle parking in the centre of Farnham It is recommended that the map of cycle parking in Farnham Town centre, he already shows the existing provision in the Central Car parking in the centre of Farnham be suggests that there may also be some Park, adjacent to the public conveniences. corrected to show the proposed provision on parking stands in the Central Car Park. He the Eastern side of the Castle is surprised to see a proposal to provide The map should be amended to correct an error in Street/Borough junction. cycle parking at the Borough/Castle Street relation to the location of proposed cycle parking at the junction, given the limited space available bottom of Castle Street. The proposed provision is on

7 and the high level of use of the footpaths. the eastern side of the road. However, the Forum would add that any parking in that location would be contingent on either pavement widening along the Borough or the establishment of an ‘Historic Core Zone’ in Farnham.

16. Mr P Cotton and Mr N Considers that the Plan is “…making all the right The various points made have been noted and the Cotton noises..” and points out relevant facts. Considers it response from the Cycle Forum is as follows:- important to separate “window dressing” from genuine infrastructure improvements for cyclists. Makes a number of specific points:-

1. On-road cycle routes not particularly helpful 1. The Cycling Plan encourages a range of 1. No change to the Plan. unless continuous and running through an options in terms of the form of cycle route area which will be frequented by cyclists. (on-road, off-road etc.) depending on the Status must be enforced and if this is best local circumstances. option then surface should painted a different colour and quality should be excellent. Special attention needed at narrow points, junctions, roundabouts etc to ensure integrity of route not compromised.

2. Cycle parking stands in town centres will not, 2. Agree with point regarding cycle parking 2. No change to the Plan. in themselves, convince people to cycle. Not alone. However, the Plan promotes a wide difficult to find somewhere to leave a bike for range of measures, including cycle parking short periods of time. Considers that money but also promoting the provision of routes for would be better spent on new traffic free both utility and recreational cycling. routes, routes through parks, contraflow cycle lanes in one-way streets, shared-use pavements on wide pavements and dropped kerbs to make them flush with the road surface.

3. Safe and covered cycle parking far more 3. Agree – dealt with by Objectives 5 & 8. 3. No change to the Plan. important where people may want to leave their bikes all-day. This applies to schools, colleges, workplaces and railway stations.

4. A lot of the effort needed to increase levels 4. Agree with the sentiment regarding the 4. No change to the Plan. of cycling consists of knocking down the reasons why people choose not to cycle. excuses used for not cycling: “It’s dangerous, Objective 9 aims to raise awareness of the it’s hard work, I’ll get wet, I’ll get sweaty, my benefits of cycling. bike will be stolen” etc. Should be stressed that it is not “all or nothing” – cycling to work

8 one day in 10 could be a 10% reduction in car use.

5. Promotes use of individual travel plans. Can 5. Comments noted. 5. No change to the Plan. help to plot home to work/school journeys.

6. Identifies need to establish the most 6. The Cycling Forum has produced a 6. It is recommended that the dangerous places for cyclists – roundabouts, prioritised list of suggested schemes/works prioritised list of suggested turning traffic, squeeze spots on narrow in the Borough. The Forum also intends to schemes/works be added as a streets. keep this under review and give it to the further annexe to the Plan. County Council to feed into the LTP process. The Forum also considers that this list should be included as a further annexe to the plan.

7. A 20mph speed limit around schools and in 7. This is an issue for the County Council as 7. No change to the Plan. many built up areas will reduce accidents, Highway Authority. However, Officers would noise, and pollution and make walking and support in principle measures that make cycling more pleasant. cycling safer and more enjoyable.

8. Many of the best ideas come from the 8. The Cycling Forum already adopts this 8. No change to the Plan. bottom-up. People who already cycle will approach, through the input of the various have wish lists of small improvements that local representatives. It should be pointed should be collated, surveyed, costed, out that the majority of Cycle Forum prioritised and implemented. members are local cycle activists.

Above suggestions based on years of cycling in Bristol – happy to submit leisure cycling ideas if needed.

17. Dr D Gates Considers that there should be a cycle path on the This route is shown on the Waverley Borough Local It is recommended that the maps showing town side of the road between the Six Bells roundabout Plan 2002 and should be retained. The Maps of the the Waverley Cycle Network be amended to and the Water Lane roundabout in Farnham. Waverley Cycle Network should be amended show the desired route between the Water accordingly. It is also suggested that the respondent Lane and Six Bells roundabouts in Farnham. should be encouraged to contact the Cycle Rights Network in Farnham to discuss this in detail.

18. Mr G Williams Considers that it would be helpful to discuss cross Objective 1, Action Point 4 relates to the development It is recommended that Objective 1, Action (Transport Development boundary routes. East Hants DC has just reviewed of links with cycle fora in adjacent Boroughs/Districts, Point 4 be amended to read: “Develop Officer, East Hants DC) and re-written its Cycle Plan. to ensure the continuity of cross-boundary routes. It is links with cycle fora of adjoining suggested that this Action Point be amended to refer to Boroughs/Districts, or other relevant relevant Council officers in the event that there is no officers, to ensure continuity of cross- equivalent cycle forum. It is particularly important to boundary routes.” liaise with authorities outside Surrey, such as East Hants, to ensure continuity of routes. Where any

9 changes to the maps of the Waverley Cycle network arise as a result of this cross-boundary liaison, they should be dealt with as part of the proposed annual review of Action Plan, the Cycle Network Maps and the prioritised list of schemes.

19. Mr D Potts Find it impossible to construe the plan because there See comments above regarding amendments to the See above for recommended changes to the are no identifying words. Asks for copy of proposed maps of the Waverley Cycle Network to make them maps of the Waverley Cycle Network. cycle route plans. clearer.

19(a). Mr D Potts 1. Comments on issues that hinder cyclists The Cycle Forum endorses the hierarchy of measures, No change to the Plan. (additional comments) (such as need to give way in situations Cycle Friendly Infrastructure and Cycle Audit and Cycle where there would be no such requirement Review. This includes the principles of coherence and if driving a car). directness.

2. Criticism of provision on A31. The Forum is aware that until NCN22 is in place, the No change to the Plan. A31 route to Guildford is difficult.

3. Considers that cyclists need priority if this See comments for 1 above. No change to the Plan. mode of transport is to appeal to a wider audience. Considers that cyclists need clear wide lanes with as few stops and unnecessary changes of direction as possible.

4. Questions where bike can be parked in The Forum is aware of the need for safe cycle parking No change to the Plan. Farnham without risk of vandalism or theft. facilities (see Objectives 5 & 8). The Forum also Suggests stands at the police station. intends to keep cycle parking provision under review.

5. Still requesting copy of map showing links Some cross-boundary links are being co-ordinated by No change to the Plan. into . Sustrans (NCN22 & 23). It is suggested that this respondent contact the local Cycle Rights Network representatives to discuss these detailed issues further.

6. Desire line west from A31 south of The proposal south of is the NCN23 No change to the Plan. Dippenhall cannot have a cycle lane proposed route to Alton. This is being proposed and because it is too narrow for an exclusive co-ordinated by Sustrans. Hampshire County Council lane and is dangerous with too many is involved in the routing of NCN23. The road surface potholes on both sides of the county should be brought up to NCN standards before boundary. opening. There is no intention to use cycle lanes, as these are not normally appropriate for country lanes. The ‘desire lines’ do not define a specific measure (such as speed restrictions, traffic calming, cycle lanes

10 etc.).

7. Questions commitment to resource the plan Principal funding will continue to be from the County No change to the Plan. Council through LTP and LTP2.

20. Mr R Palmer Welcomes plan to promote cycling in Waverley, but Comments regarding the Objectives and Actions are No change to the Plan questions whether this will bring real benefits. noted. However, Surrey County Council is responsible Considers targets to be generally vague, not for the implementation of most schemes and has quantifiable and mostly not time-bound. appropriate targets in the LTP. Similarly, the County Specific reference to cycling to in Council is responsible for the Safe Routes to Schools Farnham. Refers to Action Plan in relation to ‘Safe programme and it is for the County to set targets for Routes to Schools’. Full of language like ‘consultation’, the implementation. Members of the Cycle Forum ‘provide information’ and ‘ongoing’. Does not consider attended a county-wide review of the LTP objectives as there to be any real action in mind. Suggests targets part of Surrey County Council’s preparation of LTP2. such as: “nos. of km of cycle routes created by a Forum representatives spoke in support of measurable certain date?” “growth per annum in cycle counts on LTP2 objectives. key routes?” 0r “growth per annum in nos. of children For Waverley, it is the intention of the Cycle Forum to cycling to school?” monitor and measure progress in terms of the identified and prioritised sections and network severance points.

Considers there to be a paucity of existing and See proposal above for providing more detail on the It is recommended that the maps showing proposed routes, except in remote rural areas – maps of the Waverley Cycle Network. In addition, the the Waverley Cycle Network be amended suggests that little will change. inclusion of the prioritised list of suggested and the prioritised list of suggested schemes schemes/works provides a clearer picture of the local be added as a further annexe, as detailed Considers Plan should contain well designed priorities. above. measurable time-bound targets that will force an improvement in cycle facilities in Waverley.

21. Mr S Bailey, Very pleased to see Waverley considering cycling in Objective 1, Action Point 4 is intended to ensure that No change to the Plan. Manager, Blackwater this way. Supports actions in the Plan, particularly cross-boundary routes are considered. Suggest that Valley Countryside pleased to see Objective 1, Action 4 relating to links the Blackwater Valley Countryside Service provide Service across district boundaries. States that this is one details of the proposals to improve cycle provision in aspect of cycling provision that often fails. the Blackwater Valley, so that this can be considered in conjunction with the cycle routes within Waverley. They are working to develop improved cycling links in the south of the Blackwater Valley, including developing sections of the riverside Blackwater Valley path for cycle use. Would welcome improved cycle links to these routes and routes within Waverley.

Slightly concerned that the Sustainability Report is so Comments regarding the Sustainability Report are No change to the Plan totally positive. Their experience of creating cycling noted. However, much of the Waverley Strategic Cycle facilities shows that there are potentially negative Network is located in urban settings and/or uses the impacts:- existing road network. In addition, whilst the comments

11  Conflict with other users of the route regarding illegal motorcycle use are noted, these can (walkers, horse riders); be a problem not just on the bridleway network.  Negative impacts on landscape e.g. widening and surfacing routes, clearing In the light of the comments from the Blackwater Valley undergrowth; Countryside Service, the Sustainability Report  Light pollution; accompanying the draft Plan has been updated in  Negative impacts on wildlife conservation consultation with the Council’s Sustainability Co- due to increased disturbance, light pollution, ordinator. The comment regarding the potential hard surfacing; negative impact where walkers, horse riders and  Cycling routes opening up areas for other cyclists may be using the same route is noted. It should unsuitable users e.g. motorcyclists. be pointed out, however, that one of the changes proposed to the Action Plan, in response to the Considers that these conflicts and negative impacts are representations on behalf of the Ramblers’ Association, particularly great where the route is an official cycle is to consult other non-motorised transport users on route and part of the highway network, due to the proposals for mixed-use routes. standards for such routes being more appropriate for urban locations. One of the existing Action Points supporting Objective 2 is to contribute to guidelines regarding the appropriate forms of surface treatment, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas.

Overall, whilst the comments on the Sustainability Report are noted, it is not considered that there would be adverse environmental effects such that the Cycle Plan itself requires further change.

22. Mr S Trantom Commends proposals in the Draft Plan as a starting Objective 3 deals generally with the improvement of No change to the Plan point for encouraging cycling in the Borough. accessibility between town centres and the surrounding Particular interest is in Farnham and agrees that there residential areas and villages. is a need to provide dedicated routes for ‘utility’ cycling such as access to schools and work in addition to With regard to the comments about specific routes, recreational use. these issues are to be reviewed annually by the Cycle Forum. In this particular case it is suggested that the Pleased with progress made in Farnham in relation to respondent be encouraged to contact the local specific traffic calming schemes (Weydon Lane, Echo representatives from the Farnham Cycle Rights Barn Lane etc). Will provide some protection for Network [CRN(F)] to discuss the routes, particularly the cyclists, particularly students, who cycle to Weydon final route for NCN 22, which supersedes the route School, and . identified in the Local Plan 2002

Considers that there are sections of the A31 that are well served with a cycle lane to link Weydon Lane with South Street and the North Downs Way via the lane provided on the interim improvement measures to the A31.

12

In order to develop utility cycling, routes need to be sought on relatively flat ground for every day commuting, in addition to protecting cyclists from other traffic use.

Specific reference to difficulties in commuting from south Farnham to areas to the east (The Sands etc). Purposes that utility cycling in this part of Farnham to the east would be greatly enhanced by developing cycle access along the south side of the A31 Farnham Bypass, which is relatively flat.

A new ‘utility’ route could be implemented by linking the existing cycle lanes on the A31 mentioned above via a new a new cycle path along the wide verge between the Shepherd and Flock Roundabout and the North Downs Way access beside the BP filling Station.

It is possible to join the A31 westbound from the Sands using an existing cycle lane. However, this tapers out as the A31 approaches the Shepherd and Flock Roundabout. Suggests that it would not be difficult to provide access to central Farnham and south Farnham from a common link in the middle of the Shepherd and Flock Roundabout. Hopes that in the interval following the rejection of the A31 underpass proposals, this comment and proposal can be given some consideration in future plans.

23. Ms S Todd (Head of Fully supports the aims of the Plan and hopes to Suggest that Objective 1 be reworded as It is recommended that Objective 1 be Rights of Way and continue working closely with colleagues to help recommended by this respondent. reworded to read:- Countryside Access, implement those aims that are relevant to this group. Surrey County Council) “To develop a network of safe, One comment of detail relating to Objective 1. convenient and continuous cycle routes Currently states “….utilising, bridleways…”. Suggests in the Borough, including links with that it would be preferable to reword this to read adjacent cycle networks and utilising “…utilising rights of way…”. This is because cyclists rights of way and roads, where are also able to use ‘Byways Open to all Traffic appropriate.” (BOATs), which are a category of right of way. Suggests that it may be appropriate to route them along one of the BOATs in Waverley. Furthermore, she points out that in law it is an act of trespass for a cyclist to use a public footpath without the permission

13 of the landowner. Does not consider that the plan should give the impression of encouraging cyclists to ride on footpaths. Recognises that it is an entirely different matter if negotiations with a landowner result in permission being given for them to put a new promoted cycle route over a public footpath.

24. Mrs J Harris Agrees that there are many advantages in encouraging The Cycling Plan does not go into detail about No change to the Plan cycling. Has one specific concern. Refers to the individual routes. Suggest that the Forum and the intention to provide a cycle route between Godalming County Council are made aware of the concerns raised and Farncombe. Hopes that this does not mean that it by Mrs Harris so that they can be taken into account is proposed to construct a cycle route across the when the details of this route are being considered. Lammas Land between Chalk Road and The Burys. Also notes that Environment Agency has not been consulted about any of the cycle routes.

25. Mr D Moxon Welcomes the general encouragement of cycling. Points out that one less obvious benefit is that it can save mileage. Example is cycling to school or station as opposed to being dropped off, where the car journey is both to and from.

Key points raised are summarised as follows:-

1. Persuading people to cycle more requires a Objective 9 Action Point 1 proposes an annual No change to the Plan mixture of inspiration and education. contribution to the Link magazine. Suggests articles in “The Link” perhaps even a regular slot?

2. By all means support dedicated cycle tracks, It is proposed that paragraph 3.2 be extended to refer It is recommended that paragraph 3.2 be but cycle friendly roads matter just as much. to the fact that the existing network of roads will extended with the addition of the following:- Cycling Plan does make reference to roads, continue to be an important part of the local cycle but considers that their contribution towards infrastructure? “Notwithstanding the provision of the cycling infrastructure could be made dedicated cycle routes, existing roads will more forcefully. still form the basic framework for the local cycle infrastructure.”

3. Comments that it is assumed that cycling on Cycle Forum considers that paragraph 3.1 of the Plan It is recommended that paragraph 3.1 be bridleways is a leisure activity. However, he should be amended to state that the existing network of extended by the addition of the following:- refers to the benefits for utility cycling. Gives rights of way can support both utility and leisure an example where the off-road route was cycling. “The existing networks of public rights of shorter than the on-road equivalent. way can support both utility cycling and However identifies maintenance of off-road The Forum notes the suggestion that bridleways leisure cycling.”

14 routes as the problem. Should identify which should be surveyed to establish their suitability for bridleways (and other off-road routes) can cycling. However, such work would have resource best contribute to the cycling infrastructure. implications. The Cycle Forum itself is not resourced Ensure that they are then well advertised to do this and, therefore, the issue would need to be and maintained so that they remain fit for the considered on a case-by-case basis. purpose.

4. Refers to some statistics regarding cycle use The Cycle Forum encourages the quantitative No change to the Plan as a proportion of journeys. However, he monitoring of cycle use, but gathering cycle rates is the comments that census information would not responsibility of the County Council. include cycle trips made as part of a journey using other modes (i.e. cycling the station for an onward journey by train). Set targets if the data is there, but be sure that you have a reliable baseline in respect of current cycle use and can then measure trends accurately.

5. Contribute to the development of Surrey The Forum as a whole does not have the detailed local No change to the Plan Cycle Guides. knowledge. However, on a local basis participants have and may continue to support the guides.

6. Ensure adequate provision of perking space Cycle Plan already includes a commitment to keep No change to the Plan at railway stations. An up-to-date survey of cycle parking under review. the adequacy of current provision is needed. (gives an example where cycle parking provision at a station was inadequate resulting in a number of bikes being left in the open and padlocked to other things.

7. Work with South West Trains to make travel Objective 5 and its associated Action points relate to No change to the Plan by train with a bike more practical. Sad to the integration of cycling with public transport. find that trains are now less cycle-friendly than they used to be.

26. Mr M Ellis Regular cyclist between Weybourne Village Hall and Farnham Hospital as well as into Farnham Centre and surrounding district. Identifies the following needs and problems:-

1. Creation of cycle path between Six Bells Forum considers that CRN (F) should consider this No change to the plan roundabout and the Sainsburys roundabout particular suggestion and feed this into the annual is a priority; review of the Action Plan and priorities in July.

15 2. Six Bells roundabout, Sainsburys roundabout The Forum notes the comments about these See comments above regarding the addition and Shepherd and Flock roundabout are roundabouts. Works in this area have already been of the prioritised list of suggested schemes very dangerous at the cycleway crossing identified by the Forum as one of the highest priorities as a further annexe to the Plan. points. Needs pedestrian controlled lights, or in Waverley. (See the prioritised list of suggested at least a zebra style crossing; schemes now to be attached as a further annexe to the Plan).

3. Companies and public authorities need to be See proposed change to Action Point 2 for Objective 3 See changes identified above encouraged to provide secure locked gate and the proposed additional Action Point in support of (Representation No. 6, page 3). areas for staff cycles. Example of Farnham this Objective (page 3 above) Hospital where there have been incidents of vandalism to employees bikes;

4. A continuous cycle path is required from See comments in response to the second comment See response to point 2 of this respondent’s Farnham Town centre to the Weybourne from this respondent. The Six Bells roundabout is the representations. Schools; severance point for this route to the schools in question.

5. All public cycle parking to have shelter from Sheltered parking is preferable and should be required No change to the Plan. the weather. for long-term parking (rail stations, places of work, etc.). However, In some locations available space precludes covered stands.

27. Ms C Allan Comments as follows:-

1. Suggest update section 2.2 to reflect up-to- Suggest that paragraph 2.2 be revised to refer to the It is proposed that paragraph 2.2 be replaced date National policies. Should refer to the most up-to-date national guidance. with a new paragraph to read:- White Paper “The Future of Transport” published 2004. Reference to Chapter 6 and “The Government White Paper The Future the quote:- “moving away from the ‘one size of Transport, published in 2004, includes fits all’ national target and towards working a section relating to ‘Walking and closely with individual local authorities to put Cycling’. The overall aim is to increase in place sharper, more focused, local plans walking and cycling. It states that this and targets for cycling and walking.” will:- Considers the plan to be a good opportunity  Help to reduce car use and to to further these locally focused goals. Also tackle social inclusion, making refers to the Dept. of Transport “Walking and towns and cities safer and more Cycling: an Action Plan”. Contains good pleasant to live in; practical examples. Considers that the Plan  Help to reduce congestion and should also refer to this. improve air quality; and  Increase levels of physical activity to improve health.

It sets out a list of aims and objectives to

16 achieve this. One of these states:-

“Moving away from the ‘one size fits all’ national target and towards working closely with individual local authorities to put in place sharper, more focused, local plans and targets for cycling and walking.”

The Department of Transport has also published its ‘Walking and Cycling Action Plan’. This includes good practical examples relating to the promotion of cycling and walking.”

2. Refers to the ‘Hierarchy of Provision’ – and Suggest that paragraph 2.3 be amended to refer to It is recommended that paragraph 2.3 be also to the Dept. of Transport draft Local Department of Transport guidance LTN01/04. amended to read:- Transport Note LTN1/04. Considers that the Cycle Plan should specify as a clear Cycle Forum may wish to use the Hierarchy to “As part of the NCS, the Department objective that – “all decisions relating to cycle underpin its consideration of proposed schemes. for Transport has sponsored the provision will be governed by the principles However, it will be a matter for the relevant authority development of national guidance: of the hierarchy of solutions as set out in (usually SCC) to determine its approach to individual Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure ‘Cycle Friendly Infrastructure’ (or LTN1/04 if schemes. Guidelines for Planning and Design this is adopted).” Considers that embracing and Traffic Advisory Leaflet (TAL) the Hierarchy in the Cycling Plan will ensure 7/98, Guidelines for Cycle Audit and that issues of speeding and traffic volume Cycle Review. These guidelines, and are not ignored. PPG 13 (see below), define a hierarchy of solutions (starting with traffic reduction, then speed reduction and so on, through to off-road provision) that should be applied when designing schemes to meet the needs of cyclists. The types of solutions applied are not mutually exclusive and ideally should be combined to increase cycle uptake. Local Transport Note (LTN01/04) was published by the Department of Transport as a Consultation Draft in April 2004. It also refers to the hierarchy of provision in relation to pedestrian and cycle provision. It does add that the hierarchy does not necessarily apply to schemes where it is intended to construct totally new

17 cycle tracks/footpaths to a high standard which offer a more advantageous route than the equivalent route for motorised traffic.”

3. Considers that overall the Plan is too ‘route’ It is proposed that Objective 2 of the Plan be amended It is recommended that Objective 2 be and ‘network’ orientated. Considers that to refer to safeguarding, maintaining and enhancing the amended to read:- cyclists should be welcome on all roads in suitability for cycle use of the general road network, the Borough and not directed onto those that with priority given to the Waverley Cycle Network. “To safeguard, maintain and enhance the are deemed to be safe. Plan should make suitability for cycle use of both the sure that dedicated provision is not seen as Waverley Cycle Network and the general a substitute for Borough-wide cycle road network, with priority given to the friendliness. Considers that wording to this Waverley Cycle Network.” effect should be added to Objective 2 as follows:- “…and to work with the appropriate authorities to ensure that no road in the Borough continues to be or becomes unfriendly or unwelcoming to cyclists.”

4. Reference to National Cycling Strategy Suggest that paragraph 2.1 be expanded to refer to (NCS), which states that one of the Annexe 2 of the National Cycling Strategy. Also It is proposed that paragraph 2.1 be objectives a local cycling strategy should suggest that the Aim of the plan be modified to extended with the addition of the following:- have is:- “To maximise the role of cycling as incorporate the aim set out in that Annexe. a transport mode, in order to reduce the use “Annexe 2 of the NCS provides ‘A Model of private cars.” Considers this should be Local Cycling Strategy’. One of its added to the Cycling Plan. objectives is to maximise the role of cycling as a transport mode, in order to reduce the use of private cars.”

It is also proposed that the overall Aim of the Plan be amended to read:-

“To maximise the role of cycling as a transport mode in Waverley, so as to reduce the use of private cars, to help achieve the cycle-related targets in the Surrey Local Transport Plan and to give real travel choice by providing opportunities for cycling.” 5. Although the Sustainability Report refers to Whilst the Forum may wish to encourage Authorities to other Waverley strategies, considers that the include references to Cycling Policies in other No change to the Plan. Cycling Plan should clearly state the need to strategies, it will still be for the respective Authorities to maintain on-going links with them. Suggest determine whether such reference is made and if so, additional Objective to read:- “To ensure what form it takes. that policies to increase cycling and meet the

18 needs of cyclists are fully integrated into all other strategy documents produced by the Borough.”

6. Proposes an amendment to Objective 2 Local cycle representatives on the Forum would like to Action Point 1 to indicate that an audit, see the word ‘significant’ dropped from Objective 2, No change to the Plan. backed by consultation with the Forum, Action Point 1. It would then read:- “Carry out a cycle should be carried out for all highway audit on all highway improvement and maintenance improvement schemes, not just those schemes and then consult the Forum to obtain best considered to be ‘significant’. value for cyclists.” However, the responsibility for implementing this Action is with Surrey CC. Therefore any change to this Action point must be subject first to the views of the County Highway Authority. The proposed annual review of the Action Plan will give the opportunity for the Forum to consider this further.

7. Proposes additions to the Action Points in It is the intention that the Forum will review the Action support of Objective 2 (all outlined in the Plan annually. It is proposed, therefore that the first It is recommended that a further Action Point Annexe to the NCS:- two additional points be considered at this annual be added in support of Objective 2, to read:-  The authority will ensure that review. It is proposed that the third point, relating to development does not sever planning benefits be added at this stage. “Wherever possible, ‘planning gain’ routes used by cyclists or opportunities will be exploited to improve pedestrians or unjustly prejudice transport infrastructure to aid cyclists.” accessibility by walking and cycling.  Measures will be provided, wherever possible, to improve cyclists’ safety and give cyclists greater priority (in terms of access and journey time) over other traffic, on all roads with significant cycle flows or significant potential cycle flows. Cycle priority measures include, for example: traffic management to reduce traffic volumes, supported wherever possible by exemption for cyclists from traffic restrictions applying to general traffic, where it is safe to do so; speed limit reduction, traffic calming and junction treatment to reduce traffic speeds; advisory and mandatory cycle lanes, bus/cycle lanes and widened nearside lanes;

19 advanced stop lines; changes in junction priority; toucan crossings and cycle priority at traffic signals.  Wherever possible, ‘planning gain’ opportunities will be exploited to improve transport infrastructure to aid cyclists.

8. Suggested additional Action Point to support It is proposed that the Forum show its support for Objective 9, as follows:- “The Borough will National Bike Week with the addition of a further Action It is recommended that an additional Action support the annual national event ‘Bike Point in support of Objective 9. Point be added in support of Objective 9, to Week’ and the promotional activities staged read:- by local cycling groups in celebration of it.” “Support the annual National Bike Week event and promotional activities staged by local cycle groups to celebrate it.”

9. Comments on the Sustainability Report and See comments above regarding the Sustainability the Social Objective to “reduce poverty and Report. See comments above regarding the social exclusion.” Would argue that this is Sustainability Report. relevant. Cheaper than driving, quicker than walking, and more flexible than public transport. It is a readily accessible, affordable and simple means of transport that offers much to the cause of reducing social exclusion.

28. Mr P Burrell (Town Fully supportive of the principles contained in the Plan, Suggest that additional paragraph be added after the It is recommended that an additional Planning Manager especially those set out in Objective 5 of integrating existing paragraph 2.4 to refer to the SRA document. paragraph be added after existing paragraph Strategic Rail Authority) cycling with public transport services and facilities. 2.4 to read:-

SRA published its own Cycle policy in November 2004. “In November 2004, the Strategic Rail This sets out a positive agenda for the railway industry Authority published its Cycling Policy. It to encourage, amongst other things, passengers to sets out various aims, including cycle to stations. Would be helpful if this guidance increasing the provision appropriate were referred to in Section 2, given its shared aims in cycle parking facilities at stations; and many respects. ensuring that the train operating companies take into account the wider The sections of the SRA Cycling Policy that are benefits of cycling when considering particularly relevant to Objective 5 of the Waverley plan investment in cycle facilities and rules for are contained in ‘5. Station Access’ and 6. Cycle carrying cycles.” Parking at Stations’.

20 29. Mr P Minshull, Welcomes Cycling Plan as an initiative to reduce the One of the proposals in the prioritised list of suggested No change to the Plan. Network Strategy (South amount of car based travel. From documents it is not schemes relates to a link section on the west side of East), Highways Agency clear if the Cycling Plan impacts on the A3. It appears the A3, between Lower Eashing and Norney. The not to do so, in which case, the Agency does not have intention is to pursue this with the Highways Agency. any specific comments on the plan. However, would like to be informed if cycleways do make use of the A3. Local Cycling interest groups made representations at the recent A3 Public Inquiry about their preference for the existing A3 to be retained for cycling use once the new tunnel has been built.

30. Mr D Baker No substantive comments to make on the Comments noted No change to the Plan (Environment Agency) Sustainability Report. Welcomes Draft Plan as a contribution to promoting more sustainable modes of transportation.

31. Farnham Town Comments in response to the 11 Plan Objectives as Town Council’s broad support for the Plan and its No change to the Plan Council follows:- objectives is welcomed. The comments regarding 1. Strongly supports development of a strategic partnership working between different authorities are network of cycle routes in Farnham and noted. However, the principal funding for projects is adjoining, providing a more attractive still likely to be from the County Council. As far as this alternative to reliance on the car. Council is concerned, any proposals requiring increased resources would need to be considered 2. Strongly believes that maintenance and separately. improvement of the strategic cycle network must be adequately resourced to ensure long-term viability as an alternative to reliance on car.

3. Strongly supports improvements to achieve safer and easier cycle access to and from Farnham town centre and adjoining residential areas as a means of encouraging modal shift from the car to cycling and walking.

4. Town Council urges Waverley Borough Council to support Safe Routes to Schools Initiatives, including development of school transport travel plans in order to address over reliance of the car for home to school journeys.

5. Town Council urges Waverley Borough Council and Surrey County Council to work

21 in partnership with the local train and bus operators (South West Trains and Stagecoach Hants and Surrey), in delivering and securing improvements such as secure cycle storage at Farnham station and improved cycle links to make use of cycle and rail journeys more secure and attractive.

6. Town Council wishes to work in partnership with Waverley Borough Council, Surrey County Council and other bodies in promoting cycling for recreational and tourist purposes in and around Farnham’s attractive rural hinterland.

7. Town Council urges Waverley Borough Council to work in partnership with Surrey County Council, Hampshire County Council and Sustrans in linking Waverley to the National Cycle Network. Farnham Town Council supports the principle of the proposed National Cycle Network Route 22 (London to Portsmouth) subject to sensitive and careful planning through the Farnham area.

8. Town Council wishes to work in partnership with Waverley Borough Council, Surrey County Council and other relevant bodies in improving the standards and number of secure cycling facilities in appropriate locations.

9. Town Council welcomes Waverley Borough Council’s objective of raising public awareness of the environmental and health benefits to be gained from cycling.

10. Town Council strongly supports the objective of making the crossing of busy roads such as the A31 and A3 safer for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders.

11. Town Council strongly supports the provision of cycle training in appropriate locations and

22 urges Waverley Borough Council to work in partnership with Surrey County Council in achieving this objective.

32. Mr A Fordham Proposes updating of the text in the Cycling Plan Comments noted – agree that text should be updated. It is recommended that the existing (Cycling Officer, Surrey relating to the LTP and LTP2. paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7 be replaced with the CC) following new paragraphs:-

“2.6 The first Surrey Local Transport Plan

(LTP1) set out the County Council's objectives, targets and strategies for transport in Surrey covering the five

years from 2001/2002 to 2005/2006. It

advocated an integrated approach to transport provision, which sought to widen travel choices whilst also

managing the demand for travel. LTP1 included a number of targets relevant to cycling, including those related to

reducing road casualties and increasing accessibility to town centres, schools, colleges by public transport, cycling and

walking. However, the two key targets

were: 3. to raise the cycling proportion of all

trips in Surrey from 2% in 1999 to

4% in 2006, 6% in 2011 and 8% in 2016; 4. to raise the cycling proportion of

school trips in Surrey from 7% in 1999 to 9% in 2006, 15% in 2011 and 20% in 2016.

2.7 LTP1 included a topic strategy on cycling. This strategy set out one

overriding objective, which was to

23 improve the quality of journey and the

facilities at the cyclist's destination. When LTP1 was published in July 2000, there were some 470 km (300 miles) of on

or off-road cycle routes within the county.

The cycling topic strategy aimed to implement another 1,000 km (625 miles) of cycle network within the five years of

LTP1. It intended to extend the total network to reach 4,000 km (2,500 miles) by 2016. The County Council is now

preparing LTP2 that will focus on five shared priorities: Accessibility, Congestion, Safety, Air Quality and

Quality of Life. Cycling targets forming

part of LTP2 will be based on % number of journeys. Lengths of cycle routes will

no longer be a target. Cycle fora have

been consulted in order to identify priorities.”

Comments that at a County-wide forum meeting it was Noted and agreed. It is recommended that the network within agreed that the word ‘strategic’ be removed from the the Borough be referred to as the Waverley phrase ‘Strategic Cycle Network’. Cycle Network by the omission of the word ‘strategic’.

24