Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Cycle Strategy Consultation Statement July 2016
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 1 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Introduction ...... 1
Consultation ...... 2
Representations ...... 3 A Citizen ...... 3 Alastair MacFarlane...... 4 amanda ...... 5 Andrea Barker ...... 6 Andy Bebington ...... 7 Andy Pretty ...... 8 Andy Walker ...... 9 Ann Brady ...... 10 anne at walpole ...... 11 Anne Frith ...... 13 Anon ...... 16 A Taylor ...... 17 B Glannon ...... 18 barogerl ...... 18 BecsocP ...... 19 Broads Authority ...... 21 Clara ...... 27 Colin Butler ...... 28 Corton Resident...... 31 DA Bird ...... 31 DAS ...... 32 David Butcher ...... 34 David Cask ...... 35 David Gwynn ...... 35 Dean Millican ...... 36 Dr. S M van Leeuwen...... 39 Edward ...... 43
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 2 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
frankie ...... 43 frazer ...... 44 Gilla16 ...... 45 gswietlik...... 4645 Halesworth Cycle Group ...... 46 Halesworth Town Council ...... 5049 Historic England ...... 53 Ian Reid ...... 54 Ipswich Borough Council ...... 54 JamesW ...... 55 Jamie Campbell ...... 56 Jane ...... 57 Jill ...... 58 Jim Elmes ...... 60 JJ ...... 61 John Shaw ...... 6261 john10 ...... 6362 Joseph ...... 6463 julia ...... 64 Keith Wink ...... 6564 Lea Court ...... 6665 Lowestoft Vision ...... 6766 M D Waller ...... 6867 valleyfarmholton ...... 69 Margaret ...... 7069 Michael Gasper ...... 71 Milligan_19 ...... 7271 Mr & Mrs Duncan ...... 7372 Mr & Mrs R U Cantwell ...... 7372 Mr Malcolm White ...... 7574 Mrs Chatfield ...... 7675 Mrs JM Huckle ...... 7776 Mrs Maxine Vincent ...... 7877 MrsGreen ...... 7978
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 3 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Natural England ...... 8078 Nicky Elliott...... 8079 NorCas ...... 8180 Norfolk County Council ...... 8281 Paul Belton ...... 8281 paul johnson ...... 8382 Paul Warren...... 8584 Peter Reeve ...... 8685 Phil Sillet ...... 8786 R Millner ...... 8887 Richard Morling ...... 9089 Rob ...... 9493 Sally MacDonald ...... 9695 Sam’s Bicycles ...... 9796 senojea ...... 10098 Seth Williams ...... 10099 Shirley Russell ...... 102101 Sue Bergin ...... 102101 Summers ...... 104102 Vic ...... 104103 Waveney & Yare Housing Association ...... 105104 Waveney Cycling Campaign ...... 106105 Waveney Cyclist ...... 110108 Wendy Summerfield ...... 111110
Appendix 1 Press Release text ...... 113112
Appendix 2 Media publicity ...... 114113
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 4 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Introduction
The Cycle Strategy provides an overview of existing cycle routes in the Waveney District and sets out a list of improvements that, if delivered, would enhance the cycle network. The intention is to provide additional context and information to support proposals to encourage more people to cycle for commuting and recreation.
In Waveney the cycle network consists of a limited number of high quality traffic-free cycle paths but is more widely characterised by a series of fragmented routes with rough surfaces and limited connections that are often difficult to follow. The gaps in the cycle network created by past development and the increased popularity of cycling as a mode of transport make it necessary to consider how the cycle network can be improved through both cycle routes and specific site improvements. This The document is intended to proactively identify improvements that could be considered when opportunities arise.
To raise the profile of cycling and foster the understanding that it can be a feasible, enjoyable and safe method of travel it is important that cycle networks are created so they are easy to follow and make use of logical travel routes. Investment in cycle infrastructure should consider how the improvements will contribute to the cycle network and how this will contribute towards the long- term modal shift towards greater cycle participation.
The Cycle Strategy will help ensure that proposed future development considers how cycle provision can enhance development proposals and positively contribute towards the wider cycle network to benefit the community.
This document details the consultation undertaken during the preparation of the Strategy.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 1 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Consultation
Waveney District Council prepared a draft Cycle Strategy that was made available for public comment from February 2nd to March 15th 2016. Comments were sought on the issues discussed in the document, proposed improvements. and Ccomments suggesting additional issues and alternative solutions were welcomedalso welcomed.
The draft Cycle Strategy was made available to view online via the Waveney District Council consultation portal where respondents could also submit representations. Additionally, representations could be submitted by email and letter. Invitations to comment on the draft document were sent to: statutory consultees; neighbouring local authorities and parish councils; town and parish councils in the District; local cycle groups; Developers Forum; and members of the public who are part of Planning Policy’s consultation list by email (or by post where this was not applicable); alerting them to the opportunity to take part in the consultation and highlight issues in the area or concerns they may have about the suggested improvements.
Hard copies of the draft Cycle Strategy were provided for the Waveney Customer Services Centre in Lowestoft, local libraries, and Waveney District Council offices (Riverside) and the Member’s Room. Hard copies were made available upon request.
To support the consultation document an interactive map was devised. This set out all of the issues and the suggested improvements included in the document. This map can be accessed using the following web link: http://arcg.is/1PdkgFs
The consultation was open between Friday 2nd February 2016 and Friday 15th March 2016 (6 weeks). To publicise the consultation a press release on the Waveney District Council website was provided on February 2nd 2016. Further publicity was provided by a variety of media including (Appendix 2): Newspapers; o East Anglian Daily times – 18th February 2016; o Beccles & Bungay Journal – 19th February 2016; o Lowestoft Journal – 19th February 2016; Websites; o ITV News website – 9th February 2016 o Lowestoft Journal website – 20th February 2016; Social media; o Facebook; o Streetlife; o Twitter.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 2 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Representations
There were 86 responses to the consultation highlighting a variety of issues, concerns and alternative improvements. The response to the draft Cycle Strategy consultation was generally positive.
Representations to the consultation, the Council’s response and the Council’s recommendation(s) are provided in the table below.
The document has been prepared with, and supported by, the Local Plan Working Group. The working group consists of 13 Elected Members and supported by Council officers.
A Citizen
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? A lack of safe cycle storage is always a concern and often makes people not want to cycle.
Some main routes are totally unsuitable for young and new cyclists - such as victoria road.
Lack of safe cycling routes around some schools is a major and fundamental problem. How can we expect more people to use their cycles in the future if they dont start at an early age because it is to dangerous. Especially with some parents driving large vehicles such a small distance. Elm Tree and Dell road schools have this problem.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? A very good strategy identifying some key points for improvement. 100% supported
Officer Response Comments and concerns noted. The value of good cycle parking will be further highlighted. Many of the busy roads have cycle routes that are fragmented and hard to follow. The Strategy aims to highlight these issues and provide a framework to provide cycle routes for people of all abilities. The limited amount of quality cycle provision can be highlighted in the section about barriers to cycling.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 3 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Suggested Change Add photos to highlight different types of cycle storage facilities. Add new text setting out the need for a more strategic approach to cycle provision, including the need for better routes connecting to schools.
Alastair MacFarlane
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Not completed.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? I am very much in favour of encouraging cycling, in our area.
In Halesworth, we have a cycle route, that crosses the town and links up with the cycleway across Millennium Green. It is poorly signed and routed from the Metfield road to the town park. Along Chediston Street it goes against the one-way traffic flow. Confusion reigns, and it is an accident waiting to happen. For a start, could this be sorted out plus clarification on reaching Thror’fare, where a cyclist dismount sign is usually ignored.
Some cyclists seem to think, that they can push back the laws for safe road use, by riding on pavements, and using footways. Pedestrians suffer, the young are sometimes poorly led by adults, and visibility needs to be improved, for the safety of all concerned, by the use of lights and bright colours. My team can help with this.
We have seen a deterioration in road manners with increasing visitors from more congested areas, who see rural roads as a place to travel too fast. The accident figures for rural areas prove this. We are keen to promote a campaign for safe and legal cycle use, in schools cycling groups and so forth. Respect between road users should be encouraged. Along with the police, my organisation is wholeheartedly in favour of safe and responsible cycling, but the routes must be clearly and safely marked and followed.
Officer Response Route finding measures for cyclists are an issue throughout the District. A route extending from the town centre to the west of Halesworth is required. A contraflow lane is suggested in the document (H11), however, there are issues related to safety and conflict with traffic. Text can be added about to ensure any improvements made are highly visible to other road users.
Allowing cyclists to ride one-way through the Thoroughfare creates a cycle route that is inconsistent and difficult to enforce. Ideally, an easy to follow
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 4 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
route around the town centre connecting Chediston Street/Angel Link to Saxons Way and onto the Millennium Green path should be provided to reduce conflict. Such a route should reduce the justification to permit any cycling in the Thoroughfare thereby improving the shopping experience for pedestrians.
Cycling on footways is illegal but also highlights the issue of safety (real or perceived) and the lack of quality cycle routes available.
Poor driver awareness and driving habits can be included in the section about barriers to cycling. Poor cyclist habits and awareness can also be an issue.
Suggested Change Amend (H11) text to emphasise the need to consider safety for all users and consider the need to provide convenient and safe access from the area west of the town centre. Amend the text (H11) with an alternative option to consider a shared use path to connect Chediston Street to School Lane which would also act to provide further connections to the national cycle route and the town centre. Amend (H10) text to suggest alternative option related to improving the link between Chediston Street and Millennium Green.
Provide text in the section about barriers to cycling elaborating on poor driving and cycling habits.
amanda
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? it is laughable at the proposals you are making in regards to cycling more around Lowestoft and suburbs..as usual you are saying if you make cycle paths more people will cycle to work/for leisure... etc.... im pretty much correct in saying a large amount of these areas 1;do not work 2;are retired and unable to cycle 3;work a long way from this area;4;have no wish to cycle mainly due to our weather.5;do not wish to cycle if even we wanted to due to pollution from all the vehicle fumes (which have given us bad breathing in a short space of time moving here to oulton broad,as we walk to the park everyday with our pet).and finally 6;the path from Crompton road down Victoria road to the everitt park is very dangerously small in width as it is,in many many places along the route,so to split this path would be impossible to safely walk dogs/ride a bike/disabled scooter/push a double buggy/single pram along Victoria road completely.and the road is very small in width too so theres no way you could take some of the road and make the paths bigger
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 5 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
either side! I really would like to know who thinks of these ridiculous ideas.it is laughable it really is.and as for making the areas more satisfiable to the eye because you have added a cycle path..how can more concrete to the area to safely cycle on make our view even better?????please please listen to your people and stop wasting millions just to get a pat on the back..we need a vehicle crossing as a 3rd way into and out of Lowestoft.do this then carry on wasting the peoples monies.they wont mind as much then im sure...
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments noted.
Suggested Change No change.
Andrea Barker
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Really pleased to read (well I didn't read the whole document) about the cycling consultation, with a view to improving the local cycling routes
My boyfriend lives in pakefield and I visit weekends, we cycle a lot. I think Lowestoft and surrounding area has fantastic cycle facilities and paths, compared to a lot of seaside towns which we visit, but obviously further improvements are greatly welcomed.
In particular where paths are interrupted , stop abruptly or are disrupted by parked vehicles. It's also very annoying where when pavements/paths are wide enough but cycling is not allowed, and it is always helpful when cycling/walking areas are clearly marked on paths.
Yes we would particularly like the whole of the path along from the top of pakefield cliffs to the promenade to be available to cyclists, as he lives behind pakefield cliffs so that would be great for us.
One further point what happened to the cycle bridge ??!! It's all gone quiet. I have joined with everyone on the campaign for a new crossing (central of course, not next to the existing bascule bridge!) although a lot of people felt that this money should be spent on the new bridge, I understand that it is not possible as it was ear marked under a different scheme - can't remember what that was - so why is the cycle bridge not being built? It's dangerous cycling across the bascule bridge. We see loads of people on bikes these
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 6 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
days, couples, families, people going to work, so am sure the bridge would be welcomed by those cyclists plus it would get out of the way of traffic driving over the bridge. So please news on the cycle bridge please, surely this has no bearing really on the third crossing, as to when it might be built - to be able to cycle uninterrupted from pakefield cliffs to the bottom of north denies/cotton/gunton cliffs would be fantastic!
I should also have mentioned the path from McDonald's side of the water tower towards Kessingland along passed pontins, the path is very narrow so it is difficult and dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians, and cars go far too fast along this road.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Fragmented paths and poor way-finding measures are common across the District. Cycle paths are good when they are well connected and cover a reasonable amount of distance, however, cycling on narrow shared-use paths and footways can reinforce a confused approach towards provision and where cycling is (or is not) permitted. Delineated paths are best provided where they are wide enough but can create additional conflict where they are not.
The coastal path is currently being considered between Hopton-on-Sea and Aldeburgh. A cycle path friendly path in some areas would benefit to local area and improved connectivity in South Lowestoft would be of good value to the wider cycle network.
The pedestrian/cycle bridge remains an aspiration of the Local Council improve connectivity across Lake Lothing. Provision of this bridge is intertwined with potential development on the south side of Lake Lothing. Future options will be expected to take in account the potential third crossing announcement made by the national Government in early 2016.
Suggested Change Amend text to reflect coastal path considerations and the potential third crossing over Lake Lothing.
Andy Bebington
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? The main Southwold - Halesworth route needs attention as it is the only realistic route available; and is a main road. Apart from restricting traffic
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 7 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
speed, I am not sure what options are available given that widening the road is impracticable. A route to the north via Wangford appears the only alternative ...
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? On p. 10/87, I am sorry to see that driver behaviour is not mentioned. "Speed of traffic" is not the only issue which causes fear, drivers can be (perhaps inadvertently) threatening at low speeds, simply by not perceiving the world through the cyclist's eyes. Having said that, reference is made to cyclists who do not obey the law ... this unbalanced presentation is regrettable (and surprising on the part of a public body)
Officer Response On-road improvements along the A1095 are difficult to implement because of the narrow nature of the road. Road markings are suggested in issue (R8). A clearly signed route between Reydon and Wangford as part of a wider cycle route would improve provision in the area.
Poor driving habits are a safety hazard for cyclists and a deterrent to cycling in general. This issue can be added to the document.
Suggested Change Provide text about the use of road markings to raise driver awareness about cyclists on the route. Add text to rural section about improved road markings between Reydon and Wangford. Provide text in the section about barriers to cycling elaborating on poor driving and habits.
Andy Pretty
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Cycle Strategy B1062 Beccles – Bungay
I would just like to comment on the above. The traffic is allowed to travel far to fast on the road, with very few people sticking to the existing 60mph speed limit which is already too high. The road also has a good width for a B road. Would it be possible to lower the speed of the traffic and provide a proper full size cycle lane so that the vehicles do not brush past at 70+mph?
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 8 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
A safer direct link between the two towns would help commuters like myself. I quite often take a 10 mile journey for safety reasons just to get somewhere 5 miles away!
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments noted. Comments will be forwarded to the Highways Authority.
Suggested Change No change.
Andy Walker
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area?
I commute to work by bike, daily, into Lowestoft from Kessingland. I cycle more widely in the Waveney area for pleasure/fitness, out of working hours. I own a car.
I agree with the issues laid out in the consultation around patchy provision and a poorly-connected network. The good cycle paths are excellent e.g. alongside Peto Way/Millenium Way, most others are rather laughable – if they work it is because relatively few people use them. For example, living in Kessingland, you would expect that I would use the cycle lane provided alongside the A12. I tend not to (other than at nights and in bad weather) because a) it runs out in key places, b) it is poorly signed in places, c) in places it is too narrow to allow more than one pedestrian/cyclist at a time, d) some of the surfaces are dangerous (gravel, poorly repaired surface, overgrown) and e) it does not interconnect to local facilities. An example of the latter is getting to Morrisons at Pakefield, it means crossing the A12 at places where there is poor visibility and fast traffic. I would rather take my chances cycling on the road.
These considerations apply to most of the other cycle routes in Lowestoft, Beccles, Bungay, Halesworth & Southwold. For cycling to be a sensible alternative to driving, routes must be free-flowing. Those that expect one to dismount at odd intervals and stop at crossings are harder work and frustratingly slow – real disincentives. A saving grace is that compared to many other places I have lived, the drivers around here are comparatively slow and considerate - I do not get abused too often.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy?
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 9 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
The suggested improvements are, I expect, based on the assumption that there will be little or no resource to do anything more ambitious. Most look worth doing, but are tinkering at the edges. I think they will not encourage mass participation in cycling because there is not the separation from traffic/pedestrians to really feel safe and they do not have sufficient capacity. For example, I would like to see pupils at Pakefield High School being able to cycle to school from Kessingland, but there is just not enough cycle path, even if widened, or safe enough crossings.
Officer Response The Strategy is being prepared to take advantage of development opportunities and finding as they arise rather than taking a reactive approach which is subject to restrictions such as time frames and resources available.
Content setting out a more strategic approach to provide context to support the localised improvements in the document can be added.
Suggested Change Amend/include potential improvement in Lowestoft section to highlight issue related to the crossing at the Morrison's roundabout in Gisleham. Add section setting out strategic approach to cycle provision.
Ann Brady
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Not completed.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? I was pleased to see that you are looking into encouraging cycling in the Waveney area. However, I was horrified to see that you are considering reviewing the cycling ban on Halesworth Thoroughfare. I think this is a very dangerous suggestion.
The Thoroughfare is Halesworth offers a varied and relaxed shopping experience quite unlike many other 'High Streets' in market towns locally. In addition to some unusual shops there are several places providing tables outside for sitting with a tea or a coffee and watching the world go by.
As I am sure you are aware, the geography of Halesworth does not allow for traffic to be completely banned from The Thoroughfare and vehicles regularly travel one way through for deliveries, for disabled people to access
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 10 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
the shops and for some residents. At times The Thoroughfare is very full of traffic and pedestrians need to keep alert. This situation has been compounded in recent times but the number of mobility vehicles which people use to move up and down The Thoroughfare, often without much concern for pedestrians. When cyclists also ride through they tend not to wait but cycle into the pedestrian areas to overtake parked vehicles. At least at present pedestrians know that any traffic from vehicles 'should' only be approaching from one direction.
Now I am in my seventies and need a walking stick to help me these days and it may well be that in time to come I will be glad of a mobility vehicle of some kind. I had already been thinking recently that if that happens I will try and work out a way of only driving it one way in The Thoroughfare to avoid presenting a risk to pedestrians.
I would urge you not to allow two way cycling in The Thoroughfare in Halesworth. Surely if people are riding for enjoyment and/or fitness it will not be a great problem to continue to dismount and walk along the Thoroughfare if they enter from the 'wrong' direction?
Officer Response The national cycle route currently extends from Norwich Road, through the Thoroughfare and to Town Park via the car park. Ideally, the cycle route would avoid the town centre by continuing down Saxon's Way. Routes from the town centre heading west are difficult to follow and improving the connection from Chediston Street to Town Park via Saxon's Way would provide a more continuous route for cyclists that are easier to follow. Comments and concerns related to H10 have been noted.
Suggested Change Amend (H10) text to include other options related to the Thoroughfare and Saxon’s Way.
anne at walpole
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Yes - a lot:
1. I want to register - as strongly as possible - the way in which you persistently ignore the parishes which adjoin Halesworth and whose residents use services and shops etc in Halesworth. I have raised this over and over again - obviously to no avail - and would be pleased to hear directly from you as to why you apparently think we are uninportant . Without
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 11 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Streetlife I would not know what plans and proposals are being discussed and inplemented and nor would anyone else living beyond the boundary.
As well as this Cycling Strategy other recent examples include proposals to close the public crossing at Halesworth Station, and changes in car parking charges.
The matter in hand is cyclists in the Thoroughfare and whether they should be permitted to cycle both ways.
My response is a very definite 'NO' - and this is a definite 'NO' to cyclists using the Thoroughfare AT ANY TIME AT ALL OTHER THAN WITHIN THE SAME TIME AND SPEED RESTRICTIONS AS OTHER VEHICLES .
My reasons are as follows:
1. Cycles are just as dangerous as other vehicles in this narrow road and during shop opening hours the Thoroughfare is usually busy.
2. Cyclists are notoriously negligent with regard to pedestrians and seem to have a prevalent atitude that they have priority.Being able to cycle freely both ways would be a total disaster. and would result in frequent accidents and possibly reduce the numbers of pedestrians/people shopping as well as making it very difficult fro people with disabilities using mobility vehicles.
3. The Thorough is now set out as pedestrian area - are you intending to change this by removing the planters, preventing cafes from having outside tables, and reinstating the pavements?
4. I live on Halesworth Road in Walpole - very close to a SusTrans Route. Right through the year, and more especially in the summer months, we have battalions of cyclists coming through at speed, with little or no regard for pedestrians, other cyclists or any other road users.I'd be very sorry to see
Please don't spoil the Thoroughfare by permitting cyclists to travel in both directions.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy?
Yes - i think the proposal is sheer lunacy, and I do with that Waveney would loo beyond its physican boundary and include those of us who use services within Waveney but just happen to live outside the physical boundary.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 12 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
For what it's worth - I worked for SCC for years, and there was always a joke about people in Waveney being Flat Earthists who would never go beyond the Blyth Bridge lest they fell off the edge..... Think on it!
Officer Response The Waveney Planning Policy team does inform neighbouring parish councils outside of the District when consultations the team is responsible for are taking place. Neighbouring parish councils have been informed of this consultation. Organisations and members of the public can register to be kept informed of planning policy consultations using the following web link: http://www.waveney.gov.uk/newlocalplan.
The national cycle route currently extends from Norwich Road, through the Thoroughfare and to Town Park via the car park. Ideally, the cycle route would the town centre by continuing down Saxon's Way. Routes from the town centre heading west are difficult to follow and improving the connection from Chediston Street to Town Park via Saxon's Way would provide a more continuous route for cyclists that are easier to follow.
Comments and concerns related to H10 have been noted.
Suggested Change Amend (H10) text to include other options related to cycling in the town centre and Saxon’s Way.
Anne Frith
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Not completed.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Dear Mr Ritchie,
Pedestrian Needs are Ignored.
'To properly integrate footways, cycleways and roads, into the outdoor environment they need to be considered as safe and efficient public spaces that people of all ages and abilities can use.' The above is highlighted in the Government's 'Designing in Cycling.' I suggest that the above will only happen if a particular person is made responsible, and answerable, for promoting the views, which have previously been actively sought, of pedestrians. These include such as blind people and the elderly who are not able to cycle or drive.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 13 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
I refer to the suggestions, as published on the Waveney web-site, concerning the proposed changes in Beccles to the advantage of cyclists.
My district Councillor is passionate about cyclists. Sadly no-one is passionate about pedestrians and their safety and needs. Needs which are often, wrongly, confused with the needs of cyclists. Walkers are just as environmentally friendly as cyclists and the general public is being urged to walk more for health reasons. Walkers need to be safe. There must be more pedestrians than there are cyclists. Cyclists and motorists have choice as to mode of transport, and of route. Many pedestrians do not have such a choice.
Although some of the suggestions may improve the situation for all groups, or at least not disadvantage some users, some take no notice of other groups, and there is no-one to speak up for pedestrians..
There is no mention of a safety audit, nor who is responsible for safeguarding other vulnerable groups.
In particular I am opposed to the suggestion that cyclist should be allowed a contra-flow from the top of Blyburgate in Beccles, turning into the short one way section of Hungate. This section is extremely narrow and pedestrians on the left-hand side already frequently have to go into the road to pass each other. I traverse that pavement at least twice a day with my guide-dog, and I often have to flatten myself against the shop windows to avoid going into the road. At the same time, large vehicles often run along the edge of the kerb with their wingmirrors and other articles hanging over the pavement.
In the recommendation it is stated that some cyclists already ignore the one- way system at that point. Surely the rules of the road should be the same for all users? Ideally this section of road should have fewer, not more, users. Those cyclists who cycle purely to their own advantage are hardly likely to take notice of a mere white line on a footway which is supposed to separate cyclists from pedestrians. Cyclists are uninsured and usually silent.
Cyclists and pedestrians are often lumped together in reports when in fact no-one has been made responsible for consulting with groups of vulnerable pedestrians, and then being in a position to promote their views to help to come to a conclusion which could be to the advantage of all. At least it should not compromise the safety of other groups.
The Government guide-lines state that for a cyclist there should be a meter and a half available on a road. Two meters for cyclists to pass. I cannot measure this but as lorries, with the exclusive use of the Road, are already
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 14 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
hard up against the left-hand kerb, I doubt whether there is a spare meter and a half on the right hand side. If there is spare space, then I suggest that the pavement on the left-hand side should be widened to the great benefit of all pedestrians. Such a pavement should have a substantial kerb in order to discourage cyclists and lorries mounting it.
This highlights the discriminatory current practice of removing substantial kerbs and replacing them often with a single painted line. Vehicles, and in particular some cyclists, already ignore pavements and kerbs, and they use them at will. as a mere painted line is an invitation to invade the space. Controlled audible crossings are removed as it is said that motorists ignore red lights. In these areas, often called, 'shared spaces,' it is suggested that there should be twenty mile an hour speed limits. Priority is decided by eye- contact. The theory is that these areas, full of frustrated drivers, trucks, lorries, cycles, buses, pedestrians etc. will cause everyone to behave better once they have been educated to use them. The reality is that blind people, the old and frail and those with mental illnesses, cannot safely and independently navigate such areas and so we become increasingly house- bound and dependent. The proponents of such areas claim that people can be educated to use them. I assure you that if I could be educated to use these areas safely, I would have been so educated many years ago.
I note that very recently the Coroner in Leek, in a case concerning the death of a pedestrian in a controversial shared space area, has written to the County Council to replace the physical barriers between vehicles and pedestrians. In other areas roundabouts and audible crossing have had to be replaced at very considerable expense as the projects have been found to be unworkable or unsafe.
I understand that there are three court cases pending concerning accidents on courtesy crossings.
Below are more extracts from the paper on your web-site, Designing for Cycling.
'ideally with some clearly visible marked separation or physical separation where the location is considered appropriate.'....'Where considering the potential for a new direct route between destinations there is a need to weigh up the benefits against the risk of conflict with other road users...' 'Routes which involve taking cyclists on and off the pavement intermittently should be avoided...'
Officer Response Conflict can occur within shared-use spaces resulting from a lack of courtesy between users. However, this is often difficult to enforce. As the potential
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 15 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
improvements are only suggestions at this stage, safety audits would be required if or when projects are progressed.
The Blyburgate-Hungate junction is tight with limited scope to provide a contraflow lane safely for all users. Potential improvement Be6 can be removed from the document.
Suggested Change Additional text can be provided to outline the potential conflict between pedestrians and cyclists in shared use spaces. Remove Be6 (Beccles section) from the document.
Anon
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? The cycle paths around Southwold and Reydon are fragmented and need a 'joining' strategy.
In the consultation it mentions that there is no logical cycle path between Southwold & Halesworth. It would be a valued path to have one BUT only if this was totally or very substantially 'off road' To encourage use of the roads will only lead to more fatalities and, quite simply, more 'be aware' signs for motorists will be of limited use. An off road path would be a great benefit to the tourist industry between both locations and could in particular be a great boost to Halesworth..
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments noted. Quality cycle provision can contribute towards tourism in the area.
A coordinated approach to signage and road markings for cyclists would benefit the route between the two settlements. Particularly important considering many facilities serving Reydon are located in Southwold and the importance of tourism to the area.
Suggested Change Elaborate on the potential for cycling to contribute towards tourism in the area District. Make reference to off-road cycle routes to be made in this context. Add potential improvement to the Southwold & Reydon section about improving way-winding measures in the area.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 16 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
A Taylor
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? It's silly that the cycle path down the coastline diverts cyclists AWAY from our greatest asset. For instance, in Lowestoft there is a cycle friendly path (a promanade) going from the Denes all the way to the Harbour. The cycling path and flow for a walking tourist now takes them through the industrial (ugly) areas and up the scores as they travel through town, easily missing Ness Point and directing them through the uglyist bits of Lowestoft, as well as putting them in danger from heavy traffic.
The cyclist/pedestrian path SHOULD go to the very end of the prom where it hits the mouth of the harbour and then down Hamilton Docks road and then up to Wapland, a much more interesting, flat, and direct route. However there is a WALL between the two! Look at Google maps and you'll see the prom ends in a deary and ugly dead end. There's not even a bench there, and there should be.
A simple break in the wall and a very short fence preventing walkers and cyclist from accidently wandering into the industrial car park would do it. If you look on google Earth, you can see a white car parked where I think a cut in the wall should be made. This would cost very, very little in the scheme of things and work nicely with the plans for walking paths for tourists. If the Council made the cut, attractive (like what is going on now on the Esplanade) with attractive rail to direct people away from the two buildings, I don't see why the two buildings should object.
This would direct cyclists and walkers down Hamilton Docks to Wapland Rd where they can make a left turn onto the side walk and proceed to the Bridge without crossing traffic, cross the bridge and then continue down the Prom.
Were an exit was cut in the wall, then a walker or biker can walk from the Denes to Pakefield without walking in a road way at all and never leaving the seaside. He would also pass by the more interesting and attractive bits (Ness Point, Gulliver, Habour boats, etc) and not be forced to wander through our least attractive bits if he's doing a coastal walk.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy?
The Cycle strategy needs to talk to the people doing the tourism plan and coordinate with walking and tourist paths.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 17 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Officer Response Comments and suggestions noted. Work is currently progressing on the coastal path between Hopton-on-Sea and Aldeburgh. Pedestrian and cycle access is currently being considered in the Lowestoft Ness area as part of the project. Comments can be forward to the team involved in the project. (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/england-coast-path- aldeburgh-to-hopton-on-sea)
Suggested Change Text to be added to a tourism section to highlight the value of the route.
B Glannon
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Not completed.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Corton long lane is no longer a quiet road since the new roundabout at the A12 end of the road. we have horses, with stabling and grazing, riders across fields. There is dog walking, dogs and bikes don't mix.also there is shooting over the field. Most of the village feel along the A12 as Yarmouth have done is the preferred route.
Officer Response Comments noted. The two options proposed in the Corton area are to improve connections to Hopton and each route would cater for different types of users. Further work will be required about how these routes could be delivered which includes further assessment as to which route would have the greatest benefit.
Suggested Change No change.
barogerl
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? On the Beccles road, There is a gap in cycle route near the Crown PH. Cycling provision should be made on the seafront from Lowestoft to Pakefield The awkwardness of Abellio stop me from exploring more far flung areas
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? I will believe the improvements when they happen.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 18 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Officer Response The proposed development at Oakes Farm is expected to provide a connecting cycle route from Beccles Road to Mutfordwood (L73). This should replace the need for a connection between Beccles Road and Mutfordwood via the A146.
A continuous cycle route between the Lowestoft town centre and Pakefield would encourage people to cycle more often between the two areas. L60 is intended to provide a connection that helps complete this route. There is limited scope to improve the path on the seaward side of CEFAS.
Ideally, cycle provision on trains will improve in the future as part of the long-term East Anglia rail franchise.
Suggested Change Add text to emphasise the importance of the cycle route along the coast from Pakefield and the town centre.
BecsocP
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Beccles Society would like to comment on the Draft Cycle Strategy as it relates to the Beccles Area.
In general terms we very much accept the need to promote the safety of cyclists, but feel that this should not be at the disadvantage of pedestrians, particularly the elderly and infirm, since there are a high proportion of these in Beccles. We are therefore very wary of shared surfaces for pedestrians and cyclists, especially where significant numbers of pedestrians fall into the elderly category, many of whom may be hard of hearing (and some who are blind) and therefore unaware of approaching cyclists from behind. In relation to your detailed proposals, we would object to Be6 as we consider this option particularly dangerous for pedestrians walking up Blyburgate and intending to cross Hungate towards the town centre. As Hungate is one way into this junction most pedestrians would not be accustomed to looking over their shoulder to see if a cyclist is about to turn left at this point. We therefore regard this policy option as a safety hazard for pedestrians.
Our comments about shared surfaces applies to Be12. The main B1062 is quite wide at the point where you are considering a cycle facility and we would suggest that instead of a shared surface you consider a separate cycle track. This could be adjacent to the footway constructed between the footway and the main carriageway taking land from the highway. Perhaps
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 19 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
you would consider this as an alternative. Be20 also poses problems being another shared use proposal. Could not other alternatives be considered at this location as well. We also have concern about the proposals outlined in Be5 as improving the surfacing here may unfortunately exacerbate the existing flooding problems in the area, which we believe are connected to the poor maintenance of Beccles Common. Although the principles of Be5 are sound it is important in our view for the flooding issues on Beccles Common to be tackled first.
Finally, we are concerned about the concept of contraflow sections. Beccles being a tourist centre receives a lot of holiday makers and we perceive that a number of accidents will occur where contraflow sections are installed. In particular Be7 poses a difficulty since the access into the carpark for vehicles from Hungate is narrow and it is also used by pedestrians in both directions. Introducing a contraflow cycle lane will only add to the conflicts in this area and create hazards for all road users. We therefore wish to object to this proposal. Be11 involves a contraflow on part of Grove Road about which we similarly have reservations.
When you have considered all the consultation comments and reached some conclusions, it would be a useful idea to have an exhibition in each of the centres so that people can see more detailed plans of your proposals before they are finalised.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response The items set out in the document are possible solutions to existing issues. There may be other solutions available. The items listed will be subject to opportunities becoming available (funding, new development etc.) and when these arise then potential schemes would be drafted in detail.
(Be5) Reference can be made to installing a path that is permeable and raised to ensure it is useable in all weather conditions.
(Be6) The Blyburgate-Hungate junction is tight with limited scope to provide a contraflow lane safely for all users. Potential improvement Be6 can be removed from the document.
(Be7) There is limited scope to provide a contraflow entrance to the Blyburgate car park at present. Text can be added to clarify this should be a consideration if the site is redeveloped.
(Be11) Grove Road is reasonably wide and could support contraflow lane if well marked and segregated. Text can be amended in the document to
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 20 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
emphasise the need for a well conceived contraflow lane for the safety of all users.
(Be12) Converting the footway into a shared-use path without widening to accommodate all users is likely to create conflict.
(Be20) Potential improvements on this site are limited. Other than a shared- use path the other option is a short on-road cycle lane which is unlikely to be used by cyclists with the conflict between fast moving vehicles and HGVs.
Suggested Change Amend (Be5) text to consider the need to provide a path that is raised and permeable. Remove Be6 from the document.
Amend (Be11) to reference the need to provide clear markings and segregation to ensure the safety of all road users.
Amend (Be12) text to consider widening the path to safely accommodate pedestrians and cyclists.
Amend (Be20) to reference the need to widen the path to safely accommodate pedestrians and cyclists safely.
Broads Authority
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Not completed.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Page 3 – under ‘Transport’. Second sentence – Lowestoft and Ipswich repeated twice. Page 6 – Objectives of the Cycle Strategy diagram – ‘…work in partnership with different organisations’
Page 7 – last sentence of second paragraph staring ‘Socially…’. Second sentence does not read well as written
Page 7 – paragraph 4 – cycling can reduce household outgoings for anyone, not just those on lower incomes.
Page 8 – other barriers to cycling could be how cyclists are treated by car drivers (lack of space when overtaking for example), habit, can’t be bothered to cycle, the weather, how to get home quickly if there is an emergency, maintenance of the bicycle.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 21 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Page 8 – last paragraph – Whilst we agree in general with this sentiment, the issue of behaviour of car drivers is not mentioned. Some car drivers are not good drivers and some cyclists are not good cyclists. As written, seems to not mention the weaknesses of car drivers. Designing in cycling section – I am not sure what this section is. Is this advice or guidance for designing in cycling? Will developers be referred to this when preparing applications? Will it form a SPD or part of policy? I am confused about what this section actually is.
Page 19 – cyclable zebra crossings such as in Theatre Street, Norwich. With regards to lighting, we would welcome the strategy clarifying that new lighting should be angled down and be of the strength needed for the lighting task to limit any contribution to light pollution. Under parked vehicles, is it a good thing that parked cars slow down traffic? As written, it could be interpreted as a negative thing or an issue like the other things in the list.
Page 20 and 21 Table 7 – cycle parking and storage. Cyclists welcome cycle parking on the flat, not on a slope as the bike will move. Natural surveillance or CCTV is ideal to deter theft or enable thieves to be caught.
The cycling improvements tables seem logical and the section well laid out. But some of the measures to improve the situation are quite vague whereas others are quite detailed. We highlight the improvements which seem vague when compared to other improvements. We have concentrated on the areas in or near to the Broads. We do not have any comments on the improvements, per se. We would suggest some clarity or detail on some improvements/ The study talks about physical improvements to the network. But how are the other barriers as discussed on page 8 to be addressed?
Have you considered linking nearby villages to the main urban areas you consider? Perhaps those up to 3 miles away?
Cycling in Beccles and Worlingham: Be1 – what are the suggested measures? Be4 – what kind of crossing? Be5 – by improving the surface, would the drainage issue be addressed? Be14, 19 and 20 - what are the suggested improvements? Any improvements to cycle parking?
Cycling in Bungay: Bu2 – what kind of improvements to the crossing? Bu4 – what kind of improvements to the junction?
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 22 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Bu6 – What locations for improved cycle parking? Bu7 – What kind of measures could remove disruptions? Bu10 – the improvements says ‘…cycle cyclists…’ Bu12 – the issues says ‘…and the swimming located…’ – is the word ‘pool’ missing? Bu21 – What kind of improvements to the path? Bu23 – What do you mean by ‘cycle connection’?
Cycling in Lowestoft: L4 – What kind of improvements to the junction? L13 – what are the lanes that could be provided? L15 – what kind of improvements to the junction? L29 – What kind of crossing over the railway line? L34 – could the footpath be turned into a bridleway to allow cycling (and horse riding)? L35 and L37 – what kind of cycle routes? L41 – Is this a feasibility study for this area? L42 – suggested improvement says ‘…cycle route is redevelopment…’. L44, 49, 50– What kind of improvements to the junction? L46 – what kind of improvements to the link? L58 – What kind of improvements to the connection? L66 – What kind of improvements to the cycle links? L67 – What kind of improvements to the barriers?
Rural areas: R10 – what kind of measures?
Appendix 1 – is it worth emphasising that you mean ‘Sheffield Stand’ when the term ‘stand’is uses?
Appendix 2 – is it worth including the Broads Integrated Access Strategy? The current one is 2013 to 2015 but the refresh is due in the next few months. http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publications- and-reports/ conservation-publications-and-reports/water-conservation-reports/49.- Integrated-Access-Strategy.pdf http://www.broads- authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/421859/EB8b.pdf
Comments from Waterways and Recreation Office:
There is no mention of linking the road cycling network to off road cycling opportunities and rural routes. The sort of things I’m thinking about are upgrading existing routes to make them suitable for cycling e.g. bridleways
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 23 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
and linking them to promoted quiet road routes. For example providing a cycle route from Oulton Broad to the river bank opposite the Waveney River Centre by upgrading the existing public rights of way would link to the Burgh St Peter Ferry which can take cycles and actively encourages cyclists to use it. This would then open up five promoted cycle routes in the area of Beccles, Bungay and Toft Monks. It would also improve cycling links to the public transport network as the routes I’m talking about link to the rail stations at Oulton Broad, Beccles, Reedham, Haddiscoe and Somerleyton. If further Cycling Ambition in National Parks funding is made available by the DfT this sort of project would score highly.
Additionally, and linked to the health agenda, they haven’t mentioned inclusive cycling. This is something that Norfolk will hopefully be including in its Cycling and Walking Action Plan. By drawing links to the plans of other authorities it may be possible to demonstrate added value to other funding allocations that are made.
Officer Response Amendments to the document can be made in response to the issues and concerns raised. As a strategy, the 'Designing in Cycling' section provides information about what types of provision should be considered as part of a planning application or decision. While the document is anticipated to be adopted by Full Council it will not form an SPD therefore will not have the weight of an adopted policy. However, it will be a material consideration.
Text can be added to ensure that lighting is directed downwards and is sensitive to its surroundings.
Parked cars can have the effect of slowing cars down by narrowing the street, however, experience suggests on-street car parking also creates congested streets increasing the conflict between cyclists and vehicles and inadvertently pedestrians when cyclists ride along footways to avoid the traffic. The text can be amended to clarify this point.
The section about cycle parking can be amended to include reference to flat locations and areas with natural or CCTV surveillance.
Some of the suggested improvements are quite vague where they require particular specialist feedback such as Highways England or where traffic regulations are involved. This is outside the remit of the Local Authority and any potential scheme or options could take some time to refine. Therefore it is difficult to include anything too specific in some cases. Text can be amended to reflect these as 'considerations' rather than 'improvements'.
Trying to improve connections between villages and their nearby service centres is important and can be discussed in the document.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 24 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Reference can be made to the Broads Integrated Access Study.
Suggested Change Add driver awareness and driving habits to the list of cycle barriers. Add text to clarify how the document is to be used.
Add text to clarify that lighting is best directed downwards and should respect its surroundings.
Add text to provide greater context of how parked cars and cluttered streets affect road users and movement patterns.
Amend text to clarify cycle are best located on flat and well over-looked areas.
Amend 'potential solutions' to read 'considerations' where solutions are not provided.
Add text and potential improvement suggestion to reference small villages located near larger service centres.
Reference the Broads Authority 'Integrated Access Study' in Appendix 2.
Amend the following items:
(Be1) Add text to state better cycle road markings.
(Be4) Add toucan crossing.
(Be5) Amend text to state the path should be permeable and raised to keep it useable in all weather conditions.
(Be14) Add text to state an on-road cycle lane should be provided with access to the junction.
(Be15) Add text to suggest additional signage to raise driver awareness and a non-signalled crossing for cyclists. The connecting paths on each side of the roundabout should be widened to reduce conflict and increase visibility.
(Be20) Add text to suggest widening the path to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists safely.
(Bu2) Widening the path to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists.
(Bu4) Amend to read 'consideration' rather than 'suggested improvement'.
(Bu7) Amend to read 'consideration' rather than 'suggested improvement'. Make reference to car parking in the contraflow as the primary issue.
(Bu21) Add text to clarify the path should be paved and wide enough to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 25 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
(Bu23) Amend text to clarify that route finding measures in the Bungay town centre are poor. Additional signage and road marking could improve connectivity in the area could improve connectivity between destinations and the wider cycle network.
(L4) Amend to read 'consideration' rather than 'suggested improvement'.
(L13) Amend text to clarify the issue and solution.
(L15) Amend to read 'consideration' rather than 'suggested improvement'.
(L29) Add text to clarify the bridge would be for pedestrians and cyclists.
(L34) Add text to clarify that as part of an existing bridleway this could be retained, however, a paved cycle route should be available alongside.
(L35) Clarify these should either be wide shared-use paths for cyclists and pedestrians or the road should be wide enough to accomodate on-road cycle lanes on each side.
(L44) Amend to read 'consideration' rather than 'suggested improvement'.
(L49) Amend to read 'consideration' rather than 'suggested improvement'. Footway enourages cyclists to ride along the footway rather than use the road. A cycle box and easy to follow road markings could imprve legibility and remove conflict with pedestrians.
(L50) Amend to read 'consideration' rather than 'suggested improvement'.
(L46) Improved signage for drivers. Road markings along Victoria Raod to riase awareness that cyclsits are on the road and to give cyclists confidence they have a right to use the road.
(L58) Amend text to make reference to the potential use of bollards rather than barriers. Markings should indicate the path is for pedestrians and cyclists and that pedestrians have right of way.
(L66) Amend text to suggest a new shared use path to form a cycle and pedestrian route between Chapel Road and Gisleham Road. From the school a wide shared-use path could be considered along the rear of the properties on the east side of Rushmere Road, a crossing to the west side of Hall Road, a shared-use path northward to Church Lane, and then widing the path across the green space opposite to connect with Chapel Road. On-road cycle lanes could then be considered northward to Castleton Avenue to connect into the existing cycle network.
(L67) Amend text to highlight the need to widen the path and replace the barrier at the west end with a single bollard.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 26 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
(R10) Reduced speed, signage and road markings to raise driver awareness that cyclists may be using the road. Amend to read 'consideration' rather than 'suggested improvement'.
Add improvements to cycle routes including Carlton Marshes and routes found in the BA area.
Clara
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? I am pleased that there is a cycle strategy: I currently no longer cycle in the town as I am very concerned about my safety on the roads in Beccles due to heavy traffic and in particular the presence of heavy vehicles in the town.
Some years ago I expressed concern about the plans to signpost cyclists to use the piece of grove road running across the end of Kilbrack against the flow of one way motorised traffic and round a blind bend, and also the proposal to signpost Kilbrack, a private road, as part of the cycle route.
My concerns about the use of Kilbrack are not on the grounds of not wanting cyclists to use the road as they already do this all the time and I am happy for them to do so: it makes perfect sense to get off the main roads and cut across Kilbrack and Kilbrack gardens. However I am concerned that any signposting of it as part of an official cycle route through the town might prove problematic to Kilbrack freeholders should an accident occur in the road. As the cyclists are essentially cycling on private property could there be any liability on behalf of the freeholders in the street in the event of an accident? It is an unmade road and as such must be riskier to cycle on than a Tarmac road.
Secondly, many cyclists are already cycling against the flow of traffic on the part of grove road that joins blyburgate. This makes perfect sense with regards to efficiency, as it markedly reduces distance and the climb involved when cycling round the town with motorised traffic. However this means cyclists are going 'against' traffic on the one way section and also hugging a blind bend just before the junction with Kilbrack. When pulling out of Kilbrack in a car it is not possible to see or hear an approaching cyclist. If this route is to be formalised for cyclists, the cycle path will need to be clearly marked on the opposite side of the road meaning cyclists are travelling on the right side of the road to prevent them taking the more 'natural' route on their left side of the road.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 27 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment.
Claire Martin
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments and concerns noted. If there was a liability risk to freeholders of Kilbrack any proposed signage is unlikely to be supported. This can be highlighted in the text (Be11).
Any contraflow lane would need to be clearly marked and visible to drivers and cyclists alike. The concern about the intersection is understood. Issues are likely to exist on either side of the road and road markings are likely to be required indicating cyclists need to be aware or be ready to stop for vehicles existing Kilbrack. Potential danger on the left side is that cyclists are going around the inside of the bend but the natural inclination of drivers is to stay left thereby allowing more space on the inside of what is a relatively wide one-way road. The right side would provide better visibility but this is likely to be secondary due this being the more natural side of the road for vehicles to drift and catching drivers unaware of cyclists in a contraflow lane. Any contraflow to be installed would be required to assess safety concerns.
Suggested Change Clarify no formal cycle route is proposed and any cycling improvements would be subject to no liability on the part of existing residents. Amend (Be11) to reference the need to provide clear markings and segregation to ensure the safety of all road users.
Colin Butler
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? There is only one really good cycle path in Lowestoft, which is the old railway line from Yarmouth Road to the North Quay retail park. This is simply because its foundation is the old track bed, which was properly engineered when constructed. Most other cycle paths are laid only to pavement standard, and thus soon become rough and bumpy, and unsuitable for riding fast. For instance, the stretch of cycle path along Millennium Way from Normanston Drive to Oulton Road has two very bad bumps; and having to share the rough and narrow footpath through Normanston Park with dog walkers, just because that was a very cheap alternative to extending the separate cycle path on Peto Way, is disgraceful.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 28 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Many of the cycle paths in town are indirect, with awkward crossings at road junctions and roundabouts, where cyclists invariably have to stop to give way to traffic. Cycling in the Netherlands and Scandinavia is much more civilized, where cycle lanes are sacrosanct; road traffic has to give way to cyclists, cars cannot park on cycle lanes, and cycle tracks are wider and better constructed than in the United Kingdom.
Because cycle paths are so poor in Lowestoft, it is normally quicker and easier to cycle on the road. However, the density of traffic on Yarmouth Road makes cycling along it an unpleasant experience, such that people are reluctant to cycle to town from Gunton. Pedalling across the bascule bridge is hazardous for cyclists, and a nuisance for motorists; riding through Oulton Broad on Bridge Road and Victoria Road is equally bad. The busy road junctions adjacent to Lowestoft Station are difficult for cyclists who wish to turn right, because the rider has to manoeuvre into the centre lane and wait at traffic lights with traffic passing each side. The old, one-way gyratory traffic system was less hazardous for cyclists.
In addition, not mentioned in the Draft Cycle Strategy is the dreadful condition of the road surface of The Ravine, which is dangerous for cyclists speeding down the hill. Decent access to the sea wall in North Lowestoft would be very beneficial to leisure cyclists, too.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? The authors of the Draft Cycle Strategy have certainly identified almost all of the hazards, obstructions and problems for cycling around Lowestoft. Without doubt, cycling is the easiest and most convenient transport in town, whatever the weather. Whatever can be done to improve roads and cycle routes deserves to be encouraged and funded. Certainly particular attention needs to be devoted to improving direct access to the town centre all the way along Yarmouth Road, on other main routes through Oulton Broad, and across the bascule bridge.
Just as it is preferable to separate bicycles from cars, buses and lorries, so paths for pedestrians and cyclists should be physically separated, too. The idea of allowing cyclists to ride on the footpaths across the bascule bridge, and on the pavement around the railway station, was not at all clever.
Maybe a radical solution would be to reduce the bascule bridge to two lanes of traffic in order to allow width for a cycle lane on either side of the roadway. As a benefit, the reduction of weight loading on the bridge would increase the fatigue life of the steel structure. On the other hand, the letters page of the Lowestoft Journal would be overloaded by protests from indignant motorists!
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 29 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Officer Response The quality of cycle paths requires improvement in many areas of the District. Low quality paths act as deterrents to cycling. The footways in Normanston Park were not widened to accommodate shared-use as part of the cycle network. This can be referenced in the document. Cycle provision has concentrated on providing paths that serve a development but often these have not been considered as part of a wider strategic cycle network reducing its value. Greater discussion can be provided about the strategic importance of the cycle network.
Yarmouth Road is the most direct route into Lowestoft from the north, however, potential improvements to the route are limited due to the surroundings. The cycle path along this route is fragmented and surfaces are often poor. The alternative routes are slow and indirect. Text can be included to improve road markings and signage along Yarmouth Road to raise awareness that cyclists may be on the road.
Concerns about cycling in the area of the bascule bridge and Lowestoft railway station are raised in item L41. Turning right is difficult and will be hard to rectify. For the time being cyclists if they cannot get over to the right lane should use the crossing and double back.
Cycling in Oulton Broad is discussed in item L31, however, Bridge Road is not. This can be highlighted in the document including the need to consider this area as a primary connection between North and South Lowestoft.
Concerns about the Ravine road surface can be forwarded to the Highways Authority.
With the Government announcement that funding is available for the third crossing it is likely the road network will be reassessed as part of this project to maximise potential benefits to the wider road network and its users.
Suggested Change Add item to Lowestoft section identifying the narrow footways in Normanston Park as an area of conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. Recommend the path be widened into a proper shared-use path. Add text outlining the importance of the strategic network and considerations required in different parts of the District.
Add item in the Lowestoft section about improving road markings and signage to raise driver awareness about cyclists on the road.
Add item in the Lowestoft section to highlight the need to improve safety and driver awareness for cyclists on Bridge Road (through to Millennium Way roundabout).
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 30 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Identify the need for an east-west route in the South Lowestoft improvement section (reference the proposed Sustainable urban Neighbourhood or an alternative route).
Amend (L41) text to include the need for better road markings and signage that cyclists may be on the road.
Corton Resident
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? There are no issue with cycling in Corton since the new cycle path was added on the A12 at the roundabout at the end of Corton Long Lane. To get to Hopton you just go via The Street, past the church and along the coast road, which has never been a problem. You can easily bike from Corton to Lowestoft. Corton to Hopton, Blundeston, Somerleyton, St Olaves and further.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? If you were to put a cycle path in the only place that could benefit in my opinion is option R1. Connecting the existing cycle path off the A12 roundabout at the end of Corton Long Lane. This could run all the way to Hopton and Gorleston without upsetting residents. I strongly disagree with the suggestion R4 (Corton to Potters Leisure Resort).
Officer Response The suggested route builds upon a proposal put forward by Sustrans several years ago and was granted planning permission (now expired). The intention is to provide a more direct link between Corton and Hopton-on-Sea.
The existing route between Corton and Hopton-on-Sea is good for leisure cyclist, however, is indirect and does not link well in to the wider cycle network. Cycling between Corton and villages to the west such as Blundeston and Somerleyton is often dangerous on narrow road with fast moving traffic while the signed route is indirect and ponderous.
Suggested Change No change.
DA Bird
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area?
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 31 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Not completed.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Before considering a cycle crossing from the Brook peninsular across Lake Lothing the pedestrian bridge over the rail line should be made more cycle friendly. The current steel channel attached to the steps is ineffective and could be considered dangerous. I would suggest constructing ramps to replace the steps.
A more ambitious project could be to reinstate the old Shell footpath and make it wide enough for cycles, this would provide the shortest route to the town centre.
Officer Response The bridge is steep and difficult to use for many people. As part of the cycle/pedestrian bridge (L27, L29) proposed over Lake Lothing the most feasible option is likely to consider the project in two phases with the crossing over the railway bridge the first phase. Utilising the former Shell base for cyclists has been identified in item L26.
Suggested Change No change.
DAS
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Ref L57 .... Tom Crisp Way, As a regular user of this route I am of the opinion that anything which improves the continuity of this entire route (including Castleton Ave.) would be beneficial The separation of cycles from other moving traffic on the road is paramount in improving safety and the cycle way along this route is perfectly adequate to ensure the safety of cyclists, however there are those who choose not to use this facility and thereby endanger themselves and other road users. I often see cyclists in the main carriageway and only yesterday saw an electric mobility scooter in the main roadway travelling South in the area of Fen Park! In Holland, as is common knowledge cycling facilities are second to none, however what is possibly less well known is the fact that where a cycle route runs alongside a busy main road such as is the case along Castleton Ave. and Tom Crisp Way cyclists are prohibited from using the main road and have therefore to use the cycle route. This measure may to some seem rather draconian but it does ensure that safety of all is placed at the top of the agenda.
Another issue along this route is the problem with overgrowing shrubs and trees, I have, for several years now, had to contact WDC/Norse to request
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 32 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
the cutting back of bushes and trees due to them seriously reducing the available width of cycleway, this is mainly a problem in Tom Crisp way and particularly in the area of Fen Park where there are often numbers of pedestrians especially at school times. Cycle routes must be maintained if they are to be used, abandon the route and the users will abandon them also.
Elsewhere in Lowestoft cycle routes have been badly planned and implemented. Along Marine Parade and Kirkley Cliff for instance the road layout from the seaward side is.....pedestrian footway - parked vehicles - cycle lane - moving vehicle traffic. Thus placing cyclists alongside the moving traffic which obviously places cyclists at risk. In this location, as in London Road South through Kirkley, cyclists often do not use the cycle lane, choosing the footpath as an alternative due to the fact that motorists do not observe the cycle lane and drive with their nearside wheels in it. To any lay observer this would appear to be unsafe for cyclists so there should be no surprise that cyclists are reluctant to use the cycle lane. Again any visitor abroad would see how simple this is to resolve - Place the cycle lane between the parked vehicles and the footway, or , create a deterrent to motorists wanting to drive in the cycle lane such as a rumble strip or raised kerb. Make the cycle lane safe by separating it from moving traffic and it will be used. Throughout Lowestoft what has been done so far in making provision for cyclists, with very few exceptions, appears to have been primarily determined by cost rather than safety which is exactly the opposite to the way it should have been. It is a gross false economy to try to provide many miles of cycleway - which is possibly what has happened in order to show the Council in a favourable light - rather than fewer miles of safe cycleway. A safe cycleway will be used - if it is unsafe and therefore not used by cyclists then it cannot be called a cycleway.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Greater acceptance of cycle lanes along main transport routes that connect destinations would assist with encouraging people to cycle as a transport mode of choice in the long-term.
The position of a cycle path relative to a parked vehicle each has its own issues. Where roads are narrow and with medium to high volumes of traffic, traffic-free cycle paths are most welcomed, however, these can be difficult to deliver when considering existing development. Where traffic volumes are low to medium or where the road is wide enough on-road cycle lanes are often more appropriate as they can be direct, reduce conflict with pedestrians and can be more cost effective. The types of cycleway are best
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 33 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
considered in the context of their surroundings, however, concerns are acknowledged.
Cycle routes need to be considered in the wider context of the cycle network and how they will connect people with destinations. Unfortunately, this approach has been piecemeal in the past and this Strategy hopes to go some way towards addressing this.
Many of the cycle measures adopted in countries in Europe conflict with existing traffic regulations and are therefore difficult to implement without a more strategic approach to cycle policy. This limitation makes it difficult to make significant changes to the way cycle provision is made in the short- term.
People riding along the footway highlights issues related to on-road cycle paths being provided when they are not wide enough and traffic-free paths being of low value.
Concerns about maintenance noted. These will be forwarded to Waveney Norse and the Highways Authority.
Suggested Change Poor driving habits to be added to the section outlining barriers to cycling. Refer to rumble strips as a mechanism to raise driver awareness that a cycle lane is present.
David Butcher
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? My main comment, as a resident of Corton and a regular cyclist, is that use could be made of the former Sustrans idea of a cross-country cycle-way in the Gunton-Corton-Hopton area, using County Council land and parts of the old railway line. I realise that the cost would be considerable, but it would be a preferable option to using existing carriageways.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments noted. The use of the former railway line as part of a formal cycle route would provide a direct and attractive route between Gunton and Gorleston. The route proposed by Sustrans is identified as issue R4 and part of it lies outside of the Waveney administrative area. Reference to working with neighbouring authorities is made in the document to help facilitate such cross-boundary projects.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 34 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
A wide traffic-free cycle path similar to those stopping at the Corton Long Lane roundabout and Hopton-on-Sea would benefit the area as this provides the most direct route between the villages whilst also extending the network to North Lowestoft.
Suggested Change Add reference to cycle route between Corton and Gorleston to Appendix 5.
David Cask
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? I have just 'retired' from driving Community buses in Halesworth after 20plus years. During these years traffic of all descriptions has increased, making cycling very risky, for example it is difficult to overtake a cycle if oncoming traffic is heavy, which creates a 'tailback' which in turn can cause frustration.
I have been a cyclist in my past cycling from Dagenham to London, BUT I would not do it now. Equally, with the traffic flow in Halesworth being heavier that thirty years ago when I moved here, bikers are treated with contempt by a lot of drivers.
Cycle paths would be a good idea if WDC could afford it, but you already state council finances are not healthy, hence doing away with the 'free' first hour in our car park, PLUS would bikers use them without making it a legal requirement?
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Only as above.
Officer Response Comments noted. Cyclists on narrow roads can be frustrating for drivers. Where this takes place on busy roads which are well used by cyclists this highlights poor route provision and the need to consider improvements such as traffic-free paths, road widening and surface markings. In some locations these tailbacks can be an expected occurrence which a cyclist should be aware of and take opportunities to let traffic past on occasion for the benefit of both themselves and drivers.
Suggested Change No change.
David Gwynn
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 35 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? This strategy is well overdue and I do beg you to consider the following. From Pakefield to Kessingland ( Along London Rd): Path/cycle path far too narrow to allow pedestrians and cyclists to use.
From Kessingland to Pakefield( Along London Rd.): cycle lane is dangerous with many drivers speeding and using mobile phones whilst driving.
There is no safe way of cycling to Southwold from Kessingland except along the very dangerous A12. A coastal cycle path is needed from Pakefield via Kessingland to Southwold and beyond.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Concerns noted. The route (lack of) between Pakefield and Kessingland is identified as item R5. The lack of a direct route between Kessingland and Southwold is identified as item R6. These help set out the issues and what could be considered to rectify these.
Progress is currently being made on delivering the coastal path between Hopton-on-Sea and Aldeburgh. Details being considered are uncertain at this point in time.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/england-coast-path- aldeburgh-to-hopton-on-sea)
Suggested Change Make reference to the proposed coastal path between Lowestoft and Southwold and the potential to provide improved cycle connection to settlements along this route.
Dean Millican
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Below are specific to routes I know and act as examples for routes in general.
My area (Olton Broad) and place of work (James Paget Hospital) is amenable to cycling. Three routes: A12 cycle path - finishes at Hopton + needs better segregation from fast moving traffic. It is an irony that there are barriers in place for motor vehcles to protect them from oncoming traffic but not between the road and cylists. Flixton: my route. Always a risk on a left hand bend on a country lane. Improved road marks + driver education (not your
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 36 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
responsibility) needed. Consider a protected area of road on a left hand bend (would require widening). Coast road: a much longer route but safer - have to reach Corton first!
My son (age 11) cycles to BBHS from Borrow Road. There are safe parts but I encourage cycling on the path near Gorleston Road. When crossing this road by pushing a bicycle (to avoid a right turn), a middle reservation needs to be wide enough to incorporate and therefore protect the full length of the bicycle from traffic. This is particularly important for children who do not have the same spatial awareness as adults. The central reservations on Gorleston Road are too narrow.
In general creating a cycling lane on an existing road acts as a reminder to drivers that cyclists may use it. The goal must be to share pathways with cyclists by making the path wider at the expense of the road. Until that is done the confidence to cycle safely will not return. Once a vehicle parks up to the kerb a cycling lane is obstructed forcing the cyclist into the road. If part of a path this cannot happen.
Because of the low expectation for cyclists on roads many car users do not use their nearside mirrors. Awareness campaign?
Good use of old railway routes - well done.
I do NOT support the need for a third motor vehicle crossing. I strongly support the need for a bridge as described for cyclists and pedestrians from the corner of the park. If that is built before any other bridge this will demonstrate your commitment to greener transport. Once I have crossed the busy road in Oulton Broad I access the overgrown cycle route which includes a footbridge over the railway line to get into town. I think you have identified this for improvement (but it was not easy to follow in the strategy). I beleive the bridge is going to be near here?
The benefits of cycling are well known and documented.
You have listed many negatives: weather, traffic, time, safety. Also consider security, parental fears, uneducated drivers, bright oncoming car lights in the darker months and inability for the cyclist to see anything including the edges of the road - this would be helped by marking the edges of (country) roads with white or reflective strips
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Very comprehensive. I am convinced that you will not be able to do it all. Perhaps a more realistic version will be drawn up from this one. I would love to be proved wrong! For example:
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 37 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
The only other thing I have been involved in is a safer route accross the railway bridge between Borrow and Prospect Roads including responses from yourselves and our MP. This is just around the corner from me. Result? Nothing.
Priorities: Link what you have already. Bridge for cyclists accross the Lake to clearly demonstrate you mean business Quality will make more of an impact that quantity.
I must add apologies for typing (a spell check would have helped) and include my title (Dr). Not Mr or Sir.
Thanks for enabling participation and good luck
Officer Response The gap in the cycle route between Corton Long Lane roundabout and Hopton-on-Sea is identified as item R1. The lack of protection for cyclists along high speed A-roads with high traffic volumes can be highlighted in the document.
The roads in the Flixton area are narrow. Widening of the road is likely to be difficult (although this would benefit both cyclists and traffic). Improved road markings can be identified in the document.
On-road cycle lanes such as those provided along Sands Lane are relatively narrow but they give adult and more confident cyclists an easy route to follow. These routes provided limited value towards encouraging young people to use them therefore limiting their value to the wider community (particularly when are non-mandatory and are interrupted by parked vehicles). A step-change in the overall approach to road provision is required to achieve this which is beyond the scope of the District Council.
The benefit of a crossing located at the Sands Lane/Gorleston Road junction is identified as item L32 in the document. Concerns about the width of central reservations on Gorleston Road can be forwarded to the Highways Authority.
Suggested Change Add text to highlight the lack of protection for cyclists riding along identified cycle routes adjacent to busy A-roads. Add text to discuss the importance of signage and frequent road markings to raise awareness for driver that cyclists may be on the road and provide cyclists with more confidence that they have a right to be there.
Provide text about the use of on-road cycle lanes and issues related to them including limitation within the existing network.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 38 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Add text about driver awareness to the section about barriers to cycling along with weather, time, safety (including parental concerns), visibility at night (being seen and being able to see).
Text to be added about connecting villages to nearby service centres to include reference to roadside reflectors to improve visibility.
The proposed cycle bridge would connect the Brooke Peninsular and land near the existing bridge over the railway line. This is likely to be in two phases; a bridge over the railway line and a bridge over Lake Lothing. The former is intertwined with the path through the scrub to connect Normanston Park to Harbour Road.
Dr. S M van Leeuwen
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? As a dutch national I have been used to good cycle facilities in my native country. As such, I am very disappointed that the Waveney cycling stategy does not consider good examples from what are essentially neighboring countries: the Netherlands and Denmark. Both these countries have excellent cycle provisions and a proven track record of effective cycling stategies. Yet Waveney (and the UK at large) are ignoring these examples and are implementing a strategy which is radically different. Both Denmark and the Netherlands have created a safe environment on the roads that accomodates large numbers of cyclist. They have done this on the principal of equality: rules apply equally to all traffic and rule- or law-breaking is not condoned. Thus, cyclist are safe riding on the existing road system: if there are problems with traffic safety (which is guaranteed in their respective high- way codes, just as in the UK) concerning cyclist then the road area is improved to ensure all traffic follows the law. This has ensured that cyclist are seen as (as they are treated as) traffic, and that there is respect on the road between different users. Thus law-abiding behaviour is encouraged and rewarded, with increased safety as a result. Both Denmark and the Netherlands never put cyclists on the pavement, as they ar traffic and taffic rides on the road.
The UK has taken the competely opposite approach: if moterised traffic can't be bothered to stick to the traffic laws (e.g. by not creating dangerous situations, passing safely, keeping enough distance, etc), then the cyclist is simply removed from the equation (here the road). This means that lawbreaking behaviour from moterised traffic is rewarded: treat cyclists badly and soon you won't see them on the road anymore, thanks to the local
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 39 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
government, so you don't need to worry about treating them according to the law. And ofcourse you can go faster then (with increased chances of accidents). Meanwhile cyclists are reduced to pedestrian status and they and the pedestrians pay the price: cyclist on the road get less respect than before from other traffic, cyclists on the pavemnent create problems with pedestrians. And of course pavements were never designed to accommodate traffic (cyclist average speed is 20 km/h), only pedestrians (average speed 5km/h). So there are many blind corners, narrow sections, sharp turns, places where cyclists suddenly need to dismount (and won't as there are no places where moterised traffic would be asked to do the same, so why would they, they are traffic after all).
I have lived and cycled in Lowestoft for the last 11 years, living in the north and working in the south so I cycle over the Bascule Bridge regularly. Initially this was not a problem, and the widening of the enty to the Bascule Bridge was a good improvement. But for the last 5-6 years the situation has deteriorated rapdily. As a cyclist I experience much more abuse on the roads by (mainly) cars then before, as they no longer see me as a normal part of traffic. As a pedestrian I am no longer safe on any pavement: the council's decisions to allow cyclists on the pavement in certain places has led to wide- spread cycling on pavements around the town. Thus there are now cyclists on the pavement in my wide, quiet, residential steet. This didn't happen 5 years ago, as the road is perfectly safe for cyclists. Now I have every chance of being hit by a speeding cyclist when stepping ot of my front yard, naturally my children run the same risk. It is still illegal to cycle on the pavement in my street but this doesn't matter: if I confront cyclists they simply say it is allowed now to cycle on the pavement, as it is legal in many places. My childminder experiences the same problem in her street, another wide and traffic-low residential street. It is only a matter of time before accidents happen as most front gardens are not equipped to provide a good view of the pavement on either side: after all, there should be nothing on there that goes faster than 5km/h (the orginal design criteria). I still cycle the same route as 10 years ago: on the road, as this is by far the safest place for a cyclist to be (on the road the cyclist is protected by the highway code). But Waveney's "cycling strategy" has made it much more unsafe for me as a cylcist on the road, and also much more unsafe for me as a pedestrian on the pavement. Thus, the only winners ar the moterised traffic, particularly the ones who didn't adher to the highway code in the first place.
So my advice to Waveney regarding the cycling strategy is simple: do not follow the bad example set by the UK at large, but utilise your location as the most easterly point to learn from continental counties with proven track records. Encourage law-abiding behaviour and if there are problems with cycle safety on the road then solve it ON THE ROAD. Stick to the highway code which guarantees cycle safety in the normal code for all traffic, and
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 40 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
make sure all traffic knows that the rules need to followed. This would also massively improve safety for pedestrians in the town, a particular issue for Lowestoft due to the high number of pensioners in the area. Why are these people now allowed to be safe on the pavement? Even the boulevard is no longer safe, which is a major tourist attraction in town and used a lot by local pensioners and families. But there is no need for a cylce lane there, as there are cycle lanes on Marine Parade and London Road South. I regular cycle along these lanes, and it is not unusual to see cyclists on the pavement next to the cylce lane! Or on the pavement next to completely deserted streets! They are not doing this for safety reasons, they are doing this out of habit, a habit created by the council. As cyclists are obviously no longer teated as traffic many have stopped acting as traffic and running red lights, or jumping onto the pavement to avoid a red light, has become the norm.
Naturally, as at the St. Peters Road junction with Boston Road this is exactly what the local government wants you to do! And near the tall flat, at Elims Terrace's pedestrian access to St. Peters Street there is a sign saying "cyclists please dismount", eventhough there is no sign anywhere saying cycling on the pavement is allowed here (a normal pavement next to a street with moterised traffic on it), and therefore it is completely illegal. But the council expects people to break the law and, by putting up signs like this, encourages law-breaking behaviour. This is not a safe practise, not in the short run and not in the long run. So please change tactics now while you still can: people get used to lawless behaviour and it will be difficult to get law-abiding state back if this lasts too long.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Seems like more of the same, and thus not a good idea. Please follow the highway code this time round and do not encorage law-breaking behavuiour (as the current stategy does). Also, build decent cycle lanes: I haven't seen any yet in Lowestoft that would conform to my (dutch) definition of a "cycle lane". Cycle squares can be a good idea but they need lanes leading up to them, otherwise cyclists cannot reach them. I cycle past the station and on Battery Green Road and can never reach the cycle squares unless I happen to be at the front of queue anyway. So they are useless. A "lane" of 0.5 m which just turns the front wheels of the first car slightly to the right doesn't help at all.
Officer Response The Netherlands and Denmark provide excellent examples of cycle provision that encourage cycling for both commuting and leisure. However, the historic development patterns within existing built up areas are often different in the UK when compared to Europe. These same constraints do not apply to areas of new development. The provision of cycle facilities (and roads) is often limited by traffic regulations which are beyond the control of the local authority. This Strategy
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 41 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
has been prepared to address some of the existing issues but recognises the Strategy is limited by national guidance. The Strategy is one step in a process attempting encourage a modal shift towards cycling and less reliance on the private vehicle.
The Council will work with the Highways Authority (Suffolk County Council) to implement changes where possible to improve provision over time. Greater discussion can be provided about the need to consider a more strategic approach to provision which has been lacking in the past.
A more consistent approach to provision, particularly the use of shared-use space would benefit cyclists and pedestrians overall. Often site constraints and failure to consider potential schemes in the wider context of the cycle network and the way people use the transport network (patterns of use).
Potential improvements were put forward on the basis of what would improve the cycle network and for the public to comment. Some suggestions included changing some footways to shared-use. The document will be amended to reflect potential conflict pedestrians and cyclists. Where cycling on footways along roads is permitted this highlights an overarching issue that something is wrong with the cycle network in that area which needs to be investigated and improved.
Comments raised highlight many of the fundamental issues related to cycling and the wider transport network for all users.
Suggested Change Amend text to provide greater clarity about how cycle lanes should enable cyclists to access a bike box. Add discussion about the importance of a strategic approach to delivering and enhancing the cycle network.
Expand text about the potential conflict between pedestrians and cyclists in shared-use spaces and inappropriately encouraging cyclists to ride on the footway.
Provide greater technical detail about cycle provision (e.g. cycle lanes widths, bike boxes etc.).
Add text to the section about barriers to cycling to highlight the issue of cycle provision not being accorded the same value and consideration as vehicle provision which then results in issues and conflicts in the short and long-term.
Add a generic suggestion to undertake an audit of footways where cycling is permitted (permitted shared-use and where footways are used).
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 42 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Edward
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Rather than deal with non issues like this, why isn't the council dealing with proper issues such as Broadband and Mobile phone signal discrimination to the rural areas!
We pay our taxes, and expect a far better service than we are receiving at the moment.!
There is absolutely no way that the currently poorly maintained roads in the Benacre / Wrentham / Reydon area can facilitate cycles! The roads are too narrow, incredibly dangerous for cycles and full of pot holes that are never fixed properly! What planet does WDC come from..????
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Rather than deal with non issues like this, why isn't the council dealing with proper issues such as Broadband and Mobile phone signal discrimination to the rural areas!
We pay our taxes, and expect a far better service than we are receiving at the moment.! There is absolutely no way that the currently poorly maintained roads in the Benacre / Wrentham / Reydon area can facilitate cycles! The roads are too narrow, incredibly dangerous for cycles and full of pot holes that are never fixed properly! What planet does WDC come from..????
Officer Response Roads are available to all road users including cyclists. With no other provision in the area this is currently the only option. Broadband in Suffolk is currently being expanded as part of the 'Better Broadband for Suffolk' project.
Suggested Change No change.
frankie
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? I see you are suggesting a cycle route along the lane behind Gosford Road. I would point out that this is a PRIVATE lane ONLY to give RESIDENTS access to their gardens and garages.Notices saying PRIVATE LANE are erected at each end of the lane.The gap in Roy's fence has been closed because of possible
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 43 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
drug dealing and to stop the drinking sessions which went on there.I live alone and felt putting my car in the garage at night was a bit scary because of young males "hanging" around the gap on most nights.
You are obviously unaware that the gap was closed by the Manager of Roy's since Christmas last year as it was an unofficial and unsafe entrance originally cut out by thieves to make a quick getaway from the store.
Most of us reverse out of our garages which would be dangerous if unseen and unheard bikes were being ridden past. Nowadays,bells on bikes are thing of the past so they arrive unheard by people ahead of them. The lane itself is not suitable for bike riding as it is very rutted and full of holes as the residents do not wish to improve the lane as we may get unofficial traffic cutting through.
I hope that you will now cancel any plans you have for our private lane.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments and concerns noted. Be10 does not propose a cycle lane but rather enable cycle access subject to negotiation with landowners. If there was a risk that landowners could be held liable for any accidents the proposal would not be acted upon. Be9 (p31) can be removed.
Suggested Change Remove Be9.
Amend (Be10) text to clarify no formal cycle route is proposed and if cycling was permitted along the private road this would be subject to no liability on the part of existing residents.
frazer
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area?
Ref L 72 Please continue the cycle path as suggested . Trying to cross the Beccles Road at this point is very dangerous.
Cycling or walking into Oulton Broad from L72 to L53 is a problem as not only cycle paths are missing and incomplete but suitable footpaths on the North
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 44 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
side of this road ( A146) do not allow pedestrians to even pass without stepping into the road. This urgently requires attention.
Ref L73 Castleton Avenue link should be along the A146 Beccles Road (Carlton Crown Public House ) to the Mutford wood Road. A perfectly good Green Lane already exists from Mutford Wood Road to Mutford Wood Lane this could give a much safer link to all routes.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments noted. L73 refers to a cycle route to be included as part of the Oakes Farm leisure development to connect with Mutfordwood. Text can be amended for clarity.
Suggested Change Add text about strategic routes in Lowestoft to include the route used by cyclists along Beccles Road to Oulton Broad.
Amend text in L73 to Mutfordwood.
Gilla16
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? An ideal solution to the Corton to Hopton cycle path could be to use the old railway lines, this has been mentioned many times at our PC meetings and was considered during the Sustrans consultation. This would be far safer than using the coast road, which isn't even wide enough for two buses to pass, as was evidenced when they actually got stuck and blocked the road
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments noted. The route proposed by Sustrans is identified as issue R4. Part of the route lies outside of the Waveney administrative area. Reference to working with neighbouring authorities is made in the document to help facilitate such cross-boundary projects. Suggested Change Add reference to cycle route between Corton and Gorleston in the Appendices.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 45 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016 gswietlik
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? insufficient provision for cycling space generally around Lowestoft and Oulton Broad. In particular where there is constraints in road width and hazardous road junction makes it total dangerous for cyclist of all ages. There are number of places/roads where I choose not cycle because of this and its nothing to do with excessive speed of motorists rather high density and mix of traffic into confined areas. For example around Oulton Broad Primary school and the corner into Hall Road, the country road into Somerleyton, The level crossings and the roundabout at Oulton Broad (OUS) rail station. The bridge by the other rail station (OUN). Victoria road is also dangerous because of the narrow road and the parked cars. And to cap it all the provision in the way of a cycling lane along Normanston Drive should be a separate lane divided from the road.So, my bike remains in the garage and only comes out when I make us of it in Sussex or in France.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Probably a visit to Milton Keynes would provide an insight to aspiration we should be seeking to achieve for our area to facilitate furthering the safer cycling.
Officer Response Comments noted. The intention of the strategy is to identify issues as a first step. With a strategy in place this should increase the likelihood of delivering improvements to rectify existing issues in the cycle network.
Suggested Change No change.
Halesworth Cycle Group
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Dear Sir
Re: Waveney Draft Cycle Strategy.
I am writing on behalf of The Halesworth Cycle Group who would like to make the following comments/recommendations and clarify some of the issues previously submitted by the group for this document.
Pg 43 item H1
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 46 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Issue: NCN 1 leaves the shared use path on Norwich Road A144 turning left at Harrison’s Lane and continues northwards via Holton. A spur to NCN1 exists at the A144/ Sparrowhawk Road roundabout. There is no provision for cyclists on the Norwich Road A144 between Harrison’s Lane and the Sparrowhawk Road roundabout and this road is busy and heavily used by HGV traffic.
Suggested Improvement: version in draft document is ok.
Pg 43 item H2
Issue: The crossing on Quay Street could easily connect the shared use path on Norwich Road A144. See also item below re Saxon’s Way
Suggested Improvement: version in draft document is ok.
Pg 43 item H6
Issue: The existing cycle route from this area to the town centre is indirect. A footpath linking Briar Close to Holton Road close to the railway bridge does exist.
Suggested Improvement: Consider upgrading the footpath from Briar Close to Holton Road to shared use.
Pg 43 item H7
Issue: There is not enough cycle parking available in the town centre and existing parking stands are often remote from the shops reducing the sense of security.
Suggested Improvement: Consider providing additional cycle stands in small groups in busier/ better overlooked locations. Planters with provision for cycle locking would increase cycle parking availability and enhance the environment.
Pg 43 item H8
Issue: Cyclists entering/leaving the town centre via Millennium Green and Town Park on NCN1 are directed to cross the busy town centre car park and although signs are provided this arrangement is not ideal.
Suggested Improvement: version in draft document is ok.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 47 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Pg 44 item H13
Issue: The cycle network between the town centre and the residential area south of the town is disrupted and inconvenient. Cyclists currently ride along the footways despite barriers and lack of width because it is direct and more convenient than alternative routes.
Suggested improvement: Consider improvements to the footway between London Road and Blyth Road on the A144 and upgrade to shared-use to provide access to the Millennium Green cycle paths via Blyth Road industrial Estate.
Additional comments/recommendations:
The group consider
1. - that the upgrading of the footpath to shared use alongside Saxon’s Way between the Co-Op roundabout and Quay Street would greatly improve cyclin provision. Not only would it assist shoppers from the north of town access the Co Op, but it would also provide a direct link for NCN1 from the Town Park cycle path to re-join it on the shared path on Norwich Road just below the junction with New Cut. As mentioned in H2 this would require the crossing on Quay Street to be upgraded to shared use.
2. – that London Road between the Co-Op roundabout and its junction at Steeple End be considered one way for motor traffic with provision for two way cycling and a 20mph speed restriction.
3. – that Chediston Street is also considered for a maximum 20mph speed limit.
4. – the group is disappointed that cyclists using the shared path on Norwich Road A144 starting below the junction with New Cut and finishing at the Harrison’s Lane junction do not have the right of way at junctions crossing the path. They feel that this would make that path significantly safer for cyclists.
5. – the group would like the lane from Wenhaston to Walpole Bridge much used be cyclists to be considered for ‘QUIET LANE’ status. This narrow lane accommodates both NCN1 and the Halesworth Wheel Cycle Route and has recently seen a significant increase in traffic and has become a rat run connecting Walpole, Halesworth and Wenhaston
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 48 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Officer Response Comments noted. Amendments can be made to clarify the issues in the document. The existing footway between Quay Street and the Co-Op roundabout would provide significant benefit for cyclists by connecting the national cycle route and reducing conflict with traffic (particularly HGVs). Providing such a shared-use path also improves the connection between Chediston Street, Angel Link and the Millennium Green cycle route thereby removing the need for cyclists to use the Thoroughfare. Several options present themselves including:
i) The footway on the east side (Millennium Green) would need to be widened to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists (obstacles such as street signage should be reconsidered such as mounting them on lampposts rather than individual posts)
ii) the west side was to accommodate cyclists only while the east side (town centre) would accommodate pedestrians only (this would require a crossing over Saxon's Way at the end of Angel Link. Both of these would remove the need to permit any cycling in the pedestrianised Thoroughfare benefitting users overall.
Suggestions related to traffic direction and speed limits is outside of the remit of the local authority but can be forwarded to the Highways Authority.
The fragmented cycle path along Norwich Road reduces the value of the route and encourages cyclists to use the road despite a path being present. The route is fragmented at junctions to be in accordance with traffic regulations (outside of the control of local authorities). Possibly as cycling becomes more popular and (if) cyclists become more accepted by motorists as regular road users the approach to prioritising vehicles in almost all situations will change to a more European model.
Suggested Change Amend (H1) text to clarify the issue. Amend (H2) text to clarify the issue. Amend (H6) text to clarify the issue.
Amend (H7) text to clarify the issue.
Amend (H8) text to clarify the issue.
Amend (H13) text to clarify the issue.
Add text to improve the route between Quay Street and the Co-op roundabout via Saxon's Way.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 49 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Halesworth Town Council
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? H1 The pavement is not wide enough to accommodate a cycle path and a pavement for pedestrians. Excellent idea to connect existing cycle route to Sparrowhawk way. By going past the Triple Plea this could mean a good connection to the named Cycle Path
H2 Do not see how a Toucan crossing will make any difference.
H3 Blyth Mews is not on the Cycle Route. Good idea to extend from park so entry to Quay Street and Station Rd.
H4 As H1, there is not enough space to accommodate both, unless some of the road is used.
H5 The Cut is one way and to have two way cycling is putting cyclists in danger Very dangerous New Cut/Station Road Blind junction
H6 Don't really know what difference this would make?
H7 Extra cycle stands could be of use but as the Thoroughfare is not pedestrianised, it would restrict delivery lorries and access for disabled Extra cycle stands would need careful placement as the Thoroughfare is not pedestrianised
H8 Not sure this would give any benefit to the cyclists Think we need to suggest cutting out Car Park all together and using River Lane between Park and Saxons way/Angel Link (near the old George Maltings) as cycle Path hence cutting out issues to do with cycles in Park and Car Park. The route for cyclists under the Saxon Way bridge is dangerous particularly for pedestrians due to the blind corners. Suggest alternative route as above.
H9
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 50 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
This bridge is used by the public as a footbridge. The single most useful thing would be the requirement of cyclists to dismount while crossing this narrow bridge. It is used extensively by disabled buggies and mothers with buggies
H10 The Thoroughfare is semi pedestrianised and there is a lot of conflict between the variety of users. Two way cycle traffic will add to the mix and is potentially more risky to pedestrians.
H11 Chediston street is one way and narrow. There is no room for cycle paths in the street. At present there is a request in for a speed restriction to 20 mph. The proposal will increase the potential for accidents.
H12 This is a very small distance, cyclists should dismount. This narrow passage is used extensively by visitors and residents of the Beech House residential home to get to and from the Market Square and the Thoroughfare.
H13 Shared use of this is impractical due to the variable width of the path. Unless part of the road is taken, shared use is dangerous. Could look at widening footpath to include cycle path from Millennium Green past Sewage Farm through Blyth Road industrial estate coming out at crossing on Saxon Way (that leads to Swan Lane) Could look at creating Cycle Path by widening existing pavement so it the joins with the junction with Park near the old George Maltings and then onto the Park ( see comment for H8)
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments and concerns noted. A toucan crossing would enable cyclists to cross Quay Street without needing to dismount. An upgrade crossing would best work with improvements to the footway on the east side of Saxon's Way (such as widening) to facilitate access to the Millennium Green cycle route (NCN1) and the town centre. Improving this path along Saxon's Way would also enable the national cycle route to be moved out of the town centre thereby removing the need to permit and cycling in the pedestrianised area. The existing NCN1 cycle route to Holton is indirect and convenient. While this may support leisurely cycling it does not provide a good route that will have significant benefit towards a long-term modal shift towards cycle (e.g. people commuting. This is reinforced by the disrupted cycle path along Norwich Road extending northwards from the town centre which
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 51 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
encourages many cyclists to continue to use road. To extend the route landownership is more likely to be an issue than space. On-road cycle markings would raise awareness that cyclists may be on the Norwich Road (up to Sparrowhawk Road) and have a right to be there.
Contraflow lanes almost always have safety issues associated with them when they are conceived and implemented. The Cut is narrow with no scope for widening. Item H5 can be removed.
While the crossing over the railway line at Halesworth Station is open there is limited value to upgrading the path to shared-use. If the railway crossing is closed the cycle route (and pedestrian route) to the town centre is indirect and requires the climbing of a hill. While not ideal, signage should be provided for cyclists to give way to pedestrians.
If cycle parking is provided in the Thoroughfare this would have to be carefully considered so not to inhibit the movement of slow vehicles and degrade the quality of the public realm.
Currently the national cycle route goes through the Thoroughfare and the car park. If considered with comments above related to Saxon's Way this could alter the flow of cycle traffic in the car park and underpass. With no crossing over Saxon's Way opposite the car park and only one-way cycling currently permitted in the Thoroughfare there is little scope to reduce this conflict. Signage that is easier to see or surface parking directing cyclists to where they should go (cycle parking on the town centre side and the underpass).
On cycle routes where cyclists are required to dismount this generally highlights conflict and that there is an issue that needs to be resolved. Surface markings requiring cyclists to give way to pedestrians may be more appropriate than additional signage.
A convenient cycle route to the town centre and railway station is required from the west. Chediston Street is narrow and there is potential for conflict. The alternative route using cycle paths in the Romany Way area is indirect and is not intended for cyclists travelling with any speed.
In the future as Halesworth grows the importance of such a route could increase. Routes to the west of Halesworth should be considered with suggestions set out in the Council's Green Infrastructure Strategy which aspires to improve public access (walking and cycling) around the periphery of the west of the town.
Text related to H13 will be amended to reflect comments related to Saxon's Way.
Suggested Change Remove item H5 from the document.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 52 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Amend (H6) text to include signage for pedestrians to have right of way.
Add text to H9 to suggest surface markings informing cyclists that pedestrians have right of way.
Add text to H11 to reference a traffic-free path with contraflow cycle markings considered as a secondary option.
Add text to H12 to include markings for cyclists to give way to pedestrians.
Amend (H13) text to suggest a shared-use path between Quay Street and the Co-Op roundabout along Saxon's Way.
Historic England
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Not completed.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Thank you for consulting Historic England in respect of the Draft Waveney Cycling Strategy. We have now had the opportunity to visit your website and examine the proposals. The proposals for Bungay, Beccles, Halesworth, North Lowestoft and South Lowestoft and Southwold have implication for the historic environment and we have set out our advice below. The route improvements consider options that pass through the Bungay, Beccles, Halesworth, North Lowestoft, South Lowestoft and Southwold conservation areas.
Any works in these areas should respect the historic environment, including the character and appearance of these conservation areas and the setting of heritage assets and not result in harm, either directly or indirectly. The works should be carefully detailed and materials should be appropriate to these conservation areas. The works may provide an opportunity for enhancement through the reduction of visual clutter within these conservation areas. We recommend an audit of street furniture in and around these proposed route improvements to see if any unsightly clutter might be removed. New signage associated with the changes should be kept to an absolute minimum, both in terms of numbers and size of signs.
Please let me know if you require any clarification on the above advice.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 53 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Officer Response The implementation of cycle improvement schemes should consider their surroundings and reflect their sensitivity. Text can be added to reference Conservation Areas.
Suggested Change Add text to the design section about the need to consider Conservation Areas.
Ian Reid
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? As a regular cyclist and pedestrian in the Waveney area for commuting, shopping and leisure I feel that, though there is gradually improving provision for non-car users, there are a number of impediments which would prevent some people from cycling/walking. In particular, the lack of coherently linked-up cycle/walking routes across the area. Too often good routes are inexplicably interrupted or curtailed because provision has not been made to link sections together.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? I strongly support improvements to the cycling infrastructure in the Waveney area as detailed in the Draft Cycle Strategy. In particular the contraflow into Grove Rd from Gosford Rd end BE10/11 – this system would help key flows of cycle traffic avoiding Ingate. Many cyclist use this route anyway, formalising it would make it considerably safer. Another key area is the Avenue BE5 - the surface is appalling, and yet it is a key route for cyclists, pushchair users and pedestrians to the playing facilities via the station.
The provision of sufficient funding for the improvements is paramount. Improving the facilities for cyclists and walkers would enhance the value of beccles as a tourist destination of choice.
Officer Response Comments noted. With the adoption of the Strategy this should make it easier to take advantage of funding opportunities as they arise to try and deliver a more cohesive cycle network.
Suggested Change Amend (Be11) to reference the congestion in Ingate as a part of the issue.
Ipswich Borough Council
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 54 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Not completed.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Ipswich Borough Council consulted on its Draft Cycling Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) during November and December 2015 and having taken into account the responses received and making changes where appropriate is in the process of adopting the SPD. The Council supports the guidance contained in the Draft Waveney Cycling SPD in that it is broadly consistent with the guidance contained in the Ipswich SPD.
In amending the Ipswich Cycling Strategy SPD following consultation, the Council has included a description of secure cycle storage and it is suggested that Waveney Borough Council may wish to also include this description within their SPD, for consistency:
Residential: 'Secure cycle storage is that which can only be physically accessed by those authorised to use it, such as through a key or token being provided to residents and their visitors only. It should also have good natural surveillance, and the cycle storage area and access to it should be lit. A cycle stand(s) with no other facilities is not classed as secure. For new dwellings, the requirement for secure cycle storage could be met through provision of a shed in the private grounds of the dwelling.'
Non-residential: 'Secure cycle parking is that which can only be physically accessed by those authorised to use it, such as through a key or token being provided to employees only. It should also have good natural surveillance, and the cycle parking area and access to it should be lit. A cycle stand(s) with no other facilities is not classed as secure.'
Officer Response Comments noted. The text suggested is clear, useful and can be included in the document.
Suggested Change Add text to section on cycle storage as suggested.
JamesW
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? I would like to suggest an improvement to the High Street in Lowestoft, between Camden Street and the junction with Mariners Score/Mariners Street.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 55 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Currently you can cycle south off Camden Street into High Street at the Falcon pub, using a small cycle lane before continuing south reaching the Mariners score junction outside the Golden Phoenix Chinese takeaway.
As a cyclist myself, after exiting the cycle lane off Camden street, the road surface is uncomfortable and over time becoming increasingly bumpy, cars coming from the opposite direction sometimes come past too close, maybe thinking cyclists are wrongly going the wrong way up a one way street.
Resurfacing that part of High Street would help, as would creating a southbound contraflow cycle lane next to the existing marked parking bays between the Falcon pub and Mariners street junction, similar to the northbound one that exists on High street between Dukes Head Street south to the Triangle market area. This would create a better sense of understanding between drivers and cyclists.
I hope this suggestion makes sense please make contact if any elaboration myself.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response There is the potential for conflict to occur between cyclists and motorists on the High Street. With the improvements along the A12 north of Camden Street the extension of the contraflow lane would seem feasible so to connect with the existing cycle lane at Mariners Street. Concerns about road surface to be forwarded to the Highways Authority.
Suggested Change Add item in Lowestoft section to identify potential extension of the cycle lane between the A12 and Mariners Street.
Jamie Campbell
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? note the comments regarding accommodating a 'shared use' cycle track under the railway line near the proposed Oswald's Boatyard development. There are more possibilities here. Widening the bridge under the railway line at this point could not only accommodate a cycle track but also vehicular traffic. The advantage of this, is that linking a new road through from the Wherry roundabout to Harbour Road would significantly reduce congestion caused at the Oulton Broad north level crossing – by permitting an easier
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 56 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
egress for southbound traffic for vehicles from the harbour Road businesses. The roundabout outside The Wherry seems large enough to accommodate this option - which not only accommodates cycles but also potentially reduces traffic at the Harbour Road/Bridge Road junction by 50%.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? No - but it is essential that waterborne access is provided to marine businesses situated on the banks of Lake Lothing.
Officer Response The widening of the footway under the railway line to accommodate vehicles would require significant construction works and is unlikely to be supported by stakeholders. The need for businesses along Lake Lothing to retain water access has been noted, however, none of the proposals suggest a path to extend between existing businesses and the waterfront because of potential conflict.
Suggested Change No change.
Jane
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? The original cycle paths are poorly maintained ie the tram lines from the post office sorting office to Yarmouth road is often covered in glass, and Yarmouth road the cycle lane is really rough/bumpy.
Not enough places to safely lock/secure your bikes.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Where has the cycle/footbridge gone which should of been going along side the existing bridge ?
Why is there paths highlighted on the shell base which is private property & in the water near brooke peninsular ?
The bridge over the railway bridge is not easy to use unless you are really fit and the land on the boat yards side is very rough and not really suitable for cycles.
Officer Response Maintenance of cycle routes could be improved to make cycle journeys more comfortable, enjoyable and safer. Concerns will be forwarded to parties responsible for maintenance.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 57 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
A balance between how much cycle parking is required in summer and winter is needed. In the past couple of years steps have been made to improve the amount of cycle parking in the Lowestoft town centre and at present it is felt that a balance has been provided.
The proposed bridge has not been identified specifically because of the uncertainty if this will be progressed. The issue of crossing Lake Lothing via the bascule bridge is covered by item L41.
Item L26 identifies and opportunity on the former Shell base if it became available for development rather reactively responding when it might not be picked up.
Item L27 appears in the water as this refers to a proposed pedestrian cycle bridge over Lake Lothing at this location.
The railway bridge is difficult to use for many people and is identified as L29.
Suggested Change No change.
Jill
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? I regularly commute (at least twice a week) between Bungay and Kessingland, and always avoid the B1062 due to the speed and volume of traffic. Any improvements along this road would be a boon and might encourage me to go that way.
To avoid the B1062 I go a much linger but safer alternative route through Ilketshall st Andrew, Ringsfield, Weston, Hulver, Rushmere and Black Street Gisleham. The main danger points on this route are:
turning left out of King's Lane Weston, down the A145 for a couple of hundred metres then turning right into Church Lane Weston to head towards Cucumber Lane and pick up Regional Route 30 until Ellough crossroads. Traffic heading north on the A145 is also travelling downhill at this point and usually at a fair speed, with a large volume of HGVs, so pulling out into the stream of traffic to make the right turn into Church Lane at the bottom of the hill can be fairly terrifying. A speed limit might help - it's already 30 on either side of the A145 in Weston (widely ignored but hey ho) - or possibly a crossing? And I'm uncertain as to the impact of the Beccles Southern Relief Road on this route – I assume cycle facilities would be built in? In addition, Church Lane up to where it joins Cucumber Lane is frequently
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 58 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
flooded - the side of the road is crumbling into the drainage ditch and shored up with sandbags (which does nothing to aid cyclist confidence when you're forced to the edge of the road by traffic that won't wait for a passing place) and there can be significant amounts of washed-out sand and gravel across the road, creating an extremely treacherous surface even when not underwater. The hedge bounding the field immediately west of where the road cuts across the Hundred River via a single-track bridge is now high enough that drivers travelling west from Ellough crossroads down the hill can't see anyone travelling in the other direction and vice versa – at least on a bike, i have the advantage that I can hear them coming and can stop.
• Travelling along the B1127 ( a route used by many cyclists) – this road carries a ridiculous volume of HGVs (mostly using it a as cutthrough from Beccles to the A12 via Wrentham) and fast cars, is too narrow in many places for two HGVs to pass easily (in places, even a car and HGV struggle to pass - I have witnessed several accidents), and has high banks on either side so you can't even pull onto the verge to avoid trouble if you need to. A speed limit of 40 would be a help (currently it’s National Speed limit) and/or an HGV ban if possible – a cycle path would be even better!
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Any improvements that can be made will benefit cycling in the area. Many routes are fragmented and have confusing markings.
Your comments on the A12 shared-use path between Kessingland and Pakefield (which I also use regularly) are spot-on - the path is too narrow for cycles, and pedestrians to pass, and overhanging vegetation is a nuisance. In the summer, visitors on foot from Pontins don't realise it's a shared-use facility, and can be quite aggressive, under the belief it's only a footpath. In addition, there are a number of drives running across the footpath, and it's not always clear who has priority. Another problem is when heading north, if you need to cross the A12 at the first roundabout at the industrial estate to get to e.g. Morrisons, it can take quite a while to get across (there is a refuge in the middle which is of some help). Crossing the southbound carriageway, due to the 'domed' design of the roundabout, vision is restricted of traffic coming towards you and due to the carriageway design, traffic doesn''t need to slow down to negotiate the roundabout. Thsi results in problems both for pedestrians and cyclists. Crossing the northbound carriageway, visibility is better, it's just really busy. Would a toucan or similar crossing help here?
Officer Response Comments noted. Concerns raised can be forwarded to the Highways Authority. The route between Bungay and Beccles is not very safe for cyclists using the B1062 or Gillingham Dam. These are identified as items R10 and in Appendix 5 (out of District).
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 59 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Provision of better road markings or provision would benefit cyclists travelling between Beccles and Kessingland via Hulver can be included. It is difficult to include all of the items discussed within the document, however, it does highlight the need for a better route between Bungay and Beccles. Hopefully when the Beccles Southern Relief Road is delivered this will ease some of the HGV traffic on the B1127. These concerns can be forwarded to the Highways Authority for further consideration.
Concerns related to the crossing near Morrisons in Gisleham can be added to the Lowestoft section.
Suggested Change Add item related to road markings between Beccles and Kessingland to raise driver awareness.
Add item to highlight the difficulty crossing the A12 at the Morrisons roundabout in Gisleham.
Jim Elmes
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? I am a regular cyclist in and around Reydon and Southwold.
Ref S1. Support extension of lane to Pier Avenue roundabout, as often get squeezed approaching this roundabout.
Ref S2. Add to Issue: and onto cycle route extending to Walberswick. Suggested improvement: consider extension of route from Blyth Road though to Shepherds Lane, (off Halesworth Road) already a footpath.
Ref R7 If a coastal path is delivered, incorperate cycle route, as suggested in R6
Ref ?? Parish: Wangford and Reydon. Wangford Road B1126 From Wangford to Southwold.
There is no direct safe cycle route between Wangford and Southwold, Consider road safety markings to raise awareness that cyclists may be using the road.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 60 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Officer Response Comments noted. Useful suggestion to connect Blyth Road to Shepherd’s Lane that can be considered for inclusion in future iterations of the document once stakeholders have been engaged. Item R6 can be amended to include reference to both the coastal path and the cycle route along the A12 between Lowestoft and Kessingland. Suggestion of road markings between Southwold and Wangford can be included to raise driver awareness that cyclists may be using the road.
Suggested Change Add text to make reference to link between items R6 and R7. Add item in rural section about improving road markings for cyclists between Reydon and Wangford.
JJ
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Halesworth is a town with a large elderly population. As there is no secondary school provision and not much employment, it is likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future.
Until you are frail, with less-good eyesight and hearing, it is difficult to get across how frightening it is when a cyclist suddenly appears at speed before you, or comes shooting past you from behind. The Thoroughfare was pedestrianised 20 years ago this year for good reasons. Rather than proposing two-way cycling in the Thoroughfare, I think that cyclists should be required to dismount and walk its length. Given that they are, almost certainly, fit people, this should be no hardship.
It is not practical to ride a bike with a week's groceries for the family.
If the Campus project goes ahead it should include provision to get cyclists off the roads and cycling (and walking) round its inner perimeter.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? As above
Officer Response Conflicts can arise in pedestrianised areas where cycling is permitted. Provision of a shared-use path wide enough to accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians along Saxon's Way should remove the need to have any cycling in the Thoroughfare. Suggestion for a perimeter walking path around the Halesworth Campus can be forwarded to the appropriate working group.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 61 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Suggested Change Add item to Halesworth section for a shared-use path along Saxon's Way between Quay Street and the Co-Op roundabout and relocate the national cycle route accordingly.
Amend (H10) text to highlight this as an option that would increase conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.
John Shaw
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? In my opinion you should not listen to Sustrans because all they seem to want to do is get cyclist off the road and send them through back streets and onto old railway lines. Cyclist should be allowed and encouraged to get from A to B along main roads. Sustrans idea is wonderful for pleasure riders on a Sunday afternoon but most of us want to use our cycles to visit people and places, go shopping, get to work, go to the cinema etc. I would like to see cycle paths running with the main road and the lane enforced. There are two lanes to my knowledge in Great Yarmouth where the lanes are not kept clear. Cars and trucks are often on the cycle lanes and people have no respect for them as they are to be found walking along the lanes as if it were a footpath. When planning your cycle lanes, please note that most cyclist want to use the lanes as a means to getting somewhere reasonably fast and are not out just to pass the time away. We want to get somewhere for a reason and not just use them as recreational reasons.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments noted. Much of the emphasis has been on quiet cycle routes that are useful for people riding along at a leisurely pace but are less useful for people commuting or wanting to get somewhere for practical reasons rather than leisure. Such an approach is likely to have limited benefit when trying to implement a long-term modal shift if not considered with other types of cycle routes. This can be highlighted in the document. With physical constraints as well as cost in places on-road routes that are clearly marked can have a positive benefit alongside traffic-free routes.
Parking in cycle lanes is an issue. Many of the cycle lanes are advisory meaning drivers are allowed to park there. This often reflects a lack off-road parking available. This can be highlighted in the document.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 62 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Suggested Change Add item to consider cycle markings on paths in Normanston Park. Include the need to widen the path to a width that can safely accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians as the traffic-free cycle route between Millennium Way and Peto Way has used footways to connect these routes without being upgraded to avoid conflict.
Add text to high parking in cycle lanes as a barrier to cycling.
john10
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? I often cycle through Normanston Park and sometimes come into conflict with pedestrians/dog walkers who assume i do not have the right to cycle along the paths in the park . At the entrance ( Normanston Rd ) there is a blue "shared path sign " but if this small sign is not seen then this can cause a conflict . Maybe a couple of signs along the path would re enforce the fact that this is a shared path .
In general the provision of cycle paths in the area is good and it has encouraged my wife and i to use our bikes more than we normally would . A bit more maintenance of some cycle paths , in particular the cutting back of overgrown shrubs would not be a bad thing .
Today i cycled along Corton Rd Lowestoft and was unable to use the cycle lane for most of the way from Station Rd to Hubbards Loke due to parked cars . There is a clearly marked cycle path on this road but so many cars owners simply ignore this and park anyway, thus forcing cyclists to continually weave in and out of the parked cars . This main road cycle track does need some way of dissuading car owners to use it as on street parking .
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments noted. A recommendation for markings on the path can be included in the document for raise awareness.
Parked vehicles in the cycle lane are an ongoing issue. The cycle lane in Corton Road consists of dashed which indicates it is advisory. There is no restriction against parking over them.
Suggested Change Add item to consider cycle markings on paths in Normanston Park. Include the need to widen the path to a width that can safely accommodate both
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 63 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
cyclists and pedestrians as the traffic-free cycle route between Millennium Way and Peto Way has used footways to connect these routes without being upgraded to avoid conflict. Add text to highlight parking in cycle lanes as a barrier to cycling.
Joseph
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? One of the barriers to cycling participation is a lack of confidence and skills and I'd like to see the cycle strategy addressing this. For example, could Suffolk County Council's Bikeability programme play a part, both for children and adults?
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? As above.
Officer Response The Government's funding of the Bikeability scheme has been extended for another couple of years recognising the importance of improving the cycle skills of children. There are examples of Bikeability training for people of all ages including as a family group.
Suggested Change Add section outlining how cycling can be encouraged including bikeability training.
julia
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? To permit 2 way cycling in the Halesworth thoroughfare is a recipe for disaster. I cannot see how this benefits cyclists as they already have an alternative route and I can't see much, if any benefit to shopkeepers. The increased danger to elderly citizens is serious in the extreme. A pedestrian thoroughfare should remain exactly that. Maybe more secure cycle racks in the central car park would be the constructive way to deal with this issue.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 64 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Officer Response Conflicts can arise in pedestrianised areas where cycling is permitted. Provision of a shared-use path wide enough to accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians along Saxon's Way would likely remove the need to have any cycling in the Thoroughfare.
Suggested Change Add item to Halesworth section for a shared-use path along Saxon's Way between Quay Street and the Co-Op roundabout and relocate the national cycle route accordingly.
Amend (H10) text to highlight this as an option that would increase conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.
Keith Wink
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? All the issues highlighted are relevant but I'd like to raise others:-
The bridge crossing the railway at oulton broad south is dangerous as it's narrow. The footbridge on the east side is for pedestrians only and cyclists are asked to dismount although in practice cyclists use it safely in conjuction with pedestrians, I believe this restriction should be removed. The footpath travelling north from the bridge mentioned above is wide enough to accomodate both pedestrians and cyclists and this should be encouraged.
Bridge road between OB north station and the Wherry hotel is a very dangerous stretch for cyclists in both diretions as it is a narrow pinch point. Car drivers can become impatient overtaking when inappropriate.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments noted. The road crossing over the railway line is not good for cyclists and the footbridge is narrow fragmenting the cycle route. Potential to consider amending signage to suggest cyclists give way and respect pedestrians instead of requiring cyclists to dismount. The issue of cyclists dismounting highlights a wider issue that something is significantly wrong with the cycle route in that area.
Provision in the wider Dell Road to Normanston Drive area is fragmented and generally poor despite a traffic-free path over the bridge traversing the railway line near Oulton Broad South Station. The entire route requires
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 65 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
proper consideration. Add item to consider this wider route between Dell Road and Millennium Way can be added to the document.
The route from the Millennium Way/Normanston Road roundabout to the Wherry Hotel is well used but is considered unsafe by many cyclists. It should be considered in its entirety to discourage people from cycling along the narrow footpath. This is reinforced with no crossing available to pedestrians or cyclists from the railway station which can be difficult when the road is busy. Conflict is created between residents, shoppers, vehicles and cyclists.
Suggested Change Add item to revise the entire cycle route/provision along the section of road between Dell Road/Beccles Road and Millennium Way roundabout.
Lea Court
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? As a Lowestoft resident for just over 30 years I welcome your efforts to provide a strategy for improving the local cycling network and know that it will provide a well-used and enjoyable facility for many local residents. Cycling is, after all, a very healthy mode of quite rapid transport.
My contribution may not fall directly in your remit but it is a point that has been a constant concern of mine since my arrival in this locality. Prior to that I lived in the larger, and less pleasant, urban sprawls of Birmingham and Nottingham for a total of 30 years. People there were less inclined to cycle because of greater distances involved, hills, and higher traffic volumes. However, the knowledge of the outcome of not following safe cycling conduct in high traffic volumes after dark was almost universal and was, no doubt, learned through unpleasant experience. People who dared to cycle without lights would be stopped by police, shouted to by pedestrians, or alerted by the sounding of car horns.
Lowestoft has a far more casual styling in which lights seem 'optional' at best, an attitude no doubt evolved through a historic familiarity with low traffic volumes. In the morning the paper boys/girls career along in darkness and at night the workforce returns home in similar style. During the night a high percentage (50%?) of cyclists will have made little or no accommodation for the prevailing conditions. Thus far this has had little consequence but as the traffic volumes continue to rise my concern is that eventually fatalities will occur.
I offer this view with good intent for your creation of a safe integrated cycle network.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 66 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments and concerns noted. Unfortunately, many cyclists do not use lights to make them visible. Some cyclists may be unaware that lights are a legal requirement between sunset and sunrise and if a cyclist is involved in an accident there could be ramifications if they have not been used.
Suggested Change Add text to document identifying poor cycle habits and conflict with pedestrians and vehicles.
Lowestoft Vision
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Not completed.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Thank you for sending through the draft cycle strategy which looks like a positive way to improve the flow of the community around the town. Lowestoft Vision is keen to support projects and schemes such as this to encourage our communities into the town centre.
Looking through the suggestions we have a couple of points which needs to be considered. In the Lowestoft recommendations L14 and L17 in London road North the suggestion is to allow cycling in the pedestrianised High Street from Milton Road East to Suffolk Road. This would raise a number of concerns from businesses as well as a safety issue. The natural make up of shops in the town encourages pedestrians to walk from one side to the other. With this cycles could cause a risk to pedestrians. Over the last year we have tried to discourage cyclist rom using this area during peak shopping times due to safety concerns.
One of the recommendations looks at only allowing cycling between permitted hours which could be of benefit (there is very little or any risk in this area for pedestrians from 6pm. However there would need to be a clear message that cycling is not permitted outside of these times.
With the recommendations for L18 you would also need to consider the recommendations from the recent Lowestoft Transport and Infrastructure
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 67 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Project (LTIP) which has 20 recommendations in the town including a new road layout for the area around Battery Green road.
We would welcome the opportunity to continue to feed into this project.
Officer Response
Suggested Change Amend text to highlight the need to work with Lowestoft BiD as they work to improve the town centre.
M D Waller
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? From what I have seen as a walker and cyclist, I have come to the conclusion that the authorities seem to be a mind to allow drivers and cyclists to ‘go their way’.
have seen cyclists riding on the pavement when traffic is very sparse and when there is a road cycle lane just yards away. Even along the lower promenade, which is no cycling – fixed penalty – in groups, through beach goers who are there to relax and play – depending upon age of course. The‘official’ cycle lane leading up to the Kensington Gardens is ignored.
Of several ‘brushes’ I have personally experienced, the most serious involved a cyclist who collided with me, from behind, when I walked on the pavement between Commercial Road towards the railway station.
Such was his speed he and his cycle were propelled into the road where he collided with a builders open back truck. Luckily, for him, the truck had just had to stop because of the lights of the pedestrian crossing turning red. His response when I asked what he was cycling on the pavement was loud, obscene and threatening. Somehow it was my fault.
Road cycle lanes are a solution, but only if drivers appreciate that if they block these lanes by stopping and parking in them, and forcing cyclists to turn into traffic streams, they are creating a dangerous situation for the cyclists, because they have to then rejoin the cycle lane until the next obstacle, and numerous drivers seem to treat the centre white line as a ‘brick wall’ even though the oncoming traffic lane is void of traffic. By moving over it allows the cyclist a comfortable journey. I know not all cyclists are perfect but we are the more vulnerable in an accident.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 68 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
A question I would like the answer to is – is the town bridge actually a cycle path? The signage indicates that the paths either side are, but is the bridge itself actually a cycle path? Are cyclists supposed to dismount and walk across? If so, why is there no indication to do so? I wish you the best of luck with any improvements you hope to do because I believe that cycling is an excellent pastime and very beneficial for health and fitness.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Concerns noted. While some cyclists, particularly children, have concerns about cycling along roads the practice of cycling along footways is illegal and creates conflict with pedestrians. Shared-use along the promenade has issues whether providing a delineated cycle lane which acts to increase the speed of cyclists and pedestrians by their nature may be unaware of the presence of a cycle lane when the walk into it or whether there is just shared-use and no lane where speeds a usually reduced but cyclists pass people on any side.
The shared-use path between the bascule bridge and Denmark Road is effectively a footway and is not a very good shared-use route. The entire area requires further consideration to improve mobility and increase safety. The issue is highlighted in item L41. There is significant conflict between users and unsafe cycle manoeuvres carried out in this area which is 'encouraged' by the existing road and footway layout (reinforced by hazards such as sign posts in the route).
The route across the bascule bridge is signed for shared-use but the legal standing this bridge would need to be queried with Highways England who are the authority responsible for trunk roads in the area.
Suggested Change Add text highlighting parking in cycle lanes and potential conflict in shared- use areas to the section about barriers to cycling.
valleyfarmholton
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? I strongly object to any suggestion that cyclists should be treated differently from other road users, particularly in the Thoroughfare and Chediston Street. The obvious problem with both is that vehicular traffic is one way and
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 69 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
the conflict that would result from 2-way cycling between cycles and vehicles and, more important, cycles and pedestrians will lead to accidents.
This idea is shear lunacy and Waveney District Council should consider the residents of Halesworth. particularly the elderly, who vastly outnumber cyclists. The present policy that cyclist travelling from the Angel north should dismount and walk is sensible. It would be even more sensible if it were enforced. This proposal is clearly ‘political correctness’ gone mad. It is daft enough to suggest that were it passed, a judicial review of the behaviour of the Council might be appropriate.
I assume these comments will be passed to the members who will be considering this ‘plan’.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments noted.
Suggested Change Amend (H10) text to recognise conflict between pedestrians and cyclists in shared use areas.
Margaret
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? only one cycle path in the town, Bridge Street Hill. This is virtually useless for most of the time as there is ALWAYS at least one vehicle parked on the cycle lane.Many of us from the local cycling club and my husband and I when planning a leisure cycle ride have protested but nothing is ever done about it.. It was also going to have studs on the edge but again nothing came of this.
A missed opportunity when the one way system was constructed, particularly along St Mary's Street. The west side of the road has a wide pavement , can the pavement have a line separating walkers from cyclists?
it is not easy to cycle anywhere in the town but there are areas with the will that could be developed. One being crossing from doctor's surgery going south, east at cemetery corner heading down Hillside road east to the coop, the path is wide and there is plenty of space. That short stretch would enable children in particular to cycle to the only supermarket in the town
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 70 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
,another crossing to allow them to carry on to the housing estates and six form.
.Route also from Bungay High School to the six form college Hillside road east.. Route would follow a track from behind the high school, cross A144 (with lights) follow (very worn) route along Farmer Mr Basey Fisher's field, cross tin river and up onto Meadow and Waveney roads, this would make for a very much safer route for everyone not just children to avoid cemetery corner.The lights/route could also be use d for people accessing the swimming pool and encourage more people to walk and cycle.
Whatever happens, it will be useless unless there are enforcement notices which are mandatory and not advisory.
Make all roads in Bungay 20MPH.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments and concerns noted. These can be forwarded to the Highways Authority. Parking in cycle lanes is an ongoing issue. The cycle lanes in Bridge Street are advisory so there are no parking restrictions. The issue is highlighted in Bu7.
The potential to improve cycle access to the town centre via St Mary's Street or another route is best considered in the wider context of improving cycle routes throughout the town. This is considered in the context of Bu23.
Improving cycle routes along Hillside Road (east and west) is set out in BU13 and Bu22. Improving connections between the Prince's Road area and Bungay Sixth Form College would benefit the wider are and is identified in Bu20.
Suggested Change Amend (Bu7) text to clarify the issue.
Michael Gasper
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? As a Wenhaston (SCDC) resident, it would be wonderful if instead of trying to recreate an inappropriate railway which isn't wanted the old Southwold - Halesworth railway track could be converted into an off road cycle/walk/buggy route. The track across the Millennium Green has
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 71 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
demonstrated that such things are possible. It would be a dream come true to be able to cycle, off road, into Halesworth and Southwold!
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response A proposal for a cycle route between Halesworth and Southwold is set out in Appendix 5 (out of District). This would improve connectivity for local residents and improve the tourism offer in the area.
Suggested Change Add text to Appendix 5 to reference the former railway line.
Milligan_19
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? The strategy seems comprehensive, and well thought out. The suggestions related to Denmark road and the station area are particularly good - resurfacing the path, removing obstacles such as the tree stump and concrete block and extending the path to the Rotterdam road roundabout will make it significantly safer for both cyclists and cars. However there are several areas missed off the strategy which I feel would benefit from improvement. The road surface on Norwich road and Clemence street is not good with large potholes making it dangerous for cyclists. Also after heavy rain, large puddles of water gather in front of the bridge directly opposite the traffic lights by the station. This water doesn't drain away, and means any cyclists wishing to cross the bridge from north to south have to negotiate this large semi-permanent feature - dangerous for them and vehicles also attempting to cross the bridge. Signage could be improved across the entire area - particularly around the bascule bridge and Denmark road. Pedestrians often come into conflict with cyclists over shared use paths as signage is unclear - pedestrians walk on the Denmark road cycle path and assume superiority over cyclists when crossing the bascule bridge. The cycle path at the bottom end of the seafront could also be reopened, allowing cyclists travelling from south to north to get to the bridge without having to dismount, cycle on paths or cut through the royal green car park.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments noted. These will be forwarded to the Highways Authority. Poor drainage is an issue at a number of locations in the District and reduces
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 72 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
safety. Signage in many areas of the District is difficult to follow reducing the value of the cycle network. Both of these issues can be included in the section about barriers to cycling. The proposed cycle/pedestrian bridge adjacent to the bascule bridge was intended to reduce this conflict, however, its future remains uncertain. The Denmark Road corridor set out in the Lowestoft Lake Lothing & Outer Harbour Area Action Plan contains a strategic site referred to as the Denmark Road corridor which, if delivered, could improve the cycle route in this area.
The cycle route along the northern end of the promenade has been closed to accommodate the works on the seawall, however, it has since reopened.
Suggested Change Add text to highlight signage and drainage in the barriers to cycling section.
Mr & Mrs Duncan
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Pot holes are a constant issue fell off twice recently, wife also fell in bushes and on grass verge
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Look after what you have put in place short cycle lanes are not of any use as cars park in them sometimes and then they are a hazard
Officer Response Comments and concerns noted. These will be forwarded to the Highways Authority.
Suggested Change Poor condition of cycle paths and road surfaces to be added to the section about barriers to cycling.
Mr & Mrs R U Cantwell
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? I am a daily cyclist both work and pleasure reasons. I had pleasure signing a youngsters campaign for 3rd crossing this weekend.
I welcome the reason of the strategy.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 73 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Please involve Waveney Disability Forum as the drop down kerbs and width and accessibility is needed for them. Your contact would be Stuart Halsey / Frank Mortimer WDC.
Statistics of drop of use of main busy routes due to cyclists making use of alternative routes I agree. I have a variety of safe cycle routes I take influenced by the time of day – weather conditional. These I can confidently bike home at night or early morning.
Thoroughly agree with benefits of cycling.
Barrier to cycling – I speak to colleagues and it is fear / danger you have identified. I have overcome this but would welcome cyclist safety training on an off road site. As it appears some cyclists are not aware of cycling to left on pathways and oncoming cyclists doing so to avoid confusion and collision.
Cars not considering the length of their car when pulling in after overtaking. It is only this year I have had 3 occasions where they pull in too soon not making a safe judgement of getting past me.
I have a learnt code Dismount in town Follow traffic signals Give priority to buggies – wheelchair users – pedestrians Local cycle map I have a historic SCC map How about teaming up with Waveney Disability Forum making a joint one for users of wheelchairs / family Confidence of cyclist so important. Have you been in touch with Bike Active c/o Waveney Disability Forum Andrew Provan / Claire Henwood.
Finally I understand the economic climate and enjoy cycling in Lowestoft as it is.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Local Councillors and the Active Communities team working with the Waveney Disability Forum they have been kept informed of the Draft Cycle Strategy.
A lack of drop kerbs is an issue for a variety of people in the community to access local destinations and continue their travel routes. This is discussed in
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 74 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
the first part of the document. In this context it is recognised these little items affect a variety of different people in the community.
A section to promote cycling can be added to the document. There are examples of cycle training being provided for people of all ages and families to increase the confidence of people riding their bicycles.
A joint map for wheelchair users and families is an interesting suggestion to improve awareness and encourage people to undertake a variety of activities. Suggestion can be forwarded to people in WDC to consider.
Conflict between vehicles and cyclists is often highlighted by cyclists, however, it is important to reflect that the same issue applies to cyclists and pedestrians. Sometimes this can be lost on the cyclist, hence cycle courteousy is important to benefit all people using a space.
Suggested Change Add section to the document setting out examples of how cycling can be promoted including bikeability training for people of all ages.
Mr Malcolm White
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Before any more public money is spent on cycle paths, a major effort should made to ensure cyclists understand what these are for. Many cyclists prefer to ride on busy roads such as the A12 (Yarmouth Road) and do not use the council provided cycle paths. I see on a daily basis traffic, including HGVs and buses, trying to avoid cyclists who insist on using major roads even when cycle paths have already been provided.
What about the rules about riding cycles in the main pedestrian shopping area in London Road North; it is a free for all with cyclists often "cutting up" pedestrians. This also applies on the seafront, even when the council has displayed on the ground no cycling signs such as outside the Claremont Pier.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Much more control is needed and enforcement of the correct use of cycle paths where they exist such as the seafront.
Officer Response Comments noted. Many of the cycle paths along busy roads are in poor condition and are regularly disrupted by junctions and driveways and are poorly connected as an entire route. While these are suitable for less
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 75 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
confident cyclists travelling at a leisurely pace they often deter quicker cyclists and can increase the potential for accidents.
The cycle route connecting North Lowestoft to outlying areas to the north is indirect and inconvenient. The conflict with vehicles along the A12 (Yarmouth Road) highlights the need to reassess how cyclists commute in this area. The strategy hopes to highlight such issues to help deliver better facilities for cyclists. In this way cyclists will be encouraged to use safer routes reducing the conflict between cyclists and vehicles which will benefit all road users.
Enforcement is most commonly applied where cyclists ride along footways which is illegal. Cyclists have the same right as motorists to ride along roads and there is no law against cycling on the road when cycle paths are present.
Suggested Change New section about general issues in Waveney District to include cyclists using the road where cycle paths are provided due to poor quality of the path or route.
Mrs Chatfield
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? I would ask how about plans to improve WALKING experience in Beccles. Getting about is already a nightmare for pedestrians in Beccles, ever increasing traffic, vehicles parked on pavements which are narrow enough as it is. If we have to look over our shoulders for fear of being mown down by a cyclist, then it will be the last straw.
I am horrified that the WDC is even considering encouraging cyclists to break the law because “they already do it”. What a strange and frightening logic, there are many laws being broken so perhaps that thinking could be applied to them as well, sounds like anarchy, surely the law should be enforced, not weakly surrended.
If someone sustains an injury because of the WDC ruling regards cycling on pavements, then I assume the victim will be able to claim compensation from the WDC. I enclose cutting from article written by a mother whose child was a victim of a cyclist on the footpath. Cycling may be the ‘in’ thing, but please, not at the expense of others who also deserve consideration. Pedestrians desperately need someone to represent their safety and interests.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 76 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments and concerns noted. Conflict between pedestrians and cyclists can be an issue where locations are inappropriate.
Suggested Change Add text to highlight potential conflict between pedestrians and cyclists in shared-use areas.
Mrs JM Huckle
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? My comments refer to Halesworth and to Halesworth Throughfare and part of Bridge Street in particular. Map contains inaccuracies, wrong road names, some markings are incomprehensible and ‘Traffic free cycle connections’ cannot connect unless cyclists use one way streets and footpaths bringing users and cyclists into conflict. - it is written totally from a cycling strategist view - focuses on what cyclist should have - no mention that the Thoroughfare is a conservation area and pedestrianised - proposal includes lots more cycle stands which could have a detrimental and damaging effect on the experience and visual enjoyment of our lovely listed buildings - only existing cycle stands used are opposite the library and in the main car park near Durrants Estate Agents - stands are only used in the summer months - wrongly placed cycle stands would have a really limiting effect space wise for charity event organisers who should be consulted - the last lot put in, in the Market Place are rarely, if ever, used and are so close to our Grade II listed town pump spoiling the photo potential Proposal to allow cycling both ways in a one way street, Thoroughfare and Bridge Street - cyclists going one way do not cycle straight but weave in and out of shoppers, pedestrians, parked vehicles, disability scooters etc bringing many users and cyclists into conflict - there is ongoing potential danger to shoppers/pedestrians who step out of a shop doorway, from cyclists speeding across the shop doorways - anyone stepping out of a building doorway could be harmed - reflecting the uniqueness of Halesworth, are these cyclist unable to walk the short distance from one end to the other?
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 77 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
- those unable to walk, as an alternative could use Rectory Lane (already used by cyclists both ways!) from Chediston Street to Rectory Street keeping to the left with pedestrians keeping to the river side of the path
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments and concerns noted. There is potential for conflict between pedestrians and cyclists in shared-use areas. Part of the issue is that by permitting one-way cycling there is confusion about how to use the wider cycle network in the area. Wherever 'cycle dismount' signs are used as part of a cycle route it highlights there is a significant issue that needs to be considered. An item suggesting a shared-use path along Saxon's Way between Quay Street and the Co-Op roundabout would enable the national cycle route to be moved away from the town centre thereby removing the need to permit any cycling in the Thoroughfare. The path on the east side of Saxon's Way would need to be widened to facilitate this.
Cycle parking can be provided in a variety of ways to protect the character of an area, however, these should be appropriately considered to reflect the surroundings.
A useful suggestion Rectory Lane, however, given the narrow walkway and the limited visibility in some places this is likely to have a small effect if formalised.
The base maps used (including street names) are obtained from the Ordinate Survey.
Suggested Change Add item to Halesworth section for a shared-use path along Saxon's Way between Quay Street and the Co-Op roundabout and relocate the national cycle route accordingly. Amend (H10) text to highlight this as an option that would increase conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.
Mrs Maxine Vincent
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? I would like to see three new cycle routes as follows:
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 78 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
1. A route from the existing cycle path on the millennium green in Halesworth through to Holton Road and then through to Norwich Road perhaps via Hill Farm Road. 2. A cycle path along the River Blyth from Halesworth to Southwold updating the existing footpath. This would encourage people to park in Halesworth and use the local facilities and then cycle to Southwold and this would keep some of the traffic out of Southwold. There could be other areas of parking along the route for people to cycle to Southwold or Halesworth by taking a shorter route. 3. A larger car park at the Hen Reed beds in Reydon and then a cycle route across the road on the lower path which is adjacent to the river and takes you into Southwold Harbour.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Suggestions noted and can be used as examples of how upgrading footpaths for shared-use could benefit tourism. Suggestion relating to the Hen Reeds Beds can be forwarded to the Suffolk Wildlife Trust.
Suggested Change Add text to section on tourism to reference footways in the Blyth Valley.
MrsGreen
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? I'm not a cyclist any more but was in my young days. It's not safe now with so much traffic and I didn't consider it safe when my children were young which was a shame. Anything to encourage cycling instead of cars is a good thing but as a disabled person I am fed up with cycles riding fast on the pavement and not having lights at night. Do they still teach cycle safety in schools?
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments noted. Hopefully, the cycle strategy will help deliver better cycle routes so that cyclists do not feel they have to ride along footways to feel safe which is a better result for everybody. Cycling along footways is illegal as is the practice of not using lights between dusk and dawn.
Suggested Change Add text about conflict with pedestrians and cyclists riding along footways.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 79 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Natural England
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Not completed.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Natural England does not consider that this Waveney Draft Cycle Strategy poses any likely risk or opportunity in relation to our statutory purpose, and so does not wish to comment on this consultation.
The lack of comment from Natural England should not be interpreted as a statement that there are no impacts on the natural environment. Other bodies and individuals may wish to make comments that might help the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to fully take account of any environmental risks and opportunities relating to this document.
If you disagree with our assessment of this proposal as low risk, or should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment, then in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, please consult Natural England again.
Officer Response Comments noted.
Suggested Change No change.
Nicky Elliott
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Not completed. Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? I welcome this cycle strategy and think the whole document is well researched and thought out. I particularly endorse your suggested
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 80 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
improvements in the following parts of Beccles, as I frequently use these links (by getting off my bike and walking while pushing it): Be5 The Avenue, Be6 Blyburgate/Hungate junction, Be7 Blyburgate car park (1), Be9 Roys car park, BE10 Grove Road (1), Be11 Grove Road (2), and Be12 Bungay Road (B1062) between Puddingmoor and Roos Hall Cottages. At present, I frequently turn right off the B1062 onto the marsh track next to Roos Hall Cottages at the foot of the hill on a bend where the visibility is very poor and the speed of oncoming vehicles is dangerously high. The suggested improvement of a shared use path along the wide verge here will ensure the safety off all cyclists taking this route. Let's hope it gets implemented!
Officer Response Support noted.
Suggested Change No change in response to this comment. However, items Be6 and Be9 have been removed.
NorCas
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? I think it is a commendable ambition to try and improve facilities for cyclists. I try and cycle when I can but overall I prefer to walk within the boundaries of the town. This mainly for environmental, personal exercise and maintenance of health reasons. I do not own a car. However, I think from considerable observation over time that the existing provision of cycle lanes are not properly used in the main. Cycle-paths that are by the side of the roadway and are indicated by a white line and cycle markings are not used very much in my experience. For example, the cycle lanes on Marine Parade Lowestoft are avoided by most cyclists who prefer to ride on the pedestrian pathway. This is probably because of perceived bad or careless car driving. Riding on the pavement is also against the bye-laws and is dangerous to pedestrians. Mixed use pedestrian pathways are dangerous to all parties. Therefore, I would suggest that any new cycle lanes should be separated by kerbing both from the main roadway & the pedestrian pathway. General bad car driving habits and bad cycle riding habits also need to improve with lights properly fitted and leaving pavements free for pedestrians.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? I generally think the basic strategy is okay but care will have to be taken in implementation and enforcement as above.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 81 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Officer Response The quality routes are well used, however, the older cycle paths tend to be narrow and are often poorly maintained discouraging use. Some cyclists are using footways illegally based on fear rather than real danger which creates conflict with pedestrians. It does highlight the need to provide better cycle paths and routes where cyclists can feel safe and raise confidence.
Suggested Change Text can be added highlighting the potential conflict between pedestrians and cyclists on shared-use paths.
Norfolk County Council
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Not completed.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Thank you for consulting Norfolk County Council on the above draft cycling strategy. At this stage it is not considered that the strategy raises any strategic cross-boundary issues with Norfolk County Council. I assume, under your statutory duty to co-operate (Localism Act 2011), that if you feel there are any strategic cross boundary issues arising or likely to arise that you would seek further discussion with Norfolk County Council i.e. through myself as the first point of contact.
Officer Response Comments noted. Cross-boundary suggestions are set out in Appendix 5 including cycle routes that connect to roads managed by Norfolk County Council.
Suggested Change No change.
Paul Belton
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Not completed.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? I am responding to Lowestoft area only: The strategy rightly picks up the fragmented situation of cycle ways and marked routes. Many routes are badly signed and maintained, and lack of dropped kerbs at crossings certainly restrict ease of cycling across town. Unfortunately this strategy
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 82 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
does not deal with the major problems faced by cyclists and that is drivers attitudes, we need to adopt the situation that Holland, Germany and Scandinavian counties have now adopted that cyclists ( and pedestrians) have right of ways at junctions, this will slow vehicles and make for safer movement of cycle traffic.
The strategy does pick up all the main problem areas that many cyclist face daily as at present there are no coherent links of the many cycle routes in Lowestoft.
The CTC latest document "Space for Cycling"- A guide for local decision makers says it all.
Officer Response Comments noted. Limited cycle parking in useful locations is provided on the seafront but it is considered that an appropriate amount of cycle parking is available in the town centre. While these may be well used in summer they tend to be vacant in winter increasing the sense of street clutter. Fragmented cycle routes and poor way-finding measures are common in many areas and this strategy hopes to facilitate measures to improve this.
Better routes and cycle paths (on-road and off-road) which increase the sense of safety will encourage more people to cycle which in turn can raise the profile of cycling and awareness of drivers that cyclists may be on the road. More frequent road markings would help to raise driver awareness that cyclists may be on the road.
Prioritising cycle routes at junctions is controlled by traffic regulations and reduces the quality of a cycle route.
Driver poor driving habits can be a significant deterrent to cycle participation. This can be noted in the 'barriers to cycling' section. The reference to CTC's 'Space for Cycling' is noted.
Suggested Change Add reference to poor driver habits to the barrier to cycling section. New section to be provided outlining possible ways to encourage cycling. Raising driver awareness to be included in this.
Set out greater context about the strategic cycle network and general issues which inhibit the value of cycle routes and paths.
paul johnson
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area?
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 83 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
I am actually against increasing cycle provision in the area because many of the roads where there are clear problems are too busy with road traffic to safely manage cycles. While appreciate the desire to make cycling more attractive, the risk to cyclists would appear to be increased by some of the proposals on the map. Two roads in particular present higher risks to cyclists. Normanston Drive and Victoria Road are both narrow, and cycles, without the cycle lane, have very limited space. Both of these roads are frequently carrying stationary traffic due to the rail crossings, and the traffic often has to split due to emergency service vehicles needing to take the middle. Cars need to be able to move left, and the incorporation of a dedicated cycle lane makes this third lane unavailable. Narrowing the existing lanes on these two roads increases the risk to cyclists.
On the plan, the addition of cycle lanes to footpaths from new developments is a sound proposal, as is the removal of barriers and other obstacles. The comments on the requirement for a ramp at the end of the old railway line path at the rear of Halfords is very important.
On a personal note - I have a cycle, and my son had a moped unused as he drives a car. The journey from my home near the old fire station in Normanton Drive to the car park near the library is one of the most scary journeys I ever made. I note a mention of adjustments to the roundabout at the bottom of Normanton Drive/Rotterdam Rd - this makes sense as the roundabout is tricky to negotiate on cycles, and not much better on a moped. Going up towards the Football ground is also difficult, a popular route for cycles, I note. The gradient, curvature of the rd and parking making the ascent risky.
Roads are too busy in Lowestoft for cycle lanes on the roads - parking is common, and drains are frequently 50mm or more below the road surface, presenting a clear and present danger to cyclists and other 2 wheel road users.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Victoria Road is narrow but currently there is no alternative route from Kirkley to Oulton Broad that is convenient or direct. The existing cycle path is poor and ends abruptly> This encourages cyclist to ride into the busy road without stopping (or in some cases not looking). Because of its directness cyclists will continue to use this route despite the volumes of traffic.
Improved surface road markings to raise awareness for drivers that cyclists may be on the road and to give cyclists more confidence that they have a right to be there would be useful. There is no suggestion for formal cycle
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 84 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
lanes along the road as it is not wide enough and the footpaths cannot be widened.
The route from the Millennium Green roundabout to Oulton Broad via Normanston Drive and Bridge road is poor. No alternative route available that is convenient or direct. The layout from the railway station encourages people to cycle on the footway increasing conflict with pedestrians and cars existing driveways. On-road cycle markings (not cycle lanes) could raise awareness that cyclists may be on the road and have a right to be there. The cycle network from the aforementioned roundabout to Dell Road needs to be reconsidered in its entirety.
Suggested Change Add item to revise the entire cycle route/provision along the section of road between Dell Road/Beccles Road and Millennium Way roundabout. Amend (L46) to clarify issue and suggestion for improvement.
Paul Warren
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Not completed.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? I would like to comment on the current proposal to allow 2-way cycling in the Thoroughfare, Halesworth.
At present, 1-way cycling is permitted (in the same direction as other vehicles), but pedestrians frequently have to be alert to avoid being hit by cyclists travelling the wrong way, having ignored the "dismount" signs. If this is illegal, then more should be done to enforce the rule, not give in to the lawbreakers by legalising the act.
What is the benefit of allowing 2-way cycling? Just because a cyclist can enter from both ends doesn't mean they will use local shops more. It's just a short cut to avoid using the proper route along Saxon Way. If one of the Council's aims is to encourage cycling for health reasons, then surely it would be healthier to use the slightly longer route of Saxon Way instead of the short cut.
Also, if a delivery van and a cyclist meet head-on, who has right of way? Vehicle drivers have enough to contend with avoiding pedestrians without having to watch for manic cyclists going in both directions.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 85 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Your interactive map has a comment "...makes the town centre more difficult to access". This is clearly not the case because another part of the same map indicates that cyclists cross the car park to access the town centre, so obviously the centre is easy to access. The suggestion of a cycle route across the car park would hopefully guide cyclists round the car park in the same direction as traffic flow; there would then be no "conflict" between cars and cycles, and would obviate the need for the ridiculous 2-way Thoroughfare proposal.
This part of the strategy is ill-considered and, judging by neighbours' comments and those on Streetlife, would be against the wishes of a majority of residents.
Officer Response Comments noted. There is potential for conflict between pedestrians and cyclists in shared-use areas. Part of the issue is that by permitting one-way cycling there is confusion about how to use the wider cycle network in the area.
An item suggesting a shared-use path along Saxon's Way between Quay Street and the Co-Op roundabout would enable the national cycle route to be moved away from the town centre thereby reducing the need to permit any cycling in the Thoroughfare. The path on the east side of Saxon's Way would need to be widened to facilitate this.
Suggested Change Add item to Halesworth section for a shared-use path along Saxon's Way between Quay Street and the Co-Op roundabout and relocate the national cycle route accordingly.
Amend (H10) text to highlight this as an option that would increase conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.
Peter Reeve
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Not completed.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Waveney District Council Draft Cycle Strategy – Lowestoft Area – Proposed crossing over Lake lothing from Brooke Peninsular to Normanston Park.
The suggestion for a pedestrian/cycle bridge across Lake Lothing at the Brooke Peninsular would not be practical as the bridge design would need to
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 86 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
allow for vessels to navigate beneath it or through it. If a high level bridge was to be considered its height would need to be at least 30 metres possibly more above high water level for a ship or yacht to clear. The extent of ramping for bicycles or even steps for pedestrians would be unacceptable. If an opening bridge was to be contemplated it would need to operate 24hrs daily a seven days a week as is the case with the existing bascule bridge. This would be expensive to install and to operate. Waveney District Council must be aware that the whole of Lake Lothing forms part of Lowestoft Harbour and requires to be navigable by shipping throughout.
Officer Response Comment noted. Any future bridge will require consultation with stakeholders, some of which has already taken part through the preparation of the Lowestoft Lake Lothing and Outer Harbour Area Action Plan.
Suggested Change No change.
Phil Sillet
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? I have just read your article in the Waveney Advertiser dated 26th February 2016 and am delighted with the prospect of more safe cycle routes. I regularly cycle from my home in Carlton Colville to Great Yarmouth, Beccles and Halesworth and therefore am particularly interested in your draft proposals for improvements in rural networks. I am not fanatical about cycling but I do it for family enjoyment and occasional ride to work. I am a retired Police accident investigator and therefore avoid A roads like the plague and some B roads.
I would love to be able to cycle to Southwold but the B1127 between Wrentham and Southwold, the road I would use, is too dangerous it has high hedgerows close to the road restricting visibility around the bends and no escape route. So even with warning signs of cyclists on this road, the improvements suggested in R7 are probably not enough for me to use that route. However, R5 and R6 I would definitely use.
As a suggestion, if a cycle network could run alongside the Angles Way walking route that would give over 90 miles of safe cycling between Great Yarmouth and Thetford.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 87 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Officer Response Comments and concerns noted. There is limited scope for alternative improvements. Potentially improving surface road markings and signage to raise driver awareness that cyclists may be on the road (and have a right to be there) provides some reassurance (albeit limited).
A rural cycle route between Great Yarmouth and Thetford would be a significant positive addition to the leisure and tourism cycle offer in the area. While such large project are not considered in this particular strategy it is something that could be considered if a wider regional cycle strategy was being considered.
Suggested Change Add further discussion about upgrading footways to shared-use paths to encourage tourism in the area.
R Millner
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Not completed.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? I have read the Cycling Strategy and as usual it is full of good intentions. However over more than 40 years in the town, the Local Plan has talked about cycling but very largely failed to deliver any coherent and safe cycling strategy. It is very easy to look at the coloured legends marking cycle routes especially in Lowestoft and think that there is good coverage in the town but this is completely misleading. It is the difference between tick box cycle routes which look good on a map and real practical safe cycle routes which people actually cycling in the town can make use of.
The cycle strategy recognises this disconnect when it states in the Introduction: "However, much of the development taking place in the past few decades has had mixed results in terms of cycle provision.
Many cycle paths have been considered in isolation and fail to properly consider the wider Built environment. Common examples of this include cycle paths extending a short distance but not connecting into the wider cycle network, traffic-free paths and short connections that were designed to link residential areas but are too narrow to accommodate cyclists thus disrupting cycle routes and
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 88 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Much of the development taken place has had mixed results in terms of cycle provision creating conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. Signage and road markings can also be confusing and inconsistent. Overall, cycle provision in the District has often not been considered in a way to create a cohesive and easily legible cycle network that could evolve over time."
The report also acknowledges "In Waveney the cycle network consists of a limited number of high quality cycleways but is more widely characterised by a series of fragmented routes with rough surfaces and limited connections that are often difficult to follow. Together these existing issues inhibit the value of the cycle Network to local people and without improvements are limited in their potential to encourage greater uptake in the activity."
This is particularly true in Lowestoft. Many of the routes into town end at dangerous points such as roundabouts or traffic lights (eg Denmark Road to North Quay Retail Park or London Rd S at junction with Pier Terrace or end of Tom Crisp Way). At a number of sites there is a failure to join up tracks on opposite sides of the road (eg N Quay, and places on Tom Crisp Way).
This makes it impossible to allow children or families to use these routes safely without dismounting and crossing busy and dangerous main roads.
Key Strategy
Waveney is a superb location for cycling because of the relatively flat terrain and access to beach, woods, forests and the Broads. Waveney could become a major destination for families wanting to cycle if there were proper linked up routes from the town centre out to the broads and to rural locations.
If Waveney was promoted as a key destination for family cycling this could do much to boost tourism.
The overriding priority is for cycle routes not to just end at dangerous road junctions but to make serious provision for cyclists at these points.
1. Give a fair monetary allocation to cyclists compared with other forms of transport
2. Proper direct linked traffic free routes from town centre to beach and onwards- NOT local cycle routes down tortuous side roads which no cyclist will use. These are a complete waste of time and money.
3. Proper direct linked routes north-south and east west in Lowestoft.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 89 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
4. Plan a dedicated cycle route along lake Lothingland from the town centre to Oulton Broad and along the Waveney to Beccles . This could open up areas to much needed tourist development and provide a superb link between Beccles and Lowestoft.
5. Get planners to actually cycle some of the routes in Waveney so they can see how unsuitable and dangerous they are.
I look foward to seeing the provisons in the new plan.
Officer Response Comments and suggestions noted. The maps in the Draft Cycle Strategy are intended to give a more accurate representation of existing provision in the District. Existing cycle maps provide useful information for a person to find their way around town but they do not provide a good picture of the cycle network in terms of value or quality. The draft document has focussed on point improvements but additional information setting out a wider more strategic approach can be added.
Suggested Change Add greater detail about the strategic approach to deliver cycle infrastructure and enhance the existing cycle network.
Richard Morling
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area?
Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? As a cyclist, motorist and pedestrian, I am pleased that you are looking at the strategy. AS I live and cycle in and around Lowestoft I shall only comment on this area.
I await with interest the work by Highways England with regard to the work being carried out in north Lowestoft. The Yarmouth road has always been difficult to cycle along from North Lowestoft to Hopton. With the dual carriageway, being unwelcome to the cyclist with the fast moving traffic.
Cycle streets and traffic calmed streets. With a visit to Belgium, I found it very interesting to find the priority given to cyclists even in the centre of Antwerp. Quieter well signed routes would be a great help. To this end the cycle maps produced are a very useful tool.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 90 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Belverdere Road, has a wide path with different colour lanes but is used as a shared path, this could be made possible into a separated path. When cycling eastward in the cycle route off Demark Road you end up at Katwjik Way without a dropped kerb by the lights to Bevan Street East.
Sheffield Stands should be used for all cycle parking.
There are a number of Toucan Crossing suggested in the strategy, but these could cause conflict and irritation to motorists.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy?
L1 There are lights and the northern and eastern exits to the roundabout, it would be best for cyclist to use these, rather than add a toucan cross at the south.
L2 There is already a crossing with lights there.
L3 Agreed
L4 This is a complex crossing and perhaps marked cycle lanes could help?
L5 I do not think a toucan crossing would help as it would hold up the motorist once again, especial shortly after a bend.
L6 Agreed, but move the lights down to mariners street.
L7 Yes, but also install dropped kerbs for cyclist and for wheelchair users who have used St Margaret's Plain car park from Crown Street.
L8 A toucan crossing might help a few bikes, but as you only have to cross traffic, in turn, one way, I think it would again cause more irritation to the motorist
L9 Yes you could convert crossing to a toucan crossing but you would need to widen paths on both sides of St Peter's Street
L10 Sorry no crossing at this point
L11 Convert crossing to a toucan, but the rest relies on Highways England work.
L12 Highways England
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 91 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
L13 Agreed. Uphold the No Traffic along Gordon Road, Except for busses and Taxis.
L14 Yes
L15 A difficult one.
L16 Yes L17 Yes
L18 Widen the footpath
L 19 OK or install drop kerbs by Bevan Street Traffic Lights Toucan
L20 Improve this cycle path. Remove the tree stump, resurface to make it level and look at west end to connect to Peto way L25
L21 Yes
L22 Yes
L23 Yes
L24 This is a must for cyclist leaving North Quay at this corner.
L25 As above link to drop kerb at north side of Peto Way
L26 - L30 A direct route to Oulton Broad would be a great help, but would have to be considered along with the third crossing at this point.
L27 A cycle footbridge, could be ideal, but cost may be a barrier if a third crossing is built. What cycle routes will be provided on the third crossing?
L31 A Shared path to Mutford Lock would be a great improvement for cyclist, even better if it could be widened to provide a segregated path.
L32 Sorry, no toucan crossing
L33 - L36 Yes
L37 Connect to L26 - 30
L38 Raise walls to prevent flooding
L39 Yes
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 92 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
L40 Victoria Road is a difficult one to solve as road is not wide enough.
L41 Agreed that this should be a rethink, in connection with traffic flows after the building of the third crossing.
L42 ?
L43 Yes
L44 Consider carefully L45 There are toucan crossings, people have to be careful L46 Consider with L40 L47 - L50 Consider all together. L51 - L56 Agreed L57 Try to sort this out I=or cyle paths on both sides of Tom Crisp Way.
L58 Yes
L59 perhaps you could have a toucan crossing here.
L60 - L64 Agreed to consider, But what about the exit/entrance to the new retail development on the Zephyr Cams site opposite Tower Road.
L65 Yes
L66 This is an area for a complete redesign and soon.
L71 No cycle lane from Clarkes Lane to roundabout at other end of Beccles Road
Officer Response Comments noted and useful suggestions. A number of items listed between L1-L13 will be completed by the time this document is completed. Item L4 being a road junction (Yarmouth Road and the Ravine) this is a Highways issue and will rewritten as a consideration rather than an improvement.
The road network and movement patterns will be reassessed in due course to work alongside any potential third crossing.
Items L27 will need to be considered with the potential third crossing, however, other items are likely to be independent as they serve other functions in the area.
The route between the Millennium Way roundabout and Dell Road needs to be reconsidered in its entirety to encourage cycling in this area.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 93 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
L32 is a Highways issue. Any consideration would need to be well thought through as there are a variety of issues in this area.
Cycle provision at the north end of Tower road will be considered alongside the Zephyr Cams proposal.
Suggested Change Amend (L19) text to include drop kerbs by the Bevan Street toucan crossing.
Cross reference items L40 and L46.
Rob
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Firstly the Strategy Paper has clearly taken a lot of effort and thought, and is to be warmly welcomed. I think Lowestoft is very well served with cycle provision in comparison with similar towns, but: Some of the markings are looking a little worn and indistinct, eg. The lane markings along Cotmer Road; The cycle provision is by and large a mish-mash, and was clearly put in as when money or an opportunity allowed, and is frequently not joined-up. It lacks an overall plan/strategy, which is why this current initiative is to be welcomed. It is easy to cycle to destinations etc in my area PROVIDED you know the way. In other words if you came out cold on a bike and sought to cycle to X you would almost certainly be confronted with poor, lacking, or conflicting signage. This is partly due to what I was saying above about “mish -mash”, and partly – I suspect – because the people who put up signs don’t cycle! That said, I don’t think it is all WDC’s responsibility to rectify matters: there are plenty of leisure cyclists who would be willing to contribute time and effort, if WDC co-ordinated and planned the effort……maybe through an agent. [I could go on at length about what’s needed, but won’t! If you want my views in detail, you know how to contact me.] o There are no issues that stop me riding my bike(s) and considering Cycling as the transport option of choice: the ongoing traffic congestion in Lowestoft is the greatest advertisement for the bike, and I fail to understand why everyone isn’t doing it a safe cycle route along the northern part of Bridge Road [between the level crossing and the Wherry Hotel] would improve my inclination to go north! The obvious solution is via Commodore Road /Caldecott Road which going north already works quite well; and coming south requires a cyclist contraflow along Caldecott Road and a haven for
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 94 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
right turn on Bridge Road, which perhaps could be incorporated with upcoming work on the level crossing. The improvement I would like to see in cycle provision is attitudinal: I sense that local government in Waveney is not wholly committed to the ideal of cyclists, and I suspect this reflects a general ambivalence in the public at large. Most recently this has been illustrated by the additional signs which have gone up along the Promenade where the new sea wall is being constructed: they are frankly intimidatory. The restricted path is considerably wider than the dual-use path across the bascule bridge, so an appropriate wording by an Authority which fully sought to encourage cycling alongside non-motorised transport would read: “Pathway ahead restricted in width: cyclists and pedestrians please take care and show consideration to other users.”
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? 1. The map on pp.11 of the Strategy Paper is at odds with the map published by Sustrans at http://www.sustrans.org.uk/ncn/map in that [and there may be other examples I have missed] Sustrans shows that Beccles/Lowestoft route as NR517. My understanding is that Sustrans has designated the Beccles/Lowestoft route as NR517, and intends to sign it as NR517/RR31 from Beccles to Ormesby with RR31 then continuing northwards along the coast – as it does now – and NR517 looping back to Norwich once a route can be agreed. [In all fairness, Sustrans only recently amended its map to reflect its aspirations!].
2. There is a need for a co-ordination between the signage the Local Authority [?SCC] puts up, and that provided by Sustrans.
3. I note the sentence on pp.26 of the Strategy Paper “Working with local cycle groups to ensure that improvements address issues as intended and keep abreast of local issues, needs, and opportunities that arise”, but I would have liked to have seen some detail as to how it was proposed to achieve this liaison. Infact I would like to have seen much more in the Paper about working with stakeholders, particularly users, to create a robust cycle infrastructure. While accepting it is difficult recruit a representative user group, and that they are never going to be able to physically build the network, they will: Have ideas and proposals, and could have in input on prioritizing; Given the materials, they could be responsible for signage within an agreed policy; They could clear obstructions [many cyclists already carry a pair of secateurs!], or alert an agreed call-point that the work needed undertaking.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 95 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Officer Response Comments noted. Issues such as poor maintenance of cycle paths/markings and fragmented routes are barriers to cycling and can be discussed more clearly in the document. The markings on the South Beach promenade may provide limited security for some users, however, the potential for conflict could be increased with cycle lanes often encourage riders to travel faster and pedestrians may not be aware they are walking into a cycle lane.
Reference to a route along Commodore Road and Caldecott Road to bypass Bridge Road in Oulton Broad is a useful suggestion. It is a quieter route but many cyclists will see this as indirect and inconvenient thereby continuing along Bridge Road. The cycle route between Dell Road near Oulton Broad South railway station to Millennium Way roundabout needs to be reconsidered if it is to be considered safe for all users.
Change of cycle route numbers noted. How signage is provided is currently being considered by Suffolk County Council.
The section on working with stakeholders and how to encourage cycling can be expanded.
Suggested Change Amend section on barriers to cycling to provide greater clarity and include faded road markings, fragmented cycle routes and poor route finding measures.
Add item to revise the entire cycle route/provision along the section of road between Dell Road/Beccles Road and Millennium Way roundabout.
Add item to suggest reconsidering how the shared-use area is marked out on the South Lowestoft promenade.
Amend document to renumber cycle routes.
Add section to discuss how cycling can be encouraged and working with stakeholders.
Sally MacDonald
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? From my point of view, for me to cycle from Blyford to Holton. The B1123 is an exceptionally busy and fast piece of road. There is a tarmac footpath along this road but it is not wide enough for a cycle path, although there is scope from the width of the verge to have a proper cycle path. From
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 96 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Blyford to the Queens Head and Blyford Church continuing along the B1123 is another dangerous stretch of road for cyclists and a no-no for pedestrians. I love to ride my bike but I am more often than not discouraged because I have to brave this stretch of road to access quieter country lanes. This view is also held by some of my neighbours and one fellow councillor.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response The existing route between Halesworth and Holton carries a reasonable amount of traffic. A route could potentially be considered in conjunction with suggestions set out in the Council's Green Infrastructure Strategy (2015) which aims to improve walking connections between the two settlements.
Suggested Change Add item to Halesworth Section to include improvements or a new route between Holton and Halesworth referencing the Green Infrastructure Strategy.
Sam’s Bicycles
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Hi, I'm Sam and I own a bike repair company in Worlingham. Im an avid cyclist and am out on the road a lot, and I see many of my customers when i'm out riding. The local club I ride with(godric) posted a link to the councils cycling improvement strategy. I thought I would compile a list of the things that would make me feel safer on the road. My current thoughts when I go out on a ride are “When am I going to get clipped by a car passing too close” I think this because EVERY time I go out at least one car gets far too close to be safe.
You can build up all the cycling infrastructure on the roads but eventually, on a ride I will have to share the road with auto-mobiles. The main reason people do not feel safe on the roads is the drivers knowledge and mind set towards cyclists. This I hope will be the main point in improving cycling around Waveny.
Highway Code Rule 163 Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should; • give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 97 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
This is the main thing that when riding on the road is not taken into account by motorists. I could ride 10 miles and only 20% of the cars will obey this rule and that’s if i'm lucky. Many reasons for this, if the wind catches a cyclist it can push them out into the road. Avoiding potholes which in some case could cause instability or even falling off. Drain covers again the same reason as pot holes, with the addition of water to metal it becomes very slippery. Avoiding objects in the road.
Rules for cyclists. Rule 66. You should: never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.
This is another rule that motorists do not know about. I have been beeped at, swore at, people hanging out of window as they drive past shouting at me, as we ride two abreast. Many people ride in groups and pairs and its far safer for us to ride like this. I will let this video explain why. https://vimeo.com/136215353
Riding 'Primary Position' This is not a rule but its safe practice advised and practised by the London department of transport, and other authorities like British cycling. Here is a link explaining the primary position the effectiveness. https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowledge/skills/article/izn20130830- Effective-traffic-riding-part-1-0
These are just issues with the attitude of some motorists on the road. Nothing to do with the infrastructure or building bike lanes. I know these things are very hard to change and implement but the more that is done the better. Even if its a sign saying “Please give cyclist room when passing”
The cycle lanes, are in theory excellent, but given the rules and guidance I just stated they don't seem to be that good.
Say a cyclist is riding 0.6m away from the curb. That leaves 0.6m in some cases less between the edge of the cycle lane and the edge of the carriageway. This gives the indication to cars that it is ok to pass as they are in the cycle lane. But at best is only around 1 meter away from the cyclist. Its just seems to give the motorists the ok to pass way too close.
A situation like this occurred as I was heading from beccles to Worlingham on the lowestoft road, from the intersection of the uplands to hillside avenue, there is not enough space for a car to pass safely but they still pass since the bike lane is there so they think its safe to do so. If you look at the
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 98 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
wear from cars on this stretch of road you can see that the wear from the left side of the vehicles is well into the cycle lane. This is why I take up the primary position outside of the cycle lane so cars think twice when overtaking at this point. Plus its on a corner and they cant see what's coming.
The cross roads in beccles where pedders lane and london road meet. Is another hazard I have had experience with. Avoiding the drain covers and metal pedestrian crossing markings. I counted 11 Drain covers scattered around this intersection. In the wet it makes is very difficult to safely avoid the drain covers. I'm not sure how its best to fix this but some places put tarmac on top of the covers.
This would make cycling safer for me and hopefully some of these things are echoed in other peoples feedback.
As for adding cycle lanes and better routes. I hope you have heard of STRAVA, if not its a website where cyclists share their activities with other cyclists. Its recorded with GPS so you can see exactly where you have been. Brilliantly STRAVA has compiled all this data and created a heat map which shoes the most used road amongst cyclists who use STRAVA. This may be useful for you. A link for this can be found here. http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/
I know this isnt the whole audience of cyclists but its a part of it.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments and concerns noted. These will be forwarded to the Highways Authority.
Useful references provided and the Strava heat map is an interesting record of data.
Driver behaviour is an ongoing issue which can make roads unsafe for cyclists (and pedestrians) and deter participation, particularly for less confident cyclists who tend to ride closer to the kerb instead of moving outward to force a driver to properly consider when it is safe to overtake.
Suggested Change Section about general issues in Waveney District to include driver behaviour.
A new section discussing how to encourage people to cycle can reference the need to improve driver awareness.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 99 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016 senojea
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Since the introduction of the new one-way system in Bungay town centre, many cyclist have complained about the increase dangers created by bad design. As both a cyclist and motorist I find that cycling along Trinity St, Wharton St and St Mary's St terrifying. This is further worsened by the increase in cars speeding around the sides streets such as Rose Lane that are trying to avoid the one-way system. Bungay is NOT cycle-friendly.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? As Waveney DC don't have a direct input into highway issues, I wondered if this exercise my be a complete waste of time and money!
Officer Response Cycle provision in Bungay is minimal and requires a strategic approach to properly consider how cyclists can move about the town in a convenient and safe manner to access destination such as the town centre, schools and recreation facilities.
While Suffolk County Council is the Highways Authority their Cycle Strategy written at a higher strategic level providing an opportunity for District Councils such as Waveney to identify local issue which can be considered as part of this. Dialogue between the two Local Authorities takes place to take advantage of opportunities when they arise.
Concerns about the Bungay one-way system will be forwarded to the Highways Authority.
Suggested Change No change.
Seth Williams
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? We act on behalf of Larkfleet Homes who are currently in the process of promoting a land interest at the southern side of the town of Beccles. The site is proposed to be developed to provide a sustainable mixed use new neighbourhood of circa 975 homes along with a local centre offering substantial new community facilities.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 100 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
The future Beccles Southern Relief Road will include an enhanced version of the cycle route that already passes immediately to the south of the proposed development site. According to the network map, this cycle route will link in to the already established cycle route that runs between Lowestoft and Norwich via Beccles. The strategy also makes reference to a potential cycle way further along the relief road past Benacre Road. This will improve the link to the south of Beccles for cyclists, without having to navigate the southern suburbs of Beccles as they currently do.
The document also suggests that Ellough Road is to comprise several potential cycle provisions along the way, to connect the site with Beccles Town Centre. This includes a shared footway for pedestrians and cyclists for the section to the north of the site. This will offer an additional route to Beccles Town Centre as well as an alternative link from the site towards Lowestoft.
We note the draft Cycle Strategy highlights that a significant proportion of residents work in the town which means that walking and cycling can be made attractive for local journeys. We would endorse this observation but would add that a limiting factor to the attractiveness of travelling to work by foot or cycle would appear to be the inadequate existing foot and cycle connections between the town and the outlying employment areas (e.g. at Ellough Industrial Estate).
We believe the development of our client’s site would offer a significant opportunity to improve cycle connections between the town and the Ellough Industrial Estate and would therefore help to meet the wider aims of the draft Cycle Strategy and would specifically complement proposed policy Be22.
It is proposed to provide a mixture of on and off carriageway pedestrian and cycle routes within the development itself and to link these with the surrounding network to facilitate journeys within, to/from and through the site. We are committed to provide a link from on-site routes to the existing pedestrian and Regional Cycle Route 31 connecting Oak Lane and Cucumber Lane to the southwest of the site. We are also exploring the potential for the cycle ways within the site to connect to Regional Cycle Route 30 to the north of the site.
On the basis of the above, we would endorse the aims of the draft Cycle Strategy in respect of improving connections within and around the town of Beccles specifically and would submit that our client’s proposed development would offer substantial benefits in contributing towards meeting the aims of the strategy.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 101 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Development can provide opportunities to enhance the cycle and pedestrian network by connecting people to places. This can be through new cycle lanes/routes and by raising the value of existing routes. To provide the greatest value provision should be considered early in the design process and integrated into the transport network along side vehicles and pedestrians rather than assessing routes independently of each other which delivers poor cycle routes in the long-term (which this strategy is attempting to address). Routes should be continuous and easy to follow to make travel between places straightforward and enjoyable.
Suggested Change No change.
Shirley Russell
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? I don't see cycle provision as a problem.
As a pedestrian I do not like shared cycle/walking paths.
Bungay needs a decent Industrial estate to bring jobs into town, not cycle paths and more signs.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? More money wasted
Officer Response Comments noted.
Suggested Change No change.
Sue Bergin
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Issues that cyclists currently face in the Beccles and Worlingham areas are well covered and highlighted in this document with suggested schemes.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 102 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Schemes which would potentially encourage more people to cycle in the areas. I have highlighted some of the most important schemes which would help the flow of cycle traffic in the town and would become more attractive for others to cycle if they are adopted:
be6 - Blyburgate / Hungate Junction
Exemption for cyclists from "no left turn" would improve the directness of the route and many many cyclists already do this! A strong desire line is there already so to make it a legal way would help cyclists significantly. It is only non-cyclists who have unwarranted fears about cyclists turning into Hungate and it being dangerous. These fears are unfounded. If you turn left from Blyburgate, as a cycilst, you would always keep left and so would be perfectly safe.
Be9 - Roys Car Park
To formalise the gap in the fence in the South-East corner would be such a cheap thing to do if successfully negotiated with the landowner and will help cyclists significantly - a strong desire line is already there and makes every sense to help people easily and cheaply!
be10 - Grove Rd 1 - what a good idea - why not explore this scheme?
be11 - Grove Rd 2 - what an excellent idea to help cyclist's trips become more direct into town. It would not be very costly to bring the "give way" line brought forward to improve visibility to the right. Cyclists turning left into this would stick to the left. Again, I have only ever heard non-cyclists show concern over contra flow systems which work very well all over the world. It seems to me that we should be learning from the successful contra flow systems abroad which would also be successful in Beccles. If this scheme goes ahead, which I sincerely hope it does, it can also be used to share nationally as an example of how a district council is getting it right for cyclists and helping them overcome road systems designed for car drivers and not cyclists. Good schemes like this, once implemented would encourage others to cycle as there would be a comprehensive cycle system in the town which does not fully exist at the moment but would make all the difference.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? The document strikes me as an extremely comprehensive and very useful summary of current schemes with the potential for improvements/new schemes in the future. A very helpful tool for cllrs at all levels when looking at how best to improve facilities for cyclists for the general encouragement
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 103 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
of children and adults to be encouraged to use this very environmentally friendly form of transport.
Officer Response Comments and noted.
Suggested Change No change in response to this comment. However, items Be6 (Blyburgate- Hungate junction) and Be9 (gap in the Roys boundary fence) are to be removed from the document.
Summers
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? There is no right of access at the south eastern corner of Roys car park or along the private lane to Grove Road. The gap that was made in the fence illegally caused many problems to residents who do have right of access over the lane and maintain it. The fence has recently been re-secured by Roys and should remain that way.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comment noted. Be9 can be removed.
Suggested Change Remove item Be9.
Vic
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? While I appreciate any useful cycle infrastructure, it is my firm belief that I should be able to cycle on the highway, as is my right, without fear of injury or death from dangerous or ignorant drivers.
I fear that cycle segregation is counterproductive in that it affirms in motorists minds that cycles should not be on their highway, and also that public money is being spent on cycle routes that many cyclists, including myself, will seldom use as they add unnecessary time and inconvenience to most cycle journeys.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 104 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
I fear that cycle segregation is counterproductive in that it affirms in motorists minds that cycles should not be on their highway, and also that public money is being spent on cycle routes that many cyclists, including myself, will seldom use as they add unnecessary time and inconvenience to most cycle journeys.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response A mix of traffic-free and properly designed on-road cycle lanes would gradually bring about a modal shift towards increasing cycling and raising their acceptance by motorists. Existing road infrastructure often has a legacy of cycling being neglected as part of the transport network. However, where new development comes forward properly designed schemes that have given the same consideration to cyclists and motorists can help support a long-term shift in people’s perception of cycling to benefit all road users.
Suggested Change Add driver awareness to the section about barriers to cycling.
New section about encouraging cycling to be added and include reference to driver awareness.
Waveney & Yare Housing Association
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Not completed.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Ellough Rd/Lowestoft Rd Using the junction going into town works well enough, but coming back the other way from Brick Kiln Lane it is more difficult to rejoin Ellough Rd safely
Grove Rd a contraflow might work, but there would be issues with the parked cars. It might be better to use the lane behind Gosford Rd.
The footpath through from Fair Close to Roys is an obvious one for cyclists, but there is a pinch point which could cause problems.
The station roundabout generates a number of near misses, and a safer option to and from the station would be better, as would access to Gaol Lane.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 105 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Generally the one way system in Beccles is an agravation when cycling, eg getting from Tesco to London Road.
Officer Response The turn right into Ellough Road is difficult to access when there is a steady flow of traffic and the crossing is on the wrong side of the intersection in this regard. A difficult one to resolve but comments can be forwarded to the Highways Authority.
The lane behind Gosford Road is Kilbrack which the suggested contrafow lane would lead cyclists towards (a pinch point further up Grove Road is not conducive to a contraflow lane). Kilbrack is a private road so any changes would require engagement with the community in that area.
The footway between Fair Close and Roys is narrow in a couple of places which cold create conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. The item can be removed.
Access to the station is inhibited by the lack of a safe crossing. Potential improvements are being investigated by the Highways Authority.
Suggested Change Remove item Be8 from the document.
Amend (Be14 text) to clarify issue related to the Ellough Road/Lowestoft Road junction.
Waveney Cycling Campaign
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? Not completed.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? I wholeheartedly endorse this cycling strategy and its aims and proposals. Nevertheless, I have some comments:
Cycle lane width: The correct width for a cycle lane is one-third the width of the traffic lane from which it is being taken. In other words, if the traffic lane is 3.0m wide, the cycle lane should be 1.0m wide (probably the minimum acceptable). The problem with lane widths of 2.0m or more is that, where the cycle flow does not justify such a width, they are likely to be seen as just another lane to drive or park in. I can’t think of a context in which a cycle lane would be two-way.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 106 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
The maximum acceptable gradient is 1:20.
Junctions: “Gateway” entry humps should be used more widely across the mouths of junctions of minor rods with major roads. Where the off-road cycle track parallels the main road, of course the cyclist should be given priority: having to stop at every side road is a major deterrent.
Surfacing: All cycle tracks should be laid by machine; it is not possible (or there isn’t the skill) to lay an adequately smooth surface by hand. Cycle parking: In residential accommodation, it is important that there is easy (i.e. wheeled) access from the bicycle store to the highway.
Pernickety comment: “however” is an adverb and therefore should never be used to join two sentences together. The solution usually is to place a colon or semi-colon (or colon) either before or after it.
Cycling in Lowestoft
Of the proposals listed, you will be aware that L1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12 are under construction and will be completed before this draft is finalised. L3: the footway is to be redesignated as shared use without being widened.
L6: the point is that the single panel of barrier fencing should be removed.
L13: What is needed here is a cycleway in front of the old Housing Department office. Cyclists are permitted to turn right from Clapham Road South into Gordon Road: they could use this link to reach Alexandra Road. From there, permit northbound cyclists to cycle through the carparks to Regent Road or even Milton Road and thence to the new facilities under construction beside Katwijk Way. Also, the informal pedestrian crossing allows access into Granville Road and from Clapham Road Central. Otherwise, I am not clear what is being proposed here.
L20: To clarify, the footway beside the station carpark has been widened for shared use. The gap is west from here to where the cycle track has been built and it is here that widening and flushing is required.
L23: This is an absolutely key route which should be implemented as soon as possible. The steep ascent behind Kent Road puts off less active cyclists and the steep descent to a busy road is potentially dangerous.
L25: The development by Lausanne Developments south of Rotterdam Road should include extension of the Denmark Road cycle track past the south
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 107 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
side of the Rotterdam Road roundabout to a new crossing via a splitter island to the cycle track beside Peto Way.
L41: The toucan crossing in Station Square should be converted to a toucan. Clearly, the route from the station to the bridge has only recently been upgraded, albeit still substandard. It would help at the bridge if the promised pedestrian/cycle were to be installed. South of Belvedere Road, the access via St John’s Road to the Belvedere Road carpark route is unclear and dangerous, especially in the dark. The shared path along the side of the carpark is unsatisfactory because it is so bumpy. It would be better to reinstate the route using the carpark, as it used to be, which was satisfactory as far as I know; it would also allow northbound cyclists direct access to the toucan next to the Fyffe Centre.
L42: Presumably “redeveloped” is meant rather than “redevelopment”, and it would be better to say “reunited” than “considered”.
L55: Do you mean “with” or “without” the rider’s having to stop? I’d like to think the latter – slow down, obviously, but not stop.
L61: Also desirable to surface the desire line from the barriers to the roundabout.
L62: To clarify, it is at the southern end of Tower Road that a crossing to the east side of the
A12 is needed (the north end is well provided).
L66: In areas serious about cycling, a cycle track would be provided inside the hedge and going behind the houses until opposite the school. An option might be to convert or divert the existing footpath parallel to the road.
L69: This is an absolutely key route which should be implemented as soon as possible. A link is needed from this development to Hollow Lane before the whole area is built up and the opportunity lost. A gap appears to have been left for this purpose between Chalmers Green and Grovesbury End; indeed, it should be built before anything else on the site so as to establish the habit of cycling to school from the beginning. It is indeed a great pity that, when Killick Crescent was built, a cycle track/footpath was not built through to Hollow Lane, south of the Grove Gardens development.
L70: What is disgraceful is that the public footpath across the site appears to have been completely snuffed out by Castleton Avenue; what is left is barely passable even by pedestrians. Nevertheless, the footpath is the obvious point of entry to the estate from the cycle tracks beside the road.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 108 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
L73: Don’t you mean Mutford Wood rather than Mutfordwood Lane? Mind you, I always thought it was called Oak Lane.
Officer Response Clearer detail about cycle lane widths would benefit the document. The use of gateway humps can be useful, however, these are more closely related to highway provision. Suggestion will be forwarded to the Highways Authority.
A section can be provided which sets out provision that could improve cycle routes such as cycle prioritisation. Note, these are control by traffic regulations therefore constraints are significant at this point in time.
Easy access to cycle storage facilities is important and can be added to the document.
Items related to the Highways England work in North Lowestoft will be removed in the final document. They were included to raise awareness about the works.
Amendments can be made to the document to reflect the issues raised.
Suggested Change Amend text about technical details related to cycle lane widths.
Add section to discuss provision that could improve cycle routes such as cycle prioritisation.
Amend text in cycle storage section to discuss easy assess.
Amend (L6) text to clarify the fence panel should be removed.
Amend (L13) text to clarify the issue and cycle route in the Clapham Road area.
Amend (L20) text to clarify the suggested improvement.
Amend (L25) text to clarify the suggested improvement along Denmark Road.
Amend (L41) text to clarify the suggestion of a toucan crossing.
Add new item to suggest resurfacing the shared-use path adjacent to the Belvedere Road car park.
Amend (L55) text to clarify the suggested use by cyclists.
Amend (L61) text to include surfacing the desire line to the roundabout.
Amend (L62) text to clarify the crossing is needed at the south end of Tower Road to the east side of the A12.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 109 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Amend (L66) text to set out how a new route could be considered from Beccles Road to Gisleham Road and the primary school.
Amend (L69) text to clarify the issue.
Waveney Cyclist
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? I commute 8 miles every day between Carlton Colville and Lowestoft all year round (regardless of the weather) on a bicycle. On an almost daily basis I witness dangerous and thoughtless driving. No cycle strategy will encourage more people to use bicycles in this area because the quality of driving is so poor and most people are too lazy to cycle. Despite the fact that I am someones son, someones father and someones partner some vehicle drivers will still try to knock me off my bike by giving me insufficient room when overtaking me or by pulling out in front of me. Sometimes I think it would be tempting to get thoughtless drivers to stand on a piece of tarmac while I drive their car at them and pass within 2 feet of them at 40mph and see how they like it.
The best way to get more people on cycles is to make the roads safer by educating vehicle drivers to drive with more care and attention. Also some effective policing of our highways would help. However, these aren't going to happen so here's some suggestions:
1) Please improve the Pelican crossing at the bottom of Bloodmoor Rd where it meets the new roundabout. On at least 3 occasions I've nearly been knocked off my bike by car drivers not seeing the red traffic lights and driving over the crossing when I've been crossing the road on my bicycle when I've had right of way. A central traffic island with associated traffic light will solve the problem.
2) Too many cyclists use footpaths bringing themselves into conflict with pedestrians. Get cyclists back on the road where we belong (reclaim the roads!). Not sure how you achieve this.
3) I walk my daughter to Carlton Primary School and it never fails to shock me how many lazy over-weight parents drive their children to the school gates. Is there any way of providing a cycle path linking The Street with Gisleham Road? There's a footpath leading off from The Street, can this be utilised as a cycle path?
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 110 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments noted and can be forwarded to the Highways Authority. Where cyclists are using footways (illegally) this highlights the need for better cycleways and cycle routes where riders feel safe.
Access to Carlton Colville Primary School has existing issues related to significant numbers of people dropping their children off at school. The issue of congestion and safety has been raise by Carlton Colville Town Council on several occasions. The issue is identified in L66. The item can be amended to clarify a potential solution related to an improved cycle route (upgrading footways without widening them is likely to increase conflict with other users and would be considered a temporary fix to a long-term issue which would not be resolved.
Useful suggestion which can be included in the document.
Suggested Change Add section about how to encourage cycling and include reference to driver awareness.
Add driver awareness and poor driving habits to the section about barriers to cycling.
Add item to highlight issue of driver awareness of road crossing at the Bloodmoor roundabout.
Add cycling along pavements as an issue creating conflict.
Amend (L66) text to set out a solution to provide a shared-use path behind the dwellings along Rushmere Road and Gisleham Road to connect the school with The Street, a crossing over Hall Road to a shared-use path going to Church Lane. Widening the path opposite along the open space and providing on-road cycle lanes/markings along Chapel Road to Beccles Road roundabout would provide good connections to the national cycle network, strategic cycle paths along Castleton Way (heading east towards the town centre) and the proposed Oakes Farm leisure development and cycle route heading west towards Beccles.
Wendy Summerfield
Comment Do you have any comments regarding cycle provision in your area? It would be very helpful to have a cycle route from Beccles to Lowestoft to save cyclists having to use the Barnby Bends or travel miles out of their way.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 111 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
This would be beneficial to cyclists as well as motorists who get held up trying to overtake. This should be given priority as a safety issue before connecting cycle paths within Lowestoft.
A cycle path from Worlingham to Beccles common would also be great - but I assume as ever the request for suggestion in Waveney really means Lowestoft.
Do you have any comments on the draft Cycle Strategy? Not completed.
Officer Response Comments noted. Regional cycle route 517 (formerly route 30) extends between Beccles and South Lowestoft. While it is convoluted in the Worlingham area it provides a reasonable route that is not significantly longer than using the A143 between South Lowestoft and North Cove/Barnby.
The route through Worlingham to Beccles is intended to keep cyclists away from the busy Lowestoft Road, however, it is indirect and is unlikely to appeal to cyclists wishing to travel faster than a leisurely pace. Given the width of the eastern end of Lowestoft Road a formal cycle path is unlikely to be feasible, however, the issue is identified Be16.
Suggested Change Section about general issues in Waveney District to include poor signage and fragmented routes.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 112 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Appendix 1 Press Release text
8 February 2016 For immediate release:
Have your say on local cycling routes
People living in Waveney have the opportunity to comment on a new strategy to improve the local cycle network.
Published for public consultation this week, the draft Cycle Strategy identifies existing issues with cycling routes across the area and proposes potential improvements, aiming to encourage more people to cycle.
Comments are welcome on any cycling issues along with suggestions for ways in which these issues could be resolved. This feedback will then contribute towards the creation of a more integrated cycle network, which comprises long-distance routes as well as traffic-free and on-road cycle lanes that connect different locations whilst also looking at road crossings, cycle parking and dropped kerbs. An improved cycle network will also help to raise the profile of cycling locally.
Cllr David Ritchie, Waveney’s Deputy Leader and cabinet member for Planning and Coastal Management said: “Cycling is a simple and accessible way to travel and it has numerous benefits, such as improved health and reduced transportation costs. It is hoped that the Cycling Strategy will greatly improve the local cycling infrastructure and allow cyclists to move across the area with ease and in safety.”
To view the draft strategy and an interactive map of cycle network issues, please visit www.consult.waveney.gov.uk.
You can respond to the consultation online or by emailing [email protected]. You can also write Waveney’s Planning Policy and Delivery Team, Riverside, 4 Canning Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0EQ.
The consultation closes on 15 March 2016.
ENDS.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 113 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Appendix 2 Media publicity
ITV News website 09/02/2016
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 114 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Eastern Daily Press 18/02/2016
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 115 Cycle Strategy
Consultation Statement
July 2016
Beccles and Bungay Journal 19/02/2016
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk 116
Lowestoft Journal 19/02/2016
Lowestoft Journal website 20/02/2016
Write to us l
Waveney District Council Planning Policy and Delivery Team Riverside, 4 Canning Road, Lowestoft Suffolk NR33 0EQ
Call us .
Planning Policy and Delivery Team (Local Plans) 01502 523029
Development Management (Planning Applications)
01502 562111
Email us .
@
Planning Policy and Delivery Team (Local Plans) [email protected]
Development Management (Planning Applications) [email protected]
This document is available in alternative formats and in different languages on request. If you need support or assistance to help you read and/or understand this document, please contact the
Council using one of the methods above.
www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk