This is the summary report of the Cycling Inquiry

This is to be considered by Cabinet on Wed 16 April and we are hoping that it is approved. Recommendation 11 has already been formally put in place in planning and transport and not just remaining on a policy wish-list.

===================================================================================

Sheffield City Council

Economic and Environmental Wellbeing Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee

Cycling Inquiry

Executive Summary

Cycling is important to thousands of people in Sheffield for transport, leisure and recreation. The All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s 2013 report, Get Britain Cycling presented a good opportunity for us to review what we are doing in Sheffield and what we can do better, in order to improve the opportunities for cycling. We believe Sheffield is one of the first places to mirror this national approach at a local level.

Our key task was to propose an updated vision and strategic approach to cycling in Sheffield by identifying measures to broaden and increase participation in cycling in Sheffield. We have adopted a cross party approach to this task and have welcomed the direct involvement of cyclists in our work.

We reviewed the existing evidence on the impact of cycling on the local economy, health and the environment. Overall we are convinced of the benefits that cycling can make in these areas. It is also important to remember that for many people the motivation to cycle is because it is joyful and liberating.

We looked at what is happening in the city and compared Sheffield with other cities. We found that Sheffield compares reasonably well with other cities but we want to do even better. There is a lot of good work already taking place and we want to improve on this, for example by joining up planning and highway developments.

The Committee took the opportunity to directly ask people and organisations what they thought about cycling in Sheffield. We followed up the themes from the Call for Evidence with an oral evidence session to further explore potential solutions with a wide range of people and organisations. The key messages we heard from both the written and oral evidence was that there are a wide range of reasons why people cycle. In order to improve participation the city needs strong political leadership to promote the cycling agenda across the Council, as well as addressing behavioural issues and improvements to the cycling infrastructure. We would like to thank everyone who responded to the Call for Evidence or who gave oral evidence.

Our vision is:

To realise the full potential of cycling to contribute to the health and wealth of Sheffield, and the quality of life in our local communities, and to play its part in a fully integrated transport network that will encourage reduced car usage, alleviate congestion and ease pollution across the whole of the city. We believe this is both possible and necessary.

We need to get the whole of Sheffield cycling: not just healthy people or sporty young males, but people of all ages and backgrounds, in urban and rural areas.

We need to change the culture of how we use our roads, so that people are no longer afraid to cycle or allow their children to do so. Our streets, roads and local communities, need to become places for people, where cycling and walking are safe and normal.

We endorse the aim of the Get Britain Cycling report to see cycle use increase to 10% of all journeys in 2025 and 25% in 2050.

To help achieve this ambitious vision we have made 19 recommendations in the following areas:

Strong Leadership

• Political Leadership

• Working with others to develop and support cycling

• Making the most of opportunities

Getting the Right Infrastructure in Place

• A Long Term Plan

• Publicising the Cycle Network

• Integrating cycling with public transport

• Cycling and walking audits

Getting People Cycling

• Training

• Behaviour on our roads

• Cycle Tourism

There is a wealth of evidence and detail behind our report with a number of supporting documents available on the Council’s website.

What did we do?

We adopted a Parliamentary Select Committee approach to our work, supported by a smaller Steering Group. The All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s 2013 report, Get Britain Cycling presented a good opportunity for us to review what we are doing in Sheffield and what we can do better, in order to improve the opportunities for cycling. We believe Sheffield is one of the first places to mirror this national approach at a local level.

Our key task was to propose an updated vision and strategic approach to cycling in Sheffield by identifying measures to broaden and increase participation in cycling in Sheffield. We have adopted a cross party approach to this task and have welcomed the direct involvement of cyclists in our work. The full terms of reference are provided in Appendix A and the membership of the Steering Group is in Appendix B.

We issued a public Call for Evidence and were delighted to receive over 260 responses. A list of who the responses came from is provided in Appendix C. The Call for Evidence was open to members of the public and any organisation with an interest in cycling in Sheffield. We actively sought the views of a wide range of organisations, beyond cycling groups. The Call for Evidence noted that cycling more than doubled in Sheffield between 2000 and 2011 and asked four questions:

1. What specific actions have helped the city achieve this growth?

2. What specific barriers prevent people from cycling or from cycling more frequently?

3. What evidence is there from other large cities or towns (in the UK or abroad) on broadening and increasing participation in cycling, with a particular emphasis on improving the economic, health and environmental impacts?

4. What in your view are the top three actions that would broaden and increase cycling in Sheffield?

The responses from the Call for Evidence informed the topics for the Committee’s oral evidence session in December. This session heard from particular organisations and groups including representatives of cyclists; motoring organisations; public transport operators; South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive; and young people. A full list of people who gave evidence is provided in Appendix D. The minutes of this session are available online.

We would like to thank everyone who responded to the Call for Evidence or who came to present oral evidence and answer our questions.

Why cycle?

We reviewed the existing evidence on the impact of cycling on the local economy, health and the environment. Overall we are convinced of the benefits that cycling can make in these areas. It is also important to remember that for many people the motivation to cycle is because it is joyful and liberating.

Economic impact

It is estimated in 2010 that there was a gross cycling contribution to the UK economy of £2.9bn. Contributing to this was bicycle manufacturing; retail sales; wages and taxation from employment; and reduced absenteeism.

Cycling can help reduce absenteeism with research showing absenteeism in cyclists is significantly lower than in non-cyclists. Cycling is a transport choice that can enable individuals to save money on public transport fares or on the fuel, parking and running costs of a car. Economic benefits of cycling also extend across the wider community contributing to reduced congestion and carbon emissions.

Health impact

We heard that a lack of physical activity and sedentary lifestyle can make people ill and is very costly to health and social care. Currently in Sheffield we have over 70% of the population who are not doing enough activity to maintain health. There is strong evidence of an inverse relationship between inactivity and coronary heart disease, Stroke, Type 2 Diabetes, Hip Fracture, Breast and Bowel Cancer and depression. As well as being good exercise cycling can potentially fit into daily routines better than other forms of exercise as it doubles as a form of transport.

Environmental impact

Air pollution in Sheffield is estimated to account for approximately 500 deaths per year in Sheffield and these deaths are almost all preventable. More people cycling would help reduce air pollution and congestion.

Cycles take up less space for parking and create less noise than motorised transport. Cyclists are also more able to stop, get off and relax and enjoy the neighbourhood they are in.

What’s already happening in the city?

We looked at what is happening in the city and compared Sheffield with other cities. We found that Sheffield compares reasonably well with other cities but we want to do even better. There is a lot of good work already taking place and we want to improve on this, for example by joining up planning and highway developments.

Between 2001 and 2011 the number of people living in Sheffield cycling to work increased by 80%. We also know that cycling has increased by 106% in Sheffield between 2000 and 2011. Figure 1 shows the number of cycle journeys made in the 8 Core Cities – the 8 largest cities in England outside London – and the regional and national figures

.

Cycle journeys made in Sheffield, with the exception of Bristol, compare fairly favourably with the other ‘Core Cities’. However, they are slightly lower than the figure for England and the figure for Yorkshire and the Humber.

We recognise that a great deal of work has and is being carried out to enable and encourage people to cycle throughout Sheffield. This includes: infrastructure improvements; Streets Ahead programme; 20mph speed limit areas; the development of a ‘Green Routes Network’; cycle parking; cycle maps; cycle coaching; cycle safety initiatives; Workplace Travel Planning and School Travel plans; and cyclists engaging with the Council mainly through the Cycle Forum. ‘Cycling in Sheffield 2008 – 2013’ looks at what has been done; has not been done; and what could be done better from a Council perspective and is on the website.

What did people and organisations tell us?

The Committee took the opportunity to directly ask people and organisations what they thought about cycling in Sheffield. We followed up the themes from the Call for Evidence with an oral evidence session to further explore potential solutions with a wide range of people and organisations. The key messages we heard from both the written and oral evidence was that there are a wide range of reasons why people cycle. In order to improve participation the city needs strong political leadership to promote the cycling agenda across the Council, as well as addressing behavioural issues and improvements to the cycling infrastructure. We would like to thank everyone who responded to the Call for Evidence or who gave oral evidence.

Call for Evidence

The response to the Call for Evidence was very good with the Committee receiving over 260 contributions. What follows is a summary of what people and organisations told us. A more detailed report – ‘Summary of Responses to the Call for Evidence’ is available on the website.

Question 1: What specific actions have helped the city achieve this growth?

Investment in training and infrastructure in the city has had in the most part a positive effect. Cycling is still at a low level, accounting for less than 2% of trips, but this is comparable with most other English cities. Changes are needed to achieve the goals set out in the Get Britain Cycling report of 10% of trips by 2025 and 25% of trips by 2050.

The main reasons people tell us there have been a rise in cycling and a rise in interest in cycling are:

• cycling saves money and time: it is cheaper than using a car (fuel, parking) or public transport; the rise in the cost of living means that some people cannot afford to run a car anymore, commuting by bike can be quicker than using public transport or a car, one spends less time in congestion.

• British sports successes in road and off-road cycling;

• many are making cycling a positive lifestyle choice for transport, recreation, health and wellbeing, and environmental concerns; as more people cycle then there is an increased interest;

Question 2: What specific barriers prevent people from cycling or from cycling more frequently?

Key barriers identified were safety concerns; lack of coherent and consistent cycling infrastructure; Sheffield’s weather and hills; secure storage for bikes; and facilities at work for changing

There are significant links between ‘infrastructure’ and ‘safety’ issues with the potential causes of concerns around personal safety being:

• poor road/junction design and other road parameters, e.g. narrowness of roads;

• poor road maintenance,

• poor driver behaviour especially treatment of cyclists and lack of consideration of cyclists by other road users, enforcement of errant driving and parking in cycle lanes

Question 3: What evidence is there from other large cities or towns (in the UK or abroad) on broadening and increasing participation in cycling, with a particular emphasis on improving the economic, health and environmental impacts?

A wide range of good examples from the UK and other countries were received. A lesson from Cycle England is that change is brought about by coordination of promotion, training and infrastructure. The spend on infrastructure needs to be, by far, the majority of the spend.

Overseas examples include:

• extensive coherent infrastructures that separate cyclists where necessary and integrate cyclists where appropriate;

• much better integrated transport in terms of carriage of bikes and bike hubs and bike parking;

• bigger per capita spend on cycling than in the UK

• National laws and driving practices e.g. presumed or strict liability, priorities on crossings and at junctions

Question 4: What in your view are the top three actions that would broaden and increase cycling in Sheffield?

Suggestions about the actions included:

• Planning and installing a coherent cycle infrastructure with separation where necessary and integration where possible. There were suggestions that city centre is much more attractive through traffic reduction than it used to be and that the Council should concentrate on allowing cycling through the city centre in pedestrianised areas. The cycle network should be both urban routes and green routes and it should be developed route by route.

• Ensuring that cycling and walking are at the heart of all planning and development. Suggestions on how this is achieved include focussed leadership at the Council; cycling issues are represented appropriately in all decision making; work with other councils on a City Region approach.

• Promoting the wider benefits of cycling. Suggestions covered the development of cycle and walking tourism; development and promotion of cycle events, e.g. Sky rides; making sure a wide range of staff understand the benefits that cycling can generate.

Oral Evidence

We followed up the themes from the Call for Evidence with an oral evidence session to further explore potential solutions with a wide range of people and organisations.

The oral evidence session took evidence from particular organisations and groups including representatives of cyclists; motoring organisations; public transport operators; South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive; and young people. A full list of people who gave evidence is provided in Appendix D. The minutes of this session are available online. The session focused on three aspects:

• Culture and Behaviour: ‘How do we make people feel safer cycling on our roads?’

• Integration: ‘Do we need to improve integration of cycling with public transport?’

• Broadening Participation: ‘How do we get more people to cycle in Sheffield?’

The key messages from the oral evidence session were:

• Increasing participation will require action to address both infrastructure and people issues, rather than focusing on one or the other

• A clear and coherent network is needed

• A joined up approach across the cycling network and public transport is needed

• It is important to maintain and promote cycle training

• Strong leadership is required as it can be easier to ‘say’ than ‘do’ and there needs to be a political voice for cycling

Overall the oral evidence supported much of the written evidence we received.

Our recommendations

Having fully considered the evidence we have developed 19 recommendations grouped in to three themes:

• Strong Leadership

• Getting the Right Infrastructure in Place

• Getting People Cycling

We analysed the evidence, including the responses and used it to inform our deliberations and discussions in coming to a judgement on the recommendations we believe are required. It is not simply a case of agreeing with everything we received or heard, or of weighing the responses where there was a range of views and going with the majority view.

We recognise the current public sector funding climate, but have not let this define the scope of our ambition. The recommendations have different timescales with some ongoing, some achievable in the short term, some in the medium term, and some over the long term.

Strong Leadership

Political Leadership

In order to provide political leadership which we believe is essential to move forward on cycling we recommend:

R1 That Sheffield City Council appoints a councillor to be a ‘Cycling Champion’ by June 2014.

Working with others to develop and support cycling

In order to maximise opportunities for funding bids and recognising that the Council and a range of partners have important roles to play to develop and support cycling we recommend: 

R2 The Council works with the Sheffield City Region to ensure there are coherent plans in place to develop and support cycling by June 2015.

R3 Align funding streams with the NHS through the Health and Well Being board to maximise the health benefits that can be achieved through cycling.

In order to increase and broaden participation in the city, and recognising the importance of working at a local level we recommend:

R4 The Council builds on best practice in working with a range of partners, including voluntary sector cycling groups.

In order to help make changes at the national level to support cycling, for example, the Get Britain Cycling report highlights Department for Transport regulation on allowing separate traffic lights for cyclists we recommend:

R5 The Council works with the City’s MPs to support them to lobby government for key improvements.

Making the most of opportunities

In order to exploit the potential that mainstream programmes have to contribute to improving cycling, for example the Streets Ahead Programme – a huge city wide programme that will upgrade the condition of the roads, pavements and streetlights, we recommend:

R6 That as part of a Cycling Plan the Council takes a joined up and systematic approach to exploiting the opportunities to improve cycling across all areas of Council activity.

We commend the introduction of 20mph speed limits and the benefits that brings for cycling.

Getting the Right Infrastructure in Place

A Long Term Plan

In order to improve the cycle network with a long term aspiration in mind and to provide a strategic approach for the city to bid for funding we recommend:

R7 Sheffield should have a long-term strategic plan for a coherent and comprehensive cycling network in place by June 2015.

Developing a network plan would be led by the City Council and involve a wide range of other partners.

This plan would set out a network of cycle routes which, if segregated where necessary and integrated where appropriate, would allow Sheffielders to choose to cycle between their homes and shops, and leisure and secure and safe bike parking near homes, shops, in the workplace and at schools and colleges.

As part of the Plan the Council should explore how the principles of shared space and living streets can be incorporated into urban design and re-development.  It may not be possible to do this everywhere in the city and different spaces will have different solutions.

Publicising the Cycle Network

In order to better inform people and make the network more accessible and less daunting for people who might like to cycle we recommend:

R8 Identifying ways of improving the promotion and advertisement of the cycle network by June 2015.

This could include:

• Clear signage

• A regularly updated cycle map

• Council webpages with information such as bike rides, clubs, groups and shops.

• Information available at a wide range of locations, such as Council offices, libraries, leisure centres, health centres and bike shops.

Integrating cycling with public transport

In order to make sure that switching easily between bike and public transport is as simple as possible we recommend:

 R9 Within the next three years the cycle and public transport networks should be combined as a single network with ‘hubs’ developed at strategic locations and existing hubs improved.

In order to enable people to take bikes on public transport where this could be appropriate we recommend:

R10 That the Sheffield City Region Authority and public transport operators identify opportunities and commit to undertake pilot schemes within the next 12 months, with priority be given to trials on the Supertram network.

We are not suggesting people should be able to take a bike on a bus to the city centre in the morning rush hour, rather to look at more appropriate ways of enabling people to take a bike on public transport and to test them out..

Cycling and walking audits

In  order to ensure that residential, retail and business developments build in cycling at the design stage we recommend

R11 That the Council undertake cycling and walking audits for all development proposals and for all changes to highways and to public spaces.

A cycling audit will assess whether a design is cycle-friendly and whether any specific measures to assist cyclists follow best practice.

Getting People Cycling

Training

 In order to achieve the vision on participation there needs to be a coherent approach to training. We recommend:

R12 For the next year Sheffield must maintain its programme of cycle training so that in the short term at least the current numbers of adults and children receive training each year. Over the next three years in addition the Council and its partners should look to extend the cycle training to train increasing numbers of adults and children year-on-year.

 R13 These training opportunities need to be joined-up. Improved communication needs to be in place within the next year so that training can lead to broadening participation amongst all Sheffielders, whatever their age, gender or ethnicity.

 R14 That revenue funding needs to be a part of any funding bids. Where this is not possible the Council should press the case to enable this.

Behaviour on our roads

In order to improve safety on our roads we recommend:

 R15 The Council should take steps to encourage its contractors to provide practical cycle awareness training for their drivers. Within three years this requirement for this training should be built in to the procurement process, starting with HGV drivers.

R16 Organisations in the Sheffield Bus Partnership should include cycle awareness training into all commercial and tendered routes.

R17 The Council should lobby government to ensure local agencies, including South Yorkshire Police have the powers and resources to improve road safety.

Cycle Tourism

In order to promote Sheffield as a cycling destination and sustain cycling in the city we recommend:

 R18 The Council makes full use of the opportunity the Tour de France presents.

 R19 The Council improves the promotion of cycle tourism in and around Sheffield, including, for example, working with other local authorities, the Peak District National Park, Sustrans and hotels.

Appendix A

Terms of Reference

The Economic and Environmental Wellbeing Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee has set up an Inquiry to look at cycling in Sheffield.

The terms of reference for the Inquiry are:

•  To request and review written and oral evidence from a cross-section of people and organisations in the city with respect to cycling. This will include considering what measures have worked successfully within the city and elsewhere, and why they have worked.
•  To identify measures to broaden and increase participation in cycling in Sheffield, with a particular emphasis on the economic, health and environmental impacts of these measures.
•  To propose an updated vision and strategic approach to cycling in Sheffield in early 2014.
•  To produce a report summarising the points above and identifying the next steps for the Council and partners.

The Council’s Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development will be asked to respond to the report, setting out which parts of the report the Council will implement and over what timescale.

A representative from Cycle Sheffield will act as a voluntary adviser to the Inquiry. A City Council Policy and Improvement Officer who supports the Scrutiny Committee and a specialist from the City Council’s Transport Planning team will provide support to the Inquiry.

The Inquiry will operate along lines similar to that of a Parliamentary Select Committee, mounting a short focussed inquiry, taking evidence and producing a final report.

Appendix B

Membership of the Steering Group

The work has been led on the Committee’s behalf by a Steering Group. Mirroring the national report ‘Get Britain Cycling’ this has been a cross-party approach. The membership of the Steering Group is:

•  Cllr Cate McDonald (Chair)
•  Cllr Ian Auckland
•  Cllr Tim Rippon
•  Mick Nott, Cycle Sheffield
•  Dick Proctor, Transport Vision and Strategy Manager, Sheffield City Council
•  Matthew Borland, Policy and Improvement Officer, Sheffield City Council

Appendix C

Responses to the Call for Evidence

We received over 260 responses to the Call for Evidence. This included:

Individuals and

• Access Liaison Group

• Paul Blomfield MP

• CycleSheffield

• CTC (Cyclists’ Touring Club)

• CTC Right to Ride rep for Sheffield

• East End Quality of Life Initiative

• Peak District National Park Authority

• Pedal Ready Cycle Training Co-operative

• ReCycleBikes

• Russell’s Bicycle Shed

• Sharrow Cycling Club

• Sheffield Chamber of Commerce Transport Forum

• Sheffield Cycleboost

• Sheffield Hallam University

• South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive

• Sustrans, National Office

• Sustrans Rangers Volunteer Group in Sheffield

• 20s Plenty

• Transport 4 All

• Two members of Motorists Forum in an individual capacity

• Member of Sheffield on the Move in an individual capacity

We would like to express our thanks to everyone who responded to the Call for Evidence.

Appendix D

 Oral Evidence Session

At the Committee’s meeting in December the following people came to present evidence and answer our questions:

•  Robert Baybutt, Institute of Advanced Motorists
• David Hall, regional Director, Sustrans
• Polly Blacker and Yvonne Witter, Sheffield Cycling Perspective
• Roy Mitchell, Principal Public Transport Manager, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive
• Paul Lynch, Managing Director, Stagecoach Yorkshire
• Tim Gillby, head of Finance and Commercial, Stagecoach Supertram
• Simon Geller, Northern Rail Cycle Forum
• Andrew Jackson, Manager, Heeley Development Trust
• Bryony Akroyd, (Councillor in the Youth Cabinet), Young Peoples’ Perspective, accompanied by Sue Mia, Young People’s Involvement Worker (Citywide), Sheffield Futures

We would like to express our thanks to all of these people for giving their time to contribute to the Cycling Inquiry.

Some of you may have seen this article in The Observer yesterday

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/06/odds-against-nation-of-walkers

 Its basically saying that transport is designed for the car not for the ped (or cyclist)

I thought I would see what I could gather on the stats

In the year ending 2012 in South Yorkshire there were 7423 victims of violent crimes involving some form of injury. In 2011/12 there were 18(1) homicides in South Yorkshire.  (ONS data)

There were 4446 casualties in collisions on roads in South Yorkshire in the year ending of 2012, 29 people were killed , 450 were seriously injured and 3967 people were slightly injured.   So 4446 people were injured or killed in road collisions. (http://www.lifewise999.co.uk/ckfinder/userfiles/files/SRPCasualty-Stats-2012(1).pdf)

Not all road collisions which cause injury involve a crime.  But many do.  At the moment time prevents me going through the collision data to find how many collisions result in criminal prosecution and conviction -I’m not even sure this data is kept.

There are more people killed in road collisions in SY than are killed in violent crimes. In the total number of KSIs from crimes and road collisions 63% of all KSIs are attributable to criminal offences and 37% are attributable to road collisions (which may or may not involve a criminal offence but will involve police recording and may be police investigation)

The 2012/13 SYP budget shows that road policing was allocated £12.34m.  (http://www.southyorks.police.uk/content/what-we-spend-and-how-we-spend-it)

All local policing was allocated £124.3m so road policing gets roughly 10% of local policing yet has 37% of KSIs.

If a police priority is to keep citizens safe then surely more should be spent on road policing.

(SYP’s total budget 2012/13 was £291.0m)

 Should CycleSheffield be asking SYP to change the current low priority of road policing?

and pointing this data out to Sheffield MPs (they are national budget cuts in police budgets?

(1) best data I could find on ONS site its a 2011/2012 figure

CycleSheffield objection to  PLANNING APPLICATION 14/00709/FUL

CycleSheffield will be writing to both SIV and Sheffield City Trust about this application.  We think that there has been little consideration for  people who would want to walk or cycle to the site.  This is ironic in a planning application for a leisure centre that seeks to encourage an active lifestyle.

We don’t object to the application in principle.  At this stage and with this part of the process we object to the application on the following technical grounds.

We have been and surveyed the site.  

We ask you to compare our cycling survey with Drawing no: Figure 06, the cycle survey presented by Arup.

Our survey is on a Google map.

View Graves Leisure Centre Cycling infrastructure in a larger map

We ask the planners and committee members to look at the map we have drawn which shows a far greater extent of signed, advisory and possible cycling routes and much better connections to the site for a bicycle from Jordanthorpe, Batemoor, Lowedges, Greenhill, Meadowhead, Norton, Hemsworth, Coal Aston and these routes touch on Bradway, Dronfield, Meersbrook and Woodseats.  All of which are far more residential districts than specified in the same isochrone as drawn by Arup.

Arup say, The residential areas of Norton, Greenhill, Woodseats and parts of Dronfield and Bradway are within 5km from the site, suggesting that residents within these areas could cycle to the site. There are no cycle paths located adjacent to the Site. The nearest cycle route is located on Norton Lane. This route terminates north of Heeley on Gleadless Road. This route is mostly on-road

Their specification of residential areas is limited and ignores Jordanthrope, Batemoor, and Lowedges.

Their statement about cycle routes is not true.  

It does not consider that there are two toucan crossings from Norton to the south side of Bochum Parkway

and a good shared use path on the south side from Meadowhall roundabout to and across Dyche Lane that Arup haven’t even noted – along with other details not noted.

There is a cycle path along Dyche Lane up to the entrance to Meadowhead School which becomes a footway alongside Dyche Lane.

We are concerned that the present survey has not properly surveyed cycling facilities or considered cycling as a realistic way of getting to the site.  We think cycling as a mode of transport that will not be encouraged and its growth hindered by the current plan.

The new entrance has a 40m long slip road for vehicles turning in to the site.  We are concerned that cyclists carrying straight on the Bochum Parkway alongside this slip road may be cut up on this and would think an advisory cycle lane along here may provide some warning for motorists and protection for cyclists.

The exit seems to go straight on to Bochum Parkway and we think a cycle lane here may help cyclists access Bochum Parkway.

Neither entrance nor exit have a dedicated cycle lane to separate vehicles and cycles entering the site.

We understand that planning applications need to consider access to the site and we believe that there is a simple and inexpensive (compared to the total cost) solution to providing good access for bikes which could provide cycles with access that separates bikes from Bochum Parkway.  It is important to separate cycle and vehicles on higher-speed, denser-traffic roads.

The present shared use path along Bochum Parkway reaches the east side of Dyche Lane.

The footway continues from this shared use path along Bochum Parkway and then turns right and continues as a paved, lit footway parallel to Jordanthorpe Parkway  to provide access to the housing and streets there. (Coloured pink on our map).  This shared use path could then continue north using the subway under Bochum Parkway to provide access to Norton Lane.

We suggest that this could and should be made into a shared use path for both cyclists and pedestrians to both the proposed entrance and the exit and this development and change of use should be a condition of the planning permissions

The Arup survey notes a path at the ‘back’ of the site connecting to Hazelbarrow Drive. This will need upgrading to make it suitable to be used by pedestrians.

 It has barriers which would limit access for disabled people and it is not paved or lit for a short stretch across open ground.  At present the spot is used for fly-tipping.  This also could be upgraded to a shared use path for cyclists and pedestrians.

In addition there is currently a gap that provides ‘unofficial’ but free and open access to the site from Hazelbarrow Drive.  Consideration should be given to making this gap a cycletrack & footway into the site as it would allow access from both footway and carriageway on Hazelbarrow Drive.  

[We do note that the cycle stands are near the entrance (so within oversight) and covered.  Good.  We are disappointed that there are only 10 stands (enough for 20 bikes) and in light of the need for more people to cycle we would argue that 20 covered cycle  stands should be provided – which would provide space for 40 bikes – NB the site hosts the cycle speedway track for Sheffield Stars]

We also surveyed access to the site for pedestrians. (What suits pedestrians often suits cyclists).  Our survey of pedestrian routes  is on the Google map below

Our survey shows paths which are real and on the ground but are not noted on the Arup survey. 

Our points about rear access are not noted and the connectivity for residents in Jordanthorpe, Batemoor and Lowedges are not mentioned because these residential districts are not even mentioned.

In addition there is no marked footway into the site on the entrance drawings from the footways at the entrance across the car park to the main doors at the leisure centre  – cars will be turning off and coming into the car park and peds will have to be walking across these routes to get to parking.

We object to this planning application on the grounds that the surveys are inadequate as is the planning for access for pedestrians and bikes.  

We would also state that it is much easier to upgrade facilities at the time of development rather than retrofit them – which seems to be the intention in the Travel Plan.

We would also expect the client SIV to take a longer view and they should be expecting more visitors by bike, given that:

• Meadowhead roundabout will be more cycle-friendly when it is finished,

• cycle lanes are going in on the A61 between Bowshaw and Meadowhead (the CTC Right to Ride rep I have forcefully made the case that there should be off-road provision along here) ,

• the eventual re-development of the Norton Aerodrome site should provide an off-road route along this section of the outer ring road (I think the on-road cycle lanes on the ORR further north can be deemed to have failed)

• the Sheffield-Chesterfield bike route is creeping towards completion (new bits alongside the A61 in Chesterfield)

So there will be plenty of increased provision for cyclists but SIV may well have developed a leisure centre site that would have to expensively adapt again to respond – far better to do it now.

We re-iterate our objections on the grounds that the surveys are inadequate because they miss significant details and ignore simple opportunities.

We also object on the grounds of air quality.  The figures for air pollution at Meadowhead show that air pollution is below the allowed limit – however cars have to get to the Graves Leisure Centre and we note that the air pollution data on Chesterfield Rd through Woodseats and up to Meadowhead are either over or frequently touch on the air pollution limit.  Sheffield needs to do everything to lower air pollution and improve air quality.  SCC need no reminding that according to their own Director of Public Health  there are 500 preventable deaths pa in Sheffield attributable to poor air quality.  The city has to stop the growth in car traffic and encourage people to use public transport or walk and cycle when they can.

In support of our objection on the grounds of the travel plan does not do enough to reduce air quality CycleSheffield note that the assessment and survey done by Arup did consider Air Quality but it doesn’t reference AQAP 2015 ratified by SCC Cabinet in 2012.  Arup reference the Core Strategy adopted in 2009 and the UDP from 1998 although it notes that the wider Sheffield District area is unlikely to comply with EU limits without implementing the strategies recommended in this plan.

They do not seem to have used the latest policy or referenced to the sections in that on smarter travel.

 We may have missed it but in all the data provided by Arup we couldn’t find a survey of how far people had traveled to get to the Graves Leisure Centre and so determine how many could walk or cycle instead of using a car.  (Mind you, that maybe our lack of professional expertise but we feel it behoves the planners to explain the TRICS data in layperson’s terms).

We urge the Decisions Committee to reject this planning application and make the client reconsider and revise the travel plans and assessments and work with SCC on a plan for the small improvements for cycling that will make a big difference.

We are disappointed and surprised that SIV who have been entrusted in providing leisure and recreational facilities for the city and its citizens have not briefed the planners more imaginatively about the need to encourage and support sustainable travel for clients and staff.  There are incentives (and disincentives) that could be provided but they will be the subject of a separate letter to SIV and Sheffield City Trust.

The next CycleSheffield meeting will take place on Monday 7th April 2014.

Please come and join us! Your presence and opinions matter to us.

Lots of interesting things happening in 2014:

Space for Cycling for cycling campaign,

Penistone Rd developments

cycle audits, (and SCC bigwig says cycling is not an alternative it is essential)

and how is SCC money spent on cycling

Tdf, SkyRides

and lots more

So please come along to listen, find out more, share your views and see if you can contribute in anyway too.

Free tea, coffee, biscuits , and social afterwards at the White Lion on Chesterfield Road.

at the Heeley Development Trust

Ash Tree Yard

62-68 Thirlwell Rd

S8 9TF

(Follow the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route to Saxon Rd/Chesterfield Rd, Turn L then turn R into Thirlwell Rd by the Red Lion and continue pedalling to the top of the road!)

Start 7.00 pm Close 9.00 pm

Sheffield has a Move More Plan.  What is it?  It’s an initiative to get people to be more physically active in both everyday activities and for leisure and recreation.  CycleSheffield obviously supports this initiative but wants to ensure that the stress on everyday activities is as, if not more, important than the stress on leisure and recreation.  It is foolish to develop leisure centres if people only drive to them, far better and more beneficial would be a stress on active travel to work, schools, shops and leisure.  This will also help meet air quality targets and reduce traffic congestion. It’s also a fairness issue because getting to a leisure centre usually involves owning a car (33% of Sheffield dwellings have no car) and the cost of entry etc.  Its much more inclusive to stress active travel.

The Move More plan is embedded at the bottom of this post but first a bit of context.  Sheffield City Council (SCC) now has responsibility for public health; a move made by governments so that councils would put public health at the forefront of their policies rather than assume it was an NHS responsibility.  Resource was transferred from the NHS to the local authorities to help this change.  The SCC Director of Public Health (DoPH) in his 2013 report recommends, “The Council  should systematically prioritise initiatives to encourage Sheffield people to ‘Move More’, making being physically active the norm by building physical activity into their daily life.”

The DoPH report states that the opportunities for promoting physical activity for everyone could be, “ Planning applications for new developments should prioritise the need for all people to be physically active by building activity into their daily life. Local facilities should be accessible on foot, bicycle or other active modes of transport.  The Highways PFI can deliver wider social and public health benefits by ensuring pedestrians and cyclists are given the highest priority when developing and maintaining roads. Safer routes to school can be developed to promote active travel for children, young people and their families.”

The report contains some alarming stats, “…only 39% of men and 29% of women undertak(e) the recommended levels of physical activity” in Sheffield and “… 6-10% of all deaths from the major non-communicable diseases are attributed to physical inactivity. …. in Sheffield, only 54.6% of adults do at least 150 minutes of at least moderate intensity physical activity per week; and 30.4% of adults are physically inactive.”  Just under a third of all Sheffield adults do no moderate exercise at all but this is similar to the rest of the UK.

The DoPH notes, “Physical activity includes everyday activities such as walking and cycling, gardening, housework and active travel as well as active recreation and sport.  People should be encouraged to build physical activity into their daily lives making simple changes i.e. using stairs instead of taking lifts, taking active breaks and reducing the amount of time they spend being sedentary.

The report lists the prescribed public health outcomes that would be improved:

• percentage of physically active adults

• percentage of physically inactive adults

• utilisation of green space for health/exercise reasons

• percentage of children (age 4-5) overweight or obese

• percentage of children (age 10-11) overweight or obese

• excess weight in adults % overweight or obese

• sickness absence rates

• utilisation of green space for health/exercise reasons

• rates of recorded diabetes

• mortality attributable to air pollution

• under 75 preventable mortality from cancers

• under 75 preventable mortality from cardiovascular disease

It looks like we as a city can no longer ‘afford’ our current lifestyle and we do need Space for Cycling

The Move More Plan is available on this webpage – go down the page a bit and you can download it as a pdf

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/caresupport/health/health-wellbeing-board/joint-health-and-wellbeing-strategy/work-programmes.html

Nourish on Pinstone St opposite the  Peace Gdns uses a bike for deliveries.

It also now offers a 10% discount to CycleSheffield members on production of yr CycleSheffield card

I enjoyed the burrito!

Thanks to the team at Nourish.

And there are bike stands outside.