Protests expected in Sheffield today over plans to demolish a line of buildings on Devonshire St – 20k people say NO pic.twitter.com/J6p5ghMvP1

— BBC Radio Sheffield (@BBCSheffield) March 24, 2015

Emma Metcalfe of Cycle Sheffield and the Space for Cycling campaign today attended the Planning Meeting regarding the proposed demolition of 162-170 Devonshire Street to object to the proposed scheme. She was not allowed to speak but this is what she planned to say.

“I object to the proposed development on the grounds that it compromises a key pedestrian and cycling route to and from the city centre. The proposed accommodation does not include dedicated car parking spaces and is aimed at students therefore it is extremely likely that residents will use taxis frequently.

This will cause an obstruction on Devonshire Street with taxis waiting outside on the road like what I experience daily on outside the Central Quay Student Accommodation on Alma Street, Kelham Island. On a daily basis taxis wait outside in the road with their engines on, often double parked and blocking the way. This will create a hazard for cyclists and a less pleasant pedestrian environment for people walking. Devonshire Street is part of Sheffield City Council’s signed cycle route to Sheffield University and the west of the city and is a main transport corridor for people riding bikes as it provides a parallel route which allows cyclists to avoid cycling along the hazardous tram lines on West Street. It is also less than 100m away from National Cycle Network route 6 which runs along Division Street and through Devonshire Green, a popular leisure and tourism route.

Though some bike storage for residents has been included, it is in a communal bin storage area. This unappealing location will do nothing to encourage residents to travel by bicycle.

The development threatens to damage Devonshire Street and Division Street as a key pedestrian corridor for the same reasons, and also through reducing the appeal of the route through bland, wide shopfronts and a lack of interest. Studies by architect and liveable cities expert Jan Gehl have shown that streets that offer varied narrow shop-fronts encourage people to assemble in stark contrast to streets facades that are too bare and monotonous which encourage people to disperse. The current buildings have three distinct and visually enticing shopfronts and three doors. The proposed development would reduce this to two wider shopfronts and two doors making it less appealing to pedestrians as both a walking route and a place to spend time.

Action 3 of Sheffield City Council’s own Air Quality Action Plan 2015 is to ‘Promote Smarter Travel Choices’ and Sheffield City Council’s 2014 Cycling Inquiry endorsed the aim of the Get Britain Cycling report to see cycle use increase to 10% of all journeys in 2025 and 25% in 2050. The proposed development would negatively affect progress on these aims by threatening a key route.”

Today Matt Turner has been announced as the new Chair of CycleSheffield following Mick Nott’s decision to stand down.

29 year old Matt said “I want to see a Sheffield where everyone has the freedom to ride a bike, and I’ll make sure that CycleSheffield will be at the forefront of that effort. With our Space for Cycling campaign and our work with Sheffield City Council on developing a cycling strategy we’re making a real impact. We’ll hold the council to their aim of getting 15% of trips made by bicycle by 2025, just 10 years away.”

Outgoing Chair Mick Nott said “I have been Chair since 2012 and felt it was time for a change; not least because I am too old for this game! Plus it gives me the time to pay attention to my other role as Secretary of CycleSheffield.  I have really appreciated the support from our members and my Committee colleagues in taking a lead for CycleSheffield. I congratulate Matt and have no doubt that he will be a very capable and innovative Chair.”

CycleSheffield has a strong team of committee members but there’s always room for more people to get involved. We’re about to launch our Space for Cycling campaign which will see hundreds riding through Sheffield on our campaign ride next month and our website will let people email their local election candidates to ask them to support Space for Cycling. Please get in touch with Emma if you’d like to help with the organisation of the campaign.

Speaking about the future of cycling in Sheffield Matt said “The past couple of years have been hard and there have been many setbacks, but it feels like change is in the air. The new University Masterplan shows real promise for cycling provision and is a real step change from anything that we’ve seen recently. The plans include a well designed protected crossing across Upper Hanover Street, removal of traffic from Leavygreave road and a much nicer environment for people on foot and bike.”

If you’d like to help with any of our campaigns then please get in touch. There has never been a more exciting time to get involved.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B-pUIn6UgbTZeTdHQ1JpNng2RVU

You will note that the “For Consultation” folder contains specific proposals for measures to improve safety at certain locations across the tramway, and the consultant is looking for feedback on these at this stage.

As well as information on the concept proposals, there is other related information and copies of earlier presentations which may be of interest to cyclists in Sheffield. In relation to all these proposals the type of signs and road markings that may be used is still fairly uncertain, due to Department for Transport authorisation issues, but this should not affect the nature of the concepts shown in these consultation drawings.

The area will be the within the “old” inner ring with the boundaries being West Bar/Castlegate/Sheaf St/St Mary’s Gate/Hanover Way/Broad Lane/Tenter St.

Businesses will pay a levy (a proportion of their business rate) and in return there will be a BID company that will work with SCC to improve footfall, turnover and the ‘liveliness’ of the city through promotional activities and suggestions wrt to the development of the city centre.

CycleSheffield took an interest because we have views on shared space and pedestrian and cycle access and the BID prospectus claims that BID will improve bike access and parking.

The voting company directors will be mainly businesses and there are no votes for city-centre residents so there could be issues to do with democratic checks and balances of the city centre.  The BID will not have a huge budget so they will not be able to fund property developments but they will be able to act as a lobby group for business interests in the city.

We submitted the comments below on New Years Eve 2014 and have received a welcoming response so far.

CycleSheffield responses to BID consultation

Mick Nott, Chair, CycleSheffield, chair@cyclesheffield.org.uk

31 Dec 2014

A CycleSheffield welcomes a regeneration of the city centre.  It would like the BID leadership to note:

1. the development that has already been done with inspiring social and commercial spaces like Fargate, Cathedral Precinct, Tudor Square, The Moor, Peace Gardens, Sheaf Square, Howard St, and Barkers Pool;
2. the University Masterplan which promotes shared space, encourages cycling and walking and segregates vehicles into off street parking or away from meeting places and buildings;
3. the City Council’s Vision for Excellent Transport and the Move More! plan that puts walking and cycling at the heart of transport policy and seeks to improve citizen’s health and wellbeing and the city’s air quality by reducing the use of cars and promoting active travel;
4. cities across the world are promoting shared space, segregating motor cars away from work, shops and play, providing safe, secure off street parking for cars, and promoting & investing in inexpensive-to-the-user, high quality public transport;
5. shared space increases footfall in shops and public spaces, allows streets to be used for social interaction and ‘play’, increases the value of adjacent property and leases, and improves the quality of everybody’s life;
6. city centres need jobs other than those in retail, leisure and tourism (cf the legal sector in Sheffield).  These may be high-value jobs and the way to attract companies to relocate to a working city centre is to have attractive public space that allows employees choices about how they travel.  Good quality public transport and good quality cycling and walking routes are an integral part of those choices.

B We make the following suggestions

1. The inner ring road acts as a conduit for motor traffic but as a boundary for incoming and outgoing pedestrians and cyclists.  It needs good quality, well designed intersections for entry and exit, eg the Bridgehouses Gyratory deters both pedestrians and cyclists, BID should recognise that the University Masterplan should lead to improvements around Brook Hill, etc;
2. BID should note that the city already has clearly designated cycle routes through the city and around it both internally and on the Inner Ring Road (IRR).  Development should be sensitive to the routes during planning and any future construction works.  SCC is committed to developing and starting to develop a strategic network of cycle routes.  It has also set a target of 10% of all trips by bike by 2025 and 25% of all trips by bike by 2050.  The development of the city centre should be a key part of fulfilling those targets by ensuring good quality cycle routes are in place.
3. BID should support the development of cycle hire in the city which will need cycle parking stations as well as routes (NB the University (we think in partnership with SCC) will be introducing a bike hire scheme in 2015 and the cycle hub at the station already hires bikes on an hourly basis – available shop opening hours only)
4. the whole city centre within the IRR should be a 20mph zone, including Broad Lane/ Tenter St (no longer an official through route and centre of many new  developments, including student flats, and The Diamond).  Similarly Charter Row, Arundel Gate and Furnival Gate have been changed from motorways of the past to urban streets of the present by narrowing carriage-ways and increasing footway widths, but there are insufficient crossings and traffic is too fast and takes too much of a priority over people wanting to cross the roads.  Pedestrian and cyclists movement should be prioritized;
5. Any shared space needs to allow cycling as well as walking, eg the ‘Gold Route’ from the station to the university can be cycle as well as walked.  This is not the case for the ‘Steel Route’ from Castlegate to Moorfoot, but should be so.  It makes no sense to allow cycling across Barker’s Pool but not down The Moor
6. There is a need for undercover, secure bike parking. Any new car parking development should have a developers premium of building in bike parking,  [The Station Cycle Hub and the Eyre St/Moor Market Car Park already provide 24/7/365 undercover and secure bike parking. (One is free, the other requires a one-off £10 payment for a fob)]
7. CycleSheffield notes that the evidence indicates that removing moving motor traffic and parking from outside shops INCREASES footfall and spend in urban centres.  Urban parking should be off road.

C What CycleSheffield may offer.

CycleSheffield is willing to present and discuss the evidence for the assertions above.  Developers of city urban space across the world are recognising the social and economic importance of making cities attractive and ‘liveable’ for all, eg New York, Detroit, Seville, anywhere in Holland & Scandinavia, and in the UK, Sheffield has much to learn from London, Brighton, York, Bristol etc

[We suggest the BID leadership listen to this “pedcast” about how a transformation to an urban street in Hackney has made for a better civic life and how people care about their streets.  The  public need enjoyable public realm, like Barker’s Pool, by reducing traffic flow and stopping traffic conflicting with peds and cyclists. https://soundcloud.com/livingstreets/pedcast-nov14

Perhaps BID could consider signing up to Living Streets (national champions for the public on foot) and extend the public open shared spaces we have in Sheffield to create a vibrant welcoming city centre.  The example on this podcast could be applied to Pinstone St or Division St or both!]

Public Consultation on the future of Stanley Fields and Pye Bank Road, Woodside (S3 9PB)

From: CycleSheffield

We are commenting on the draft Planning and Design Brief www.sheffield.gov.uk/woodside.  We have been to drop-in sessions, read the documents and three of us have worked on these comments. Two of us live in the North of the city and use Pitsmoor Rd daily for trips.

• Local context

1.1 The redevelopment of Woodside and Stanley Fields is to be welcomed.

1.2 We understand and agree with the principle of the proposed land swap

1.3 The site has one of the four routes from the city into Pitsmoor and beyond. These are: Rutland Rd, Pitsmoor Rd, Brunswick Rd (cycle route only) and Spital Hill.

1.4 It is CycleSheffield’s view that the Brunswick Rd cycle route is not fit for purpose: it has a v steep section from the inner ring rd, it’s not overseen, it is fly-tipped and rat infested and goes through a neighbourhood that many may not want to use on their own. It will not be fit for purpose until it becomes part of a redevelopment around it.   Rutland Rd is a steep main arterial route with high passenger car units (pcu) p.d. and 40mph speeds, Spital Hill has the lowest gradients (its where the tram line used to be) it is slow but it is v narrow and very congested for many hours during the day.  Pitsmoor Rd has a short steep gradient from Bridgehouses to the top of Chatham St but after that the slopes are gentle and many cyclists use it to avoid the congestion on Spital Hill and connect with neighbourhoods along Pitsmoor Rd. and Barnsley Rd and to go to NGH.  It should be considered a cycle route (and vehicle traffic flow could be ‘persuaded’ to use Spital Hill and Rutland Rd).

Site Features

1.3 The site has attractive features in that it is hilly and many locations have fine views over the Upper Don Valley.

1.4 a. It is close to the city and the up and coming neighbourhood of Kelham Island and this makes it an attractive development site

1.4 b. There are short distances to Shalesmoor, Kelham Island, Neepsend, Parkwood Springs, Pitsmoor, Spital Hill, Wicker, & Castlegate via Nursery St, Snig Hill via Millsands.  It is a site through which many will commute and it is a site that it is well or could be well connected.

1.4 c. The railway tracks that border the lower boundary could be seen as either a hindrance or block or making the site on the “wrong side of the tracks” or they could be seen as a feature that provide a boundary that separates residential from industrial and commercial on Shalesmoor and perhaps the sound of the inner ring road.

1.4 d. The site is bordered by social housing that are remnants of the Woodside estate and could be considered to provide a continuity with the recent past.

• Urban Design

2.1 We agree with the principles in yr document under section 2.11

2.2 We agree that Bridgehouses is a Gateway point (yr Fig 3) and Bridgehouses is also a problem for walking and cycling. See http://www.cyclesheffield.org.uk/2014/10/06/10677/

2.3 We agree that the walk that runs beside the boundary wall by the railway track is a problem – it is not overseen or lit and is used for prostitution and drug dealing at the Woodside Lane end.  (It could be closed but may still need to be there for any future wall maintenance?).  There could or should still be access to the Stanley Fields site form the Woodside Lane end of this path – see the current desire lines worn on the grass.

2.4 We wish to point out that the site has access (unmarked on yr Fig 3) from Fox St.  This connects to Andover St and Rock St and hence to Spital Hill/Ellesmere Green

2.4 We bring to your attention to SCC’s Vision for Excellent Transport and the decision by Cabinet to incorporate cycling into that Vision see http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s14468/Cycling%20Inquiry%20Report.pdf.  One of the  policy recommendations is that Sheffield needs to develop as soon as possible a strategic cycle network.  Another policy recommendation is that all new developments start with walking and cycling audits.  These recommendations are relevant to this site and should not be overlooked

• Our principles for urban design

3.1 Your plans talk of green routes.  CycleSheffield think that SCC should talk of routes.  We believe that people should be able to walk and cycle to where they work, shop, rest and play.  We do not believe that cycling should be marginalised onto ‘green’ routes.  This is an urban location with access to suburbs and the city but also access to parks, eg Parkwood Springs, the proposed linear park.  Cycling takes place in both. By and large, monies for cycling infrastructure should go to urban routes, money for routes in parks should come from Leisure and Recreation monies.

3.2 We propose that access close to dwellings should be designed with the principles of shared space.

3.3. We propose residential parking (residents and visitors) should be off-road and could even be in community car parks.  Cars should not come into conflict with pedestrians or cyclists close to housing.  Streets should not be an obstacle course of parked cars for pedestrians and cyclists.  This may also allow the establishment of play streets.

3.4 We propose that routes through and in and out of housing should be permeable so that pedestrians and cyclists do not have to follow the same routes as cars and they have direct routes that encourage walking and cycling.

3.5 Housing should have sufficient secure, covered bike parking either shared between dwellings or per dwelling. (There is no point encouraging and developing cycling if the infrastructure for storage is not built as part of all new developments)

• Specific Proposals

4.1 Chatham St should be closed to vehicles from above Swinton St to the jn with Rock St.  Its should be made into a two way cycle route and pedestrian route.  This would create a ‘safe’, pleasant space for peds and walkers as a gateway into Woodside.

Vehicle traffic at Bridgehouses should be advised “no through rd” up to Pitsmoor.  Chatham St between Mowbray St and Swinton St should have a two-way segregated cycle path and a single lane for up-coming traffic.  It would involve some reworking of Bridgehouses for cyclists but, hey, if it can be done for buses then it can be done for active sustainable travel.

4.2 A route through Stanley Fields from Chatham St to Wood Fold should be created.  This would connect to the path at Parkwood Springs across Rutland Rd from Woodfold.  This would then give the opportunity to create a walking and cycling route (part leisure/part utility) from Millsands and the proposed grey-green route on West Bar/Castlegate all the way up to the top of Parkwood Springs (possibly one of the best viewpoints of the city)

4.3 Woodside Lane provides access to the site from Neepsend, Kelham Island and Shalesmoor.  It should be a 20mph road and be car access for residents only.  It should be surfaced and lit to encourage people to walk and cycle on it.

4.4 The original connection of Woodside Lane to Wood Fold should be restored (currently within the factory site)  This would provide an alternative walking and cycling route to going up Rutland Rd and onto a route into Parkwood Springs.

4.5 Rock St is single alternate lane traffic across the railway bridge.  We presume this is a weight restriction imposed by Network Rail.  They are responsible for the bridge and it may be many years before it will be strengthened.  Meanwhile we propose that the half of the road currently closed is opened up as a pedestrian and cycling route onto Pye Bank Rd and a toucan crossing and/or cyclists lights put on the jn with Chatham St.

4.6 The road on the railway bridge across Pitmoor Rd is narrowed.  We assume this railway bridge on Pitsmoor Rd may need strengthening or the present arrangement was an inexpensive way to provide pedestrian barriers on the bridge.  At present cyclists set off from Chatham St going up Pitsmoor Rd, they are slow because it is a standing start and usually they are overtaken by vehicles before they reach the narrowed lane.  Vehicles are waiting in the opposite lane on the bridge.  However the up lane is narrow and vehicles can go through the Chatham St lights and squeeze past (fast) and put cyclists at risk.  This issue will still occur if traffic is coming up from Pitsmoor Rd (after the Bridgehouses bus scheme installed in 2015) We propose two solutions to this:

4.6 i)  put the stop line on the inbound lane on Pitsmoor Rd back on the bridge like it is for Rock St.  This will provide space for outbound vehicles to overtake outbound cyclists as the cyclists get to the other side of the bridge they should be directed onto a cycle way along Pistmoor Rd (see 4.7)

4.6 ii) start the cycleway and footway as a shared use path using the current footway at the town end of the bridge on the outbound lane.  This will take them off the narrow section of road across the bridge.  There is already a dropped kerb there with tactile paving and cyclists do use this as a route.

4.7 Pitsmoor Rd should have a cycleway and a footway along it.  The parking that is presently allowed there should be removed; it obstructs oncoming cyclists forcing them further out into the lane.  If the parking was removed then there is plenty of room for both the proposed cycleway and footway.  This route would provide active travel access to the proposed housing and also to people making trips to Pitsmoor, Burngreave and beyond.

4.8 We note one key crossing is proposed on Pitsmoor Rd.  We think this is too few.  Stanley Fields will be housing.  The land across the road will be a park.  There is housing on the other side of Pye Bank Rd.  Families will want to use the linear park and let their kids get to it.  The nearest primary school is Pye Bank School and that is up the hill off Andover St and Rock St so families will have to cross this road twice a day.  It is a long stretch of road.  If there is only one crossing then peds will just run across the road where it suits them.   We propose that the following should be considered – more crossings or sections of shared space that have roads and other routes delineated by with different colours and textures with level surfaces between all three.  Vehicles should be restricted to 20 mph for this stretch of road, eg narrow the lanes (between the railway bridges and, at least, the end of the development). As new housing is to be developed we propose that there should be bus route along this section of Pitsmoor Rd – and it should be a 20mph bus route

4.9 There is a path from Pye Bank Rd onto Pitsmoor Rd by the railway bridge.  This should connect directly to a toucan crossing across Pitsmoor Rd.  There should be a ped crossing at the other end of Pye Bank Rd across Pitsmoor Rd.  If you’re going to go with crossings there has to be at least one more toucan crossing between these two points than the one proposed.

4.10 There is the possibility to create a pedestrian and cycle route from Pye Bank Road over to Fox St.  It is still there as a (disused) ped route with steps.  We bring to your attention the cycle route between Shewsbury Rd and the Cholera Monument.  We believe some kind of similar devpt in this ‘new’ green space would benefit peds, cyclists and people with pushchairs or in mobility scooters.  It would provide access with Andover St, Rock St and Verdon St

4.11 We support a route through the linear park along the path of Pye Bank Rd that allows both walking and cycling (cf path through Norfolk Park) but if it is not lit and not overlooked we do not see it as a strategic cycle route.  It would be safer to cycle along a route alongside a 20 mph Pitsmoor Rd that is lit, paved and overlooked.

Briefly, Loicher Bridge is a vital link carring the Chapeltown Greenway (also known as the Blackburn Valley Cycle Route) over Loicher Lane (SK364943). This route isn’t complete yet, but will offer a traffic-free route between Chapeltown and Meadowhall – an important route for both leisure and employment. The route is being developed and improved by Sheffield City Council (SCC) before being handed back to its owners –  Sustrans.

In October, a CycleSheffield member alerted us that Loicher Bridge was going to be demolished:

…Loicher Lane bridge will be demolished (this is for financial reasons in the long term) and works done on the lane itself to provide a safer at grade crossing/access point…
[SCC email]

They wrote back questioning the decision, and were told:

…I completely agree with the fact that the bridge is a better alternative than an at grade crossing point. However, the scheme includes an access point and that cannot be safely achieved with the bridge abutment in place. Believe me, I have gone over countless options and none meet the necessary criteria for both design and safety.

The bridge span decking itself has been treated but the structural state of the bridge is poor and will require great expense even to keep in place, let alone replace.

By negotiation with local landowners we are in a position to improve sightlines all round to make the at grade crossing as save [sic] as possible. We will be including a speed limit reduction from the motorway bridge at 30mph, currently 60mph, and we are considering a point reduction to 20mph in the environs of the crossing…

Over the next few weeks CycleSheffield members pushed for more information about the decision to demolish the bridge, and on 18 November, council officer Brian Dalton reported to SCC Cycle Forum:

…Using current highway standards, it is not possible to make this access safe with the existing southern bridge abutment in place…
I have costed a replacement bridge and I am in the process of costing an at grade crossing point … I am leaning towards the no bridge option
…I have the written support of the Railway Paths bridge engineer for the removal of this bridge…

[full text in 26 November 2014 news item]

We were so alarmed at this and the refusal of SCC to provide more information, that on 13 November 2014 we felt compelled to submit a Freedom of Information request to get some answers.

From this we learned that:

• Agreements/contracts/tenders/estimates made with landowners since 2010 concerning the Blackburn Valley cycle route have been verbal only
• There are no recent (in past five years) structural reports, estimates, or documentation relating to the renovation of Loicher Bridge
• There are no recent reports about safe access of Loicher Bridge
• There are no recent costings for the demolition of Loicher Bridge
• There are no recent costings for the replacement of Loicher Bridge
• There are no recent costings for an at-grade crossing on the site of  Loicher Bridge

All somewhat at odds to the October email and November Cycle Forum report.

As a result of this, CycleSheffield felt compelled to negotiate directly with Sustrans, the Trans Pennine Trail and Railways Paths Ltd (RPL) – a Sustrans company that will ultimately undertake ownership and maintainence of Loicher Bridge.

Subsequently, in late December, Mike Babbitt, Sustrans Project Manager for Yorkshire & The Humber, and Paul Thomas, Bridge Engineer, RPL met with Brian Dalton of SCC. These were Mike Babbit’s comments to Brian Dalton as a result of that meeting.

As the available sight lines for the existing access ramp to the south west of the bridge are poor, we considered all of the following alternative options:

1. Removing the bridge and abutments entirely to create an at-grade crossing of greenway and road.  It seems that the only reason known to me for this option is to improve the sightline for the SW access ramp.  Removal of the bridge would require a bridge demolition together with a huge amount of earth shifting/removal to level the railway with the road – this would be expensive. An acceptable at-grade crossing (i.e. with priority for greenway users) would also need to be created and, given Sustrans’ fruitless attempt to get a priority crossing installed at Grange Lane to the south, this would be expensive and/or deemed unacceptable by SCC.
2. Installation of a new longer span cycle bridge at a raised height on wider abutments.  This option would also require a significant amount of earth shifting/removal, demolition and construction of at least one new abutment. A new steel bridge in itself would cost in the region of £30k and an added installation complication is the close proximity of the overhead cables. The gradient of the access ramp to the south west would need to be significantly improved to 1:20. This is therefore likely to be a very expensive option.
3. Improve the existing bridge and provide an alternative acceptable access ramp to Loicher Lane.  It seems that the existing access ramp and its inherently difficult sightlines due to the existing bridge abutments and road curvature are the principle reasons for your suggestion of options 1 and 2. I described to you the seemingly feasible option of ramping down alongside Loicher Lane to the south east of the bridge to join the road around the southern site access to the east and you agreed to investigate this further. This would have the benefit of giving greenway users longer sight of the road as they travelled down the ramp to meet it at a less problematic point. A first objection to this may be that a cyclist cycling up the hill to join the greenway has to go further. Although this may be true, the height gain to get to the greenway is achieved using a kinder gradient overall. There is also the option of ramping down to the north west of the bridge and you agreed to investigate this further. The required works to the existing bridge would be to bring in the parapets to go on top of the edge beams and remove the timber walkways together with any other remedial works required by RPL. Appropriate bridge lead-in railings would be required to guide users across the bridge.

Mike commented further to CycleSheffield:

In my assessment of the above, option 1 is not an option due to the unlikelihood of achieving an acceptable at-grade crossing together with the likely high expense.  Option 2 would be acceptable to Sustrans (and probably RPL) but is likely to be very expensive.  Option 3 is acceptable provided that a safer access ramp can be provided and is likely to be the cheapest scheme.

From all this, you will see that CycleSheffield’s original assertion has been confirmed:
The best and cheapest option for Loicher Bridge is to renovate the bridge and install a revised access ramp.

This does however, leave a whole host of other questions unanswered:

• Why council officers feel empowered to make verbal agreements with local landowners which involve demolition of major structures (which SCC doesn’t even own) without recourse to any other stakeholders
• Why council officers can make statements both to CycleSheffield members and SCC Cycle Forum “Loicher Lane bridge will be demolished (this is for financial reasons in the long term)” “I have gone over countless options” “I have costed a replacement bridge” and imply that an at-grade crossing is viable, safer and cheaper, when none of these are true
• Why council offers have been deliberately obstructive to what we consider are legitimate matters of public interest
• Why CycleSheffield, the local cycling campaign and advocacy group, has to resort to Freedom of Information requests to get answers to these questions, and why there is a paucity of answers to these requests
• Why CycleSheffield has been excluded from the development process for the Chapeltown Greenway
• Why did CycleSheffield feel compelled to have to escalate their concerns to the ultimate owners of the Chapeltown Greenway – who subsequently offered solutions in line with CycleSheffield’s suggestions
• Why CycleSheffield has again had to devote considerable volunteer resource into a project that should have been properly developed and managed by SCC

We are saddened that this has taken place as we believe that Gyms and organisations promoting cycling are working toward the same aim – that of a fitter and healthier population. Many cyclists use the Gym to maintain their fitness levels particularly in the winter months. Sadly it looks as though we are going to have to advise cyclists to avoid using Virgin Gyms if this situation continues. Let’s hope that this doesn’t happen and these problems can be resolved quickly.

 The Award nominations so far…. nominations close 1 December

Cycling Initiative of the year

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419

Grassroots Cycling Initiative of the Year

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419

Sheffield media cycling story of the year

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419

Best Sheffield grassroots cycling social media

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419

Cycle Campaigner(s) of the Year

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419

Best Independent Bike Business

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419

Best Chain Bike Business

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419

Cycle Infrastructure awards

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419

Best act of kindness

To see which one gets the award and enjoy a night out at Burtons then book your ticket(s) here http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cyclesheffield-awards-and-social-tickets-13699448419