CYCLE PATH PROPOSED ROAD? 2013

Cycle path between Callands & Dallam.

Curret Status: STAGE 0

STAGE 0: PROPOSAL

- Any objections or petitions at this stage WILL need to be resubmitted at STAGE 2, see previous GW posting for Stage information.

UPDATE: The cycle path / walk way has now addressed issues relating to positioning and security of houses, in particular this remedies the major issues my household had in relation to this. Lighting will not be implemented at this stage. We found the new proposal acceptable!

You can use my form below as a basis for your email response, please modify accordingly and specifically change the specific comments in question 4 to your own words and add / delete as required.

email comments / objections to: LTP@warrington.gov.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSULTATION FEED BACK FORM:

As part of the consultation process for the improvements to create an east/west cycle route between Lingley Green and Birchwood (editor comments: between Dallam & Callands along the protected greenway and at the immediate back of houses, 3m wide tarmac road), the Council would like to know your view of the proposed improvement works.

Please complete the box below with your comments:

1. Do you agree in principle with the proposed improvement? NO

2. Do you support the installation of lighting along the route? NO

3. Have you any views on when the route should be lit? See 2.

4. Do you have any specific comments or questions about the scheme?

Can you please ensure this is read by the people concerned in the Warrington planning department. If the MP and councillors can ensure that the requests, where possible are met, thankyou.

I do not agree with the proposed improvement for the following reasons:

- The positioning of the  path / cycle way is too close to properties giving security concerns & fears.
- Tree barriers next to houses will be reduced giving security concerns & fears this is based on actual known local house break-ins which occur where SVP paths run near houses.
- The proposed path / cycle way is too wide for the perceived usage.
- Fears exist that the path / cycle way would be used as a future roadway for public vehicular usage, which comes along with a whole host of issues relating to damage to the environment, noise, health & safety. Yes we know that is not the proposal now, however this could be changed with another future proposal.
- The existing proposal raises fears that the path / cycle way could be used by unauthorised vehicles / people such as motorbikes and travellers. Even with barriers in place, people can be resourceful and are known to already bypass existing barriers.
- The proposed path / cycle way is perceived as a tarmac road due to it's size of 3m wide  running through a protected greenway. I do not like this aspect due to too much impact on the aspect of the environment and it's aesthetics.
- The proposed path / cycle way will in my opinion reduce the ability of existing and future wildlife to increase due to the impact on the environment. Effectively creating permanent long term damage to wildlife sustainability. I perceive this has not been assessed.
- Domestic cats use the existing trees for hunting including Norwegian Forest cats which obviously like trees.
- Has a reliable survey for usage been performed for such a notable creation of a path / cycle way which is perceived as being too wide for usage requirements.
- Based on current future predicted UK energy crises I think the usage of lights on the park is excessive for perceived usage. See energy crises details here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1248296/Britain-facing-energy-crisis.html
- Based on UK government national debt which is increasing, I believe the size of the project for SVP should be reduced to allow additional projects to be carried out throughout the town to deliver a better return for expenditure.
- Gang culture: It's been known that in certain areas of Warrington large gangs can congregate in these type of areas, my perception is that lighting such a roadway will attract gangs. Therefore an analysis should be performed on this.
- There's evidence already noted from speaking to other residents that lighting would not encourage entry to parks at quiet early / late times due to the still existing perceived security threats, mainly due to lack of people and isolation. It's one of the reasons why single females do not walk normal roadways at quiet times at night, obviously a park is more fearful to people and thus perceived threats on parks affect not just females but also men. Isolation being a main issue here, lighting would only draw in only a small number of additional people for usage. Also lighting path / cycle ways for the few is not cost effective. This is a key point.
- Gullivers World are perceived by the public as having enhanced leverage within local councils based on past retrospective planning application approvals for noisy roller-coasters (which affect the ambience of the park and usage of private rear gardens), submitted proposals and completed projects. Therefore this proposal is perceived as a potential initial phase of a multi phase project to enlarge GW's park or could be used as such in the future.

Alternative recommendation:

- The existing pathways should be tarmacked with no increase in width or change in route if it where to impede on residents desires for security or no damage to nature. This would deliver significant cost savings and deliver notable improvements for existing users. I would perceive this option to have the greatest opt in for all residents and acceptable needed improvements for users. This is similar to past improvements to SVP pathways. Hardcore cyclists can still use major roads if desired and still have ability to use this route.
- The new tarmacked path should run along the Gullivers World perimeter as it does now.
- Due to the increasing environmental issues going forward a new path put anywhere will ultimately have drainage issues, therefore where water accumulates now the path should be raised if needed. Simply re-routing a path to avoid a current water log but then affecting residents security and the wildlife etc. is not acceptable.
- If residents do not want trees cutting down, I am one of these, then the existing route is the best option with no change to trees unless a replant is performed,.
- Any cost savings from reduced width, no markings or lighting can be used for other cycle ways / path improvements, giving the best return.



Request for Planning Proposal Consultation Window Increase:
- Please ensure the proposal feedback windows is at least 6 weeks but preferably longer to ensure a full informed opinion can obtained from the community. This would deliver integrity to the planning process.


Residents Letters for next stage:
- If this proposal enters the next phase of the planning stage. I would like to request that letters are sent to all residents concerned within 200mtrs (or a greater radius unless there's some form of restriction on this), of all aspects of the proposed developments.
- I would like the letter as a minimum to inform the residents of the target areas of the plans and specifically where trees will be removed. A security impact assessment should be performed and key findings noted on the letter.
- I would like the letter to state the full costs of the project funded by the tax payer.
- I would like the letter to state the policies that currently protect each area of the targeted development, if you use policy reference No's then please define a brief glossary to each policy ref No.
- I would like the letter to state the impact to current & future wildlife and their habitat.
- I would like a running cost of proposed lighting based per hour basis stated.
- I would like a note of potential future energy issues that face the UK stated based on government analysis.
- I would like a note on current government cutbacks on lighting of roads and why.
- Please add anything extra as required.