UK and Europe · Public discussion

St Matthew Academy Cycle Parking

Started by Tom Crispin · · Last activity · 6 posts · 603 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
20 April 2008
Last activity
21 April 2008
Original author
Tom Crispin
Posts
6
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
603
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–6 of 6
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Some of you may rcall that I blew the whistle of a new secondary
    school, which, before opening, pulled up its 238 place cycle park
    located at the front of the building, and replaced it with 24 cycle
    lockers and parking for mini busses, relocating a few of the Sheffield
    stands to the car park at the read of the building in order to prevent
    cars parking on the walkway. The site at the front of the building is
    overlooked by the school's reception and main hall. The relocated
    stands in the car park are not overlooked by any window.

    The school's principle famously posted, in this newsgroup, "The
    original site was tucked away at the front of the building."

    Here is an update on what's going on...

    (Sue Luxton is the only Green Party Councillor on Lewisham Council and
    is championing the cause.)

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

    Dear Councillor Luxton

    Further to our letter to you of 11th March 2008, below is an update as
    promised.

    A meeting was arranged between two of our Planning Officers and Monica
    Cross, the Principal of St, Mathew's Academy. At the meeting, it
    emerged that the Principal had some reservations about some aspects of
    the development, partly because she had not been involved in the
    design process. One example was in the provision of the cycle parking
    facilities, which staff and students felt were not properly protected
    and lacked natural surveillance. The Academy has removed the cycle
    hoops and replaced them with a fewer number of cycle lockers, but the
    hoops have been retained and some have already been relocated
    elsewhere at the site. The minibuses that are parked at the front of
    the site could be relocated if necessary, and more cycle lockers are
    to be provided in due course.

    Planning Officers informed Ms. Cross of the cycle parking that was
    approved as part of the original planning approval and also secured by
    condition and also through the requirement of a Green Travel Plan. Ms.
    Cross was also advised that alterations to the cycle parking would
    require a planning application to vary or delete that condition. As
    the Principal had not been supplied with them, a copy of the original
    planning permission and Section 106 legal agreement were given to her.
    Officers told Ms. Cross to establish how the Academy wished to respond
    to the requirements of the condition so that a way forward could be
    agreed. She was also aware of what was required to discharge
    outstanding conditions on the planning permission and to let officers
    know if further changes were planned elsewhere on site.

    The Principal has accepted that permission should have been sought and
    has stressed that the changes that have occurred are not anti-cycle,
    but are intended to promote a greater use than currently exists. It
    would appear that a satisfactory outcome can be achieved, though
    further discussions are likely for this to be delivered. I will let
    you know once I have received more information.

    Yours sincerely

    Malcolm Smith
    Executive Director for Regeneration

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

  2. On Sun, 20 Apr, Tom Crispin <> wrote:
    [reporting a report of a meeting]

    Quoted message said:

    Planning Officers informed Ms. Cross of the cycle parking that was
    approved as part of the original planning approval and also secured
    by condition and also through the requirement of a Green Travel
    Plan. Ms. Cross was also advised that alterations to the cycle
    parking would require a planning application to vary or delete that
    condition. As the Principal had not been supplied with them, a
    copy of the original planning permission and Section 106 legal
    agreement were given to her.

    Just in case anyone is wondering, subject to my previous caveat that I
    am not a planning system professional, this is not advice, I may be
    making it all up, etc, etc, etc:

    A section 106 is a legally binding agreement entered into by a
    developer as part of negotiations with the planners. It says that the
    developer will do something in order to secure some benefit that makes
    the scheme acceptable, but which could not be imposed by means of
    conventional planning conditions. It's things like paying for a new
    children's playground down the road.

    I'm not sure what it might have been here, since the provision of the
    cycle parking was subject of a condition, so would presumably not of
    itself need a section 106. Possibly it's about something else, but
    having had the school disregard the cycle parking condition, the
    planners thought they'd highlight it while they were there.

    It should come up in a planning history search. I didn't find one
    when I looked, but that may be a deficiency in my use of their online
    planning records system, or that their online system does not give you
    all the planning history. A member of the public could go into the
    planning department and ask to see it...

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  3. Ian Smith said:

    On Sun, 20 Apr, Tom Crispin <> wrote:
    [reporting a report of a meeting]

    Quoted message said:

    Planning Officers informed Ms. Cross of the cycle parking that was
    approved as part of the original planning approval and also secured
    by condition and also through the requirement of a Green Travel
    Plan. Ms. Cross was also advised that alterations to the cycle
    parking would require a planning application to vary or delete that
    condition. As the Principal had not been supplied with them, a
    copy of the original planning permission and Section 106 legal
    agreement were given to her.

    Just in case anyone is wondering, subject to my previous caveat that I
    am not a planning system professional, this is not advice, I may be
    making it all up, etc, etc, etc:

    A section 106 is a legally binding agreement entered into by a
    developer as part of negotiations with the planners. It says that the
    developer will do something in order to secure some benefit that makes
    the scheme acceptable, but which could not be imposed by means of
    conventional planning conditions. It's things like paying for a new
    children's playground down the road.

    I'm not sure what it might have been here, since the provision of the
    cycle parking was subject of a condition, so would presumably not of
    itself need a section 106. Possibly it's about something else, but
    having had the school disregard the cycle parking condition, the
    planners thought they'd highlight it while they were there.

    It should come up in a planning history search. I didn't find one
    when I looked, but that may be a deficiency in my use of their online
    planning records system, or that their online system does not give you
    all the planning history. A member of the public could go into the
    planning department and ask to see it...

    My understanding is that it was a planning condition that the cycle
    park was built and that it could only be altered by a further planning
    application.

    The school is clearly in breach of the planning consent.

  4. Tom Crispin said:
    Ian Smith said:

    A section 106 is a legally binding agreement entered into by a
    developer as part of negotiations with the planners. It says that the
    developer will do something in order to secure some benefit that makes
    the scheme acceptable, but which could not be imposed by means of
    conventional planning conditions. It's things like paying for a new
    children's playground down the road....

    My understanding is that it was a planning condition that the cycle
    park was built and that it could only be altered by a further planning
    application.

    Yes, it sounds like a condition of the planning permission, nothing to
    do with Section 106. If a Section 106 agreement were required, a
    planning condition would state this, but the agreement would be separate.

    Quoted message said:

    The school is clearly in breach of the planning consent.

    Yes. As you say, they must either fulfil the condition, or make a
    planning application to try to get it removed.

    It sounds like your borough did a good job forcing the school
    developer to provide properly for cycling. Most new schools these days
    are PFI (Private Finance Initiative), and the developers are unlikely
    to do anything for cycling unless forced to - and not always then, as
    your example shows!

    Colin McKenzie

    --
    No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
    the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
    walking.
    Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

  5. "Colin McKenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:I-2dnXb7N44eIZbVRVnyhAA@plusnet...

    Quoted message said:

    It sounds like your borough did a good job forcing the school developer to
    provide properly for cycling. Most new schools these days are PFI (Private
    Finance Initiative), and the developers are unlikely to do anything for
    cycling unless forced to - and not always then, as your example shows!

    All of the PFI schools that are being built in Bradford have to accommodate
    the needs of cyclists. I know my school is getting two lockable compounds,
    one for the staff and one for the pupils. nThe car parking provision has
    also been reduced.

  6. Tom Crispin said:
    Ian Smith said:

    I'm not sure what it might have been here, since the provision of the
    cycle parking was subject of a condition, so would presumably not of
    itself need a section 106. Possibly it's about something else, but
    having had the school disregard the cycle parking condition, the
    planners thought they'd highlight it while they were there.

    My understanding is that it was a planning condition that the cycle
    park was built and that it could only be altered by a further planning
    application.

    It was - I quoted it previously. I'm now just curious what the 106
    referred to.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.