Agenda item

Steven Riley outlined the presentation to the Committee as included within the agenda papers.  The following points were reiterated:

-          The path would be located on Downs land the other side of the trees along Westbury Road.

-          It was proposed that cyclists would be directed to the current pathway and pedestrians to the new path.  Signs would feature, however use would be difficult to enforce.

-          The material to be used would be hard surface such as gravel or limescale tread but had not been determined yet.

-          Any impact on the wildflower meadow would be as limited as possible.

-          Consultation during Feb/March 2019 had not presented a clear view from the public regarding the proposals.

-          The planning application could include the completion of the ‘Severn Sisters Loop’ as a possibility for the future.

In response the following supporting comments were raised;

-          As the Council had declared a climate emergency and aimed for carbon neutrality, as people’s habits changed there was a need for additional cycling provision. 

-          There were improved health benefits of increased cycling within the city.

-          The resulting walkway on the ‘Downs side’ of the trees would create a haven for pedestrians and prams and open up the route to more leisure cycling.

-          People were already using the path on the other side of the trees as a ‘desire line’.  To protect it with an appropriate material was in the best interests of the ground.

-          The proposals were part of the programme of mitigations for the A4018 following developments at Patchway/Cribbs Causeway.  The added cycling provision would ease congestion pressure on Westbury, Henbury and the edge of Stoke Bishop.  The funding would come via the project to alleviate the effects of that development. 

There was concern regarding the robustness of the surface to withstand the access and egress of heavy goods vehicles and cars driving onto the Downs for events.  In response to this the officer confirmed that the HGV access point would not be affected, but the surface would be designed to assist vehicular access to the car parks.

It was suggested that it was premature to pinpoint mitigation for that stretch of road when problems could be more prevalent on Falcondale Road and further to the north of the City. 

Members were unsure that the loss of green space could be justified when there was already a wide footpath for shared use along the stretch identified.  It was suggested that the money be used to improve and reinvigorate the current path rather than creating another at a detriment to green space. 

The following comments were made with regards to the already established cycle path on Saville Road/ Stoke Hill;

-          The clear route for pedestrians and cycles from the top of Blackboy Hill was to the already established wide public footpath and cycle way.

-          The access points to the existing space and path could be improved to create a better shared cycle way with an improved surface.

-          It was highlighted that cyclists varied in why and how they preferred to cycle.  The proposed option may appeal more to the commuter however improvements to the current path would likely benefit the average leisure cyclist.  One was not more important than the other.

-          Bristol Cycling campaign data had established that the preference amongst cyclists was the most direct route from A to B, which supported the proposed route for commuters. 

-          The existing route was not easy to use or access so was not popular with commuters.  The bus stops and degraded surface meant it was not well used.

Officers considered the original proposals to be a better solution that would reach more people and increase the numbers of cyclists along the route.  To upgrade the current path would likely not appeal to cyclist commuters.

It was clarified that the officers were asking the Downs Committee for permission in principle so that the path would be included within the planning permission sought.  The Downs Committee as landowners were being asked their permission to yield the land to the scheme.

Officers confirmed that before planning permission was sought, the Downs Committee (via the Movement and Place Sub Group and main committee) would be consulted on details such as exact materials for the path.

The following motion was proposed and seconded:

“That the Committee

1.      Give landowner approval in principle and the permission that will yield the land as outlined within the proposals and maps presented. 

2.      Such permission in principle would be subject to subsequent approval of the details which would be outlined within the planning permission. 

3.      Detail should be taken to the M&P or full Committee as appropriate before planning permission is sought.”

Upon being put to the vote, six members voted for, and six against.  The Lord Mayor abstained from the vote.  No decision was made.

The following motion was then proposed and seconded:

“That the vote be postponed pending further investigation of the existing land potential of the existing cycle route if resurfaced, improved and extended. 

That further investigations and reasons why that could not happen should be brought back to the next meeting of the Downs Committee.  The matter would then be revisited.”

Upon being put to the vote, ten members voted for and one against.  There were two abstentions.

Therefore it was RESOLVED:

That the vote be postponed pending further investigation of the existing land potential of the existing cycle route if resurfaced, improved and extended. 

That further investigations and reasons why that could not happen should be brought back to the next meeting of the Downs Committee.  The matter would then be revisited.