Submissions on proposed Drive-Thru Outlet
21/02286/F
3 August 2021
Version 1.1
BicesterBUG objects to the proposal in its current form. The provision
for active travel is insufficient and only token effort has been given
to enabling customers to access and use the site without a vehicle.
In particular, pedestrian and cycle friendly crossings to the
development over the arms of the roundabout should be provided.
These could include parallel crossings which are economical and
demand-sensitive. Parallel crossings could be provided on all arms to
create a so-called ‘Dutch’ roundabout. Segregated paths should be
provided on all desire lines to the development that comply with
Department for Transport Local Transport Note (‘LTN’) 1/20.
We note the incongruity of a vehicle centred drive thru coffee outlet
being proposed in Bicester when the Council has declared a climate
emergency, ambitious targets for active travel and while traffic issues
are increasing. This context makes the provision of high-quality
walking and cycling access more, not less, important in this case to
ensure high walking and cycling customer numbers.
Further engagement by BicesterBUG with the developers and
planning authority would be appreciated to enable the plans to
develop as recommended under LTN1/20.
The current designs do not make it easy for pedestrians or cyclists to
access the proposed development. Access will be particularly difficult
for vulnerable users such as the elderly and disabled due to the
uncontrolled crossings and narrow shared paths. Active travel friendly
crossings over the arms of the roundabout such as parallel crossings
need to be provided to enable access. A ‘Dutch’ style roundabout with
crossings over each arm of the roundabout should be considered. In
addition, the roadside paths that link to the development are woefully
inadequate, do not comply with current standards, and need to be
constructed in accordance with LTN 1/20.
2.1 Pedestrian and Cycle Routes and Facilities
New cycling and walking infrastructure should comply with the LTN
1/20 Standards, including measures such as segregated off-road
cycle paths and priority for cycle tracks over minor roads. None of
these are proposed at present. The plans should also be compliant
with the 2020 OCC Local Walking and Cycling Plan (‘LCWIP’) for
Bicester, which the applicant makes no reference to.
There is currently only one tolerable crossing over the Skimmingdish
Lane, which is well away from the desire line and not well situated to
benefit this development. It also requires most users to cross other
arms of the roundabout where there are uncontrolled crossings. Most
visitors are in fact likely to approach from the opposite direction, the
industrial estate. Here there are a large number of units including
educational facilities that are occupied during the day. Visitors to the
proposed development would want to cross via the A4421 arm where
there is presently only an uncontrolled crossing. In the absence of
such provision, it is likely that visitors within a few hundred metres
of the proposed development will choose to drive to access it, thereby
choking the roads.
As confirmed by LTN 1/20, uncontrolled crossings will discourage the
overwhelming majority of users (Table 10-2). There are uncontrolled
crossings over the Launton Road arm; the A4421 arm; and the
entrance to the care home. In order to provide access, at a bare
minimum there needs to be active travel friendly crossings over the
arms of the roundabout such as parallel crossings. Ideally, crossings
should be provided over all arms to create a so-called ‘Dutch’
roundabout. This would provide a cost-effective and demandsensitive means of access that would cause little or no delay to
existing motor vehicles using the roundabout. It would also reduce
unnecessary traffic.
In addition, there are currently only very narrow, shared, paths in
the vicinity, and these are incomplete. In order to provide access, all
paths should be upgraded to segregated provision, and paths should
be provided along all the desire lines to enable pedestrian and cycle
access from all areas of Bicester.
The applicant’s Travel Plan suggest in Figure 1B that cycle access
should be via the ‘pedestrian access’ or via the road, both of which
would not be LTN1/20 compliant and put cyclists in conflict with
pedestrians or force them onto a potentially busy road. Cyclists
should be provided with a safe, segregated access point.
The bike parking is both insufficient and in an inconvenient place, it
has been located on the other side of the car park, almost as far from
the building as possible rather than directly adjacent as would be
most convenient. Providing 6 spaces, which are also not suitable for
non-standard bicycles (adapted, trikes, cargo bikes), is insufficient,
this has already been seen at other such outlets in Bicester where,
despite poor cycle access, customers and staff arrive by bike. A larger
number of secure cycle spaces, which also would accommodate a
diversity of cycles, should be provided.
2.2 Aspirations for Active Travel
Given the inadequate design, the proposal is inadequate to permit
the attainment of the policy goal of a 200% increase (tripling) of
cycling and a 50% increase in walking as committed to in the
Oxfordshire County Council (‘OCC’) LCWIP Bicester 2020.
In order to achieve these aspirations, a more ambitious plan for
walking and cycling is to be expected. The design would benefit from
the input of a designer with experience of riding in urban
environments and skills in active travel infrastructure, as per
Summary Principle 20 of LTN 1/20 ‘All designers of cycle schemes
must experience the roads as a cyclist.’ Furthermore, there has been
no engagement with cyclists or vulnerable users as required by LTN
1/20 (10.4.17). This would have highlighted the problems with the
design.
It is now a key requirement that active travel access to a
development is now a key criterion in planning terms. The
Department for Transport states: 'Cycling facilities should be
regarded as an essential component of the site access and any offsite highway improvements that may be necessary. Developments
that do not adequately make provision for cycling in their transport
proposals should not be approved. This may include some off-site
improvements along existing highways that serve the development.'
(LTN 1/20, 14.3.12). As such, the applicant should provide a
contribution towards upgrading the pedestrian and cycle routes into
Bicester town.
EcoBicester Planning Standards
https://portal.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/publicnet/other_sites/Eco
Bicester/standards.html
Cherwell Design Guide SPD (2017)
Oxfordshire County Council (2020), Local Walking and Cycling Plan
for Bicester
Department for Transport (2020), Local Transport Note 1/20