Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sally, I understand people in flats might need hangars but on my street alone people with large homes, with adequate front and back gardens are wanting these. It is simply convenient street storage, not a need, for most of them. No doubt cycling fanatics also wish to make a point about cars taking up space but overall it is not helpful. Unless there is really massive social change in terms of how and where people live, work and play, people are going to need cars for a long time to come. The hope is that more people cycle when possible. I believe many are and do not hold with the notion that for the most part people are popping out in their cars for a quick latte on the lane.


I believe you were advocating that people consider moving unless they can cycle to work, but c'mon, how realistic is that? Change takes time.


People have to work and earn a living...especially now. If you are really in a position where you can cycle, walk or use public transport for your every aspect of your life then consider yourself extremely lucky or privileged.

Good idea re: re-letting the spaces.


1) Electric bikes are less expensive than a car.

2) Our house has four and sometimes five people who ride bicycles -- the hangar space is a godsend (none of us have a car).

3) Yes - many people who live in flats are unable to take bikes inside - a couple of my friends have this problem.


Cycling is not going to be for everyone, but, for those who chose to do so, the roads should be available for parking - most especially for people who live in flats and those that do not own a car. Our house has four people that could own cars and could take up four car spaces, but, a cycle hangar can serve six people in one car space!

For those in flats it is fair to have a cycle hangar but many local residents live in a house with access to a garden. For them a hangar is not a need necessarily, it is extra storage that is convenient.


Otto2 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Good idea re: re-letting the spaces.

>

> 1) Electric bikes are less expensive than a car.

> 2) Our house has four and sometimes five cyclists

> -- the hangar space is a godsend (none of us have

> a car).

> 3) Yes - many people who live in flats are unable

> to take bikes inside - a couple of my friends have

> this problem.

>

> Cycling is not going to be for everyone, but, for

> those who chose to do so, the roads should be

> available for parking - most especially for people

> who live in flats and those that do not own a car.

> Our house has four people that could own cars and

> could take up four car spaces, but, a cycle hangar

> can serve six people in one car space!

Just to add to what has already been said on this thread before, Southwark Council do open the debate for consultation on whether to install another bike hangar. Frankly i'm stunned in this day and age that some people are so appalled by a scheme which replaces one car on the road with up to 6/8 green modes of public transport, but you do have the right to voice your concerns through the advertised diplomatic channels.

Otto, no I am not car-centric, I am simply aware that desired change can take longer than some wish. I am a realist. Shoehorning in changes that make life much more difficult for a lot of people is not just unhelpful; it is also divisive.


I have already stated I use a bike as often as I can but I also have to have a car, there is no way I could cope without it. I am not alone in this. It is a reality, not a stance or a belief. Nor am I lazy or selfish or unaware or uncaring about the environment. In reality, unless you are lucky enough to have a garage cars can only be stored on the street. Bikes can be stored inside premises or in gardens. I do agree, if households only use bikes and do not own a car then it is fair they have a hangar, and use up a parking space, but so many own a bicycle as well as a car and will need to have both for the forseeable future.

I think many of us agree that we need more bike hangars - the issue to date has been the snail's like pace that the council has rolled them out and also some of the locations that seem to have two or three whilst others have none. It seems all so haphazard and without any strategic thinking behind it.
  • 2 weeks later...

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes it does require planning. I just parted with

> ?234 for the pleasure. Apparently the council

> views the applications favourably but do require

> you to pay for the pleasure - a bit surprised they

> don't waive the fee for bike storage given their

> commitment to active travel and their inability to

> satiate the demand for cycle hoops.


An update on this. Submitted the application and got a response saying that the submission wasn't right and was returned. It seems you need architect plans for any planning submission all drawn to scale with different aspect ratios etc. Really don't have the time or money to get someone to come and draw up plans for a bike shed. I appreciate the council has a planning process to follow but this seems ludicrous - the expense you would need to go to if you want to embrace active travel.


Now in the process of cancelling the bike shed and Asgard told me that many people are in the same position in that councils want planning submitted for front garden bike sheds and the planning process is not built for such applications. They said many customers just install them anyway but then have problems if any neighbours complain.


It would be good if the council could streamline/simplify the application process for bike sheds if they really want people to embrace active travel - they have to make active travel easier to embrace for those that don't have side returns or huge back gardens.

Duncan - I am afraid you do. Back-gardens are not a problem but anything in the front of the house needs a planning application.


You need to submit a householder application via this link: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-applications/submitting-a-planning-application?chapter=3


But that's when it starts getting messy as I paid my ?234, paid for documents from the land registry, submitted my application and then got the response below saying my application was invalid.


It's absolute madness......it is utterly impenetrable unless you get an architect/design company involved - which will probably cost 5 times more than the bike shed itself........





A 1:2500 or 1:1250 scale site plan is required showing the site and surroundings. The

boundaries of the application site must be edged in red. Any other land within the

applicant's control must be edged in blue on the site plan.

2

Drawings of all existing floor plans are required. The scale shown on the submitted plan(s)

should state the paper size at which the scale applies, e.g Scale 1:100 at A3. The plan(s)

should also display a scale bar. This information is required to avoid errors and

misinterpretation due to variations and accuracy associated with the copying and printing of

plans that have been stored electronically.

3

Drawings of all existing elevation plans are required. The scale shown on the submitted

plan(s) should state the paper size at which the scale applies, e.g Scale 1:100 at A3. The

plan(s) should also display a scale bar. This information is required to avoid errors and

misinterpretation due to variations and accuracy associated with the copying and printing of

plans that have been stored electronically.

4

Drawings of all proposed floor plans are required. The scale shown on the submitted

plan(s) should state the paper size at which the scale applies, e.g Scale 1:100 at A3. The

Southwark Council, PO BOX 64529, London SE1P 5LX ? southwark.gov.uk ? facebook.com/southwarkcouncil ? twitter.com/lb_southwark

plan(s) should also display a scale bar. This information is required to avoid errors and

misinterpretation due to variations and accuracy associated with the copying and printing of

plans that have been stored electronically.

5

Drawings of all proposed elevation plans are required. The scale shown on the submitted

plan(s) should state the paper size at which the scale applies, e.g Scale 1:100 at A3. The

plan(s) should also display a scale bar. This information is required to avoid errors and

misinterpretation due to variations and accuracy associated with the copying and printing of

plans that have been stored

Thank you.


I did a bit more reading up, and it seems there is no track record of LB councils pursuing people over this for standard styles bike sheds.


In my case, it also appears that once it's been there for four years consent is deemed to have been given. So I shall rest easy tonight.

Think this is true - technically Rockets position is correct - you need planning permission.


But if you're not building anything horrible, not in a conservation area and your neighbours are supportive then the chance of any complaint is minimal and then in the event that retrospective planning was applied for it should be given in any event.

What constitutes "something horrible", though? I know that planning permission can be lengthy and cumbersome, and costs money, but a free-for-all is not something anyone really wants, I don't think. I still don't get why cycle shelters have to be so tall! If you have one built/installed in a way that blocks a neighbour's view and light, they would be a bit cheesed off, even if it did have a sedum roof!

Not sure what your neighbours have Nigello, but our bike shelter is only a little higher than the bikes. Unless they're being stored upright (and those hangers really aren't suitable for front gardens) then they're usually pretty low down.


I think that the 'something horrible' is somewhat self policing as neighbours can complain to the council that planning wasn't sort if you build something super ugly at the front of the house. Though given the super ugly houses that southwark sometimes allows, maybe this is less of a deterrent than you'd think!

I wasn't referring to my own neighbours who don't have a cycle shelter, but ones I have seen that are at least 4'6 high, probably a tad more and then a few more inches with the sedum roof. I am just curious as to why so much headroom is needed if a bike is nowhere near that tall!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • As a result of the Horizon scandal it now seems very clear that the Post Office management are highly disingenuous and not be trusted!  There needs to be a campaign launched to challenge the threatened closure, unless the Post Office can demonstrate beyond doubt that the branch is loss making - and even then it could argued that better management could address this. I hope the local media take this up and our MP  and a few demonstrations outside wouldn’t do any harm. Bad publicity can be very effective!         
    • Unlikely. It would take a little more than a bit of Milton to alter the pH of eighty-odd thousand gallons of water.
    • It actually feels as though what I said is being analytically analysed word by word, almost letter by better. I really don't believe that I should have to explain myself to the level it seems someone wants me to. Clearly someones been watching way too much Big Brother. 
    • Sadly they don't do the full range of post office services
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...