Worcestershire News
We weren’t asked about this change to footpath
 |
| Craig Johns, Nigel Lloyd and Tony Thomas on the footpath. Picture by Simon Rogers. 19387201 |
HOMEOWNERS living near a busy footpath claim they have not been consulted over plans to connect it to a £2 million cycle and pedestrian route.
Nigel Lloyd, Craig Johns and Tony Thomas of Barneshall Avenue, off Bath Road, Worcester, believe Worcestershire County Council and civil engineering charity Sustrans should have discussed changes with them before starting work three weeks ago.
The residents claim a planning application should have been submitted before Sustrans contractors started taking down an existing boundary fence on land it owns bordering the footpath, which runs between the avenue and St Mark's Close.
Nigel Lloyd, aged 49, resident of five years, said: "Work has already started to change it to dual use but we've heard of no planning permission.
"You can't always get what you want and we accept that but people are supposed to ask for your views in a democracy."
However, Ed Dursley, the county council's principal transport engineer, said the current works did not need planning permission because Sustrans owned the land.
He added: "The county council would be responsible for changing the highway and before we did that we would begin a consultation."
Mr Johns, 49, added the matter was further complicated because the avenue was a private road and residents were unsure if they could be held liable by cyclists who had an accident in the road.
Several homeowners are so concerned they have employed a solicitor to put all the issues to the county council.
Tony Thomas, 69, who has lived in the avenue 29 years, added: "We're not anti-cyclist but there are more suitable routes."
The planned changes only came to light when residents found out their neighbours Pauline and David Thorpe had sold a strip of their garden to Sustrans, as part of the £2 million Connect2 project which is being developed with the county council.
The project, including a new pedestrian and cycle bridge across the river Severn at Diglis Lock, is aimed at linking Worcester city centre and Powick. Mrs Thorpe, a keen cyclist, said: "We think encouraging cycling generally is a good thing and I think it will be a pleasant improvement to the path."
Sustrans and the county council want to widen the existing path, where cyclists must currently dismount, so in future both cyclists and pedestrians could use it. Matt Davies, Sustrans' spokesman, said a charity representative had met the three residents to discuss their concerns and had written to homeowners explaining the changes.
10:38am Tuesday 20th May 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: molcat, worcester on 5:55pm Tue 20 May 08
Sounds like the most pathetic example of Nimbyism in Worcester so far! I can't really see how widening a cycle path is an affront to democracy. Instead of employing a solicitor at £150+ an hour to try and prevent Worcester being improved, instead give the money to the Burma Cyclone appeal or make a donation to help people in China effected by the earthquake. It'll do a lot more good and you won't look like such a bunch of idiots!
Sounds like the most pathetic example of Nimbyism in Worcester so far! I can't really see how widening a cycle path is an affront to democracy. Instead of employing a solicitor at £150+ an hour to try and prevent Worcester being improved, instead give the money to the Burma Cyclone appeal or make a donation to help people in China effected by the earthquake. It'll do a lot more good and you won't look like such a bunch of idiots!
Posted by: BB, Worcester on 6:37pm Tue 20 May 08
Totaly agree with molcat. There are so many things going on in this world at the moment - how can a cycle path be more important and warrant a place in our news when the are 10s of 1000s of people still buried under rubble in China and those in Burma that are suffering too. People need to start thinking about whats important in life and certainly should think themselves lucky that they still have their lives and live it to its potential - because life is too short to be worrying about silly things like this.
Totaly agree with molcat. There are so many things going on in this world at the moment - how can a cycle path be more important and warrant a place in our news when the are 10s of 1000s of people still buried under rubble in China and those in Burma that are suffering too. People need to start thinking about whats important in life and certainly should think themselves lucky that they still have their lives and live it to its potential - because life is too short to be worrying about silly things like this.
Posted by: sleeve, Worcester on 11:39pm Tue 20 May 08
Yeah ok Good Improvement for cyclist And yes I agree so much going on but should we not being doing good for the people of Worcester yes it is bad what has happened so far away as natural as it seems there is more truth to come out over those catastrophe's ! The masses do not know yet about the new world order and their sneaky tricks so help us all !
Yeah ok Good Improvement for cyclist And yes I agree so much going on but should we not being doing good for the people of Worcester yes it is bad what has happened so far away as natural as it seems there is more truth to come out over those catastrophe's ! The masses do not know yet about the new world order and their sneaky tricks so help us all !
Posted by: worcesterwalker, worcester on 3:08pm Wed 21 May 08
Good to see that community spirit is alive and well! No doubt these people also don't want pushchairs, wheelchairs and mobility scooter users down this path as they would all benefit from a wider ally.
Good to see that community spirit is alive and well! No doubt these people also don't want pushchairs, wheelchairs and mobility scooter users down this path as they would all benefit from a wider ally.
Posted by: chrism, Powick on 1:53am Sun 25 May 08
Classic comment by Tony Thomas "we're not anit-cyclists but" - a phrase which gets much re-use by people who are actually anti something but are trying very hard to appear more reasonable than they actually are. If there are more suitable routes as he claims, then I'd love to know where, given this is an existing route which takes by far the most obvious way into Worcester linking up with the cycle paths in St Peters - anything else would undoubtedly be a convoluted mess of no use to cyclists whatsoever. I suspect in fact that he has absolutely no idea where a more suitable route might be, and is simply an unreconstructed NIMBY. I can only imagine the solicitor they've employed is happily taking their cash and encouraging them to continue when he should actually point out to them that they have no case at all - the cycle route down their road does after all already exist, it is simply a connection to somewhere else which is being upgraded. What's most bizarre though is exactly what do they object to about cyclists coming down their road, and if Sustrans had discussed it with them do they really think they'd have been persuaded that it was a bad idea to upgrade the path and not do so - which seems to be the only outcome which would have satisfied them.
Classic comment by Tony Thomas "we're not anit-cyclists but" - a phrase which gets much re-use by people who are actually anti something but are trying very hard to appear more reasonable than they actually are. If there are more suitable routes as he claims, then I'd love to know where, given this is an existing route which takes by far the most obvious way into Worcester linking up with the cycle paths in St Peters - anything else would undoubtedly be a convoluted mess of no use to cyclists whatsoever. I suspect in fact that he has absolutely no idea where a more suitable route might be, and is simply an unreconstructed NIMBY. I can only imagine the solicitor they've employed is happily taking their cash and encouraging them to continue when he should actually point out to them that they have no case at all - the cycle route down their road does after all already exist, it is simply a connection to somewhere else which is being upgraded. What's most bizarre though is exactly what do they object to about cyclists coming down their road, and if Sustrans had discussed it with them do they really think they'd have been persuaded that it was a bad idea to upgrade the path and not do so - which seems to be the only outcome which would have satisfied them.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
