|Respondent||Comments||Cycle Forum Response||Proposed Change|
|1. Mr J Lander (Chichester DC)||No comments from Chichester DC, but draws attention to Chichester DC’s own detailed guidance on secure cycle provision.||No change to Plan.|
|2. J N Bennett||Welcome the new plan. Specific comments as follows:-|
1. With regard to cycling in villages, his experience is that the main disincentive is due to a lack of cycle parking facilities in the village. Suggests that the Borough Council should ask all Parish Councils to provide cycle hoops. In Elstead these could be anywhere around the Green.
2. Refers to parking at railway stations. Comments on lack of covered cycle parking facilities at Milford Station. In addition, the introduction of new rolling stock means there is very limited and inconsistent cycle storage facilities on trains. As a result he has now had to cease cycling to the station and use his car instead.
|Cycling Plan includes an Objective to improve the quantity, quality and security of cycle parking facilities. The associated Action Points include a regular review of cycle parking in the Borough to identify gaps in provision. The Cycling forum will note the particular point regarding Elstead and consider this alongside its regular revue of cycle parking provision.|
Cycle Forum is very keen to promote better integration of cycling with public transport. (See Objective 5). It was very disappointed when South West Trains recently revised its policy for carrying cycles on trains. In the light of this it is even more important that adequate secure cycle parking is available at stations. It has noted the point made in relation to the provision at Milford. The Cycle Forum already intends to carry out a survey of provision at all stations in the Borough in 2005.
|Objective 8 Action Point 3 be expanded with the addition of the following:- |
“The Cycle Forum will prioritise the gaps in cycle parking provision and identify the best way of securing the additional provision.
No change to Plan.
|3. D Ewing and N Edwards (Safer Routes Team, Rodborough School)||School has been successful in encouraging cycling to school – the level of cycling has increased over the years. Delighted to see school cycling figuring highly in stated aims of the policy. However, not clear of precise details of how to achieve the stated levels of school cycling use by the target date. |
Would like to meet to discuss school related cycling improvements with a view to moving closer to the LTP targets.
|The targets referred to are targets in the Surrey LTP. |
Forum to note comment concerning cycling targets. However, it is the County Council that has direct responsibility for the LTP targets and for the Safe Routes to School initiatives. It is suggested that in this particular case relevant officers from Surrey CC liaise directly with the staff at Rodborough School.
|No change to Plan.|
|4. Mr A Cooke - Head of Estate Services Department, Surrey Institute of Art and Design (SIAD)||SIAD has recently prepared a Travel Plan, which accompanied a planning application for the site. The Travel Plan includes a section on objectives to increase the levels of cycling to and from the Campus. Would like to note the Institute’s interest in developing opportunities, along with Waverley Borough, in helping to achieve some of the aims set out in the draft Cycling Plan.||This is linked to the comments made by Mr Dorman (see below), regarding the need for employers and other organisations to make provision for cyclists in terms of secure cycle parking facilities and shower facilities.|
Support the principle of promoting cycling for a large education establishment such as SIAD.
Cycle Forum will also consider whether a representative from the Forum and/or the County Council should have a meeting with staff at SIAD to discuss how to facilitate increased levels of cycling by students.
|No change to the Plan|
|5. Mr B Maher||Concerned about lack of training for cyclists. Also expresses concern about cycling habits of some cyclists (such as failure to use lights, poor road sense). Asks if there is any way of ensuring that cyclists are compelled to obey the Highway Code.||Cycle Plan already has an Objective relating to training. Cycle training/testing is not compulsory so, in practice, there is little more that can be done. |
Suggest that Objective 11 be amended to include reference to the promotion of safe cycling. Forum could also review what advice is currently available in relation to safe cycling. Suggest that the issue of ‘safe cycling’ could be dealt with in an article in ‘The Link’ (see Objective 9 Action Point 1).
|It is recommended that Objective 11 be amended to read:-|
“To promote safe cycling and to make cycle training accessible to those who require it.”
|6. P A Dorman (Chairman of the Association of Hindhead Residents)||Welcomes any initiative such as this. Makes the following specific comments:-|
1. Considers that a pre-requisite is to undertake some sort of marketing. Also refers to need, in some cases, for cycle training. Considers that motorists could also benefit from some raising of awareness.
2. Should encourage employers and others to provide washing and cycle storage facilities, especially given hilly nature of parts of the Borough.
3. Considers the Network Plan to be good as far as it goes but suggests a number of potential additions:-
· Sailor’s lane and Green Cross Lane (useful though hilly);
· A link from Elstead Church across the military land?
· There is a muddy but passable bridle path route from Frensham Great Pond up to Wishanger Lane (for Churt) and on past Barford Mill to Whitmore Vale Road, leading to Grayshott. Comments that Whitmore Vale Road is a dangerous rat-run with a climb at the end, but might have potential in a part of the Borough that is poorly covered at present.
· Could look at other quiet roads and bridle paths around Rowledge;
· Considers there to be a good route from Elstead past Peperharow to Charterhouse, Farncombe and thence Peaslake and Guildford.
4. Concerns expressed about the form of cycle lanes. Dislike unless they are true cycle lanes on a dedicated section of highway.
|Cycle Forum aware of the need to raise awareness of the benefits of cycling. This is already addressed in the Objectives and Action Plan (particularly Objective 9). Forum will continue to consider ways in which awareness can be raised. It is also proposed that Objective 11 be amended to include reference to safe cycling (see above).|
Not addressed specifically in the Plan although addressed indirectly in some of the Action Points (for example under Objective 3 one of the Actions is to promote cycle access as part of all developments.)
Can potentially be achieved in two ways.
1. By encouraging existing employers to voluntarily make this provision for employees.
2. Where possible to ensure that such provision is made in new developments. This could be achieved, where it can be justified, through a legal agreement attached to a planning permission (usually as part of an overall Travel Plan).
Surrey CC, in conjunction with 8 of the Surrey Districts has produced the “Cycle Friendly Employers’ Guide.” It is suggested that a new paragraph be added after the current paragraph 2.6 to refer to this document.
Objective 3 could be amended to include a reference to the promotion of additional utility cycling. Action Point 2 could then be amended to promote the provision of cycle access to new developments and, where appropriate, the provision of cycle parking and shower facilities.
A further Action Point could be added to encourage employers to make provision for employees wishing to cycle to work.
The public consultation has provided an excellent vehicle for identifying gaps in, and opportunities for, the strategic cycle network in Waverley. All suggestions from the consultation shall be considered positively as part of the annual review of the Waverley Cycle Network undertaken by the Forum in July 2005.
In terms of on-road routes it is preferable to have clearly identified cycle-lanes. However this is not always possible due to physical constraints. The Cycle Forum will continue to liaise with the Highway Authority over individual routes. However, the Cycling Plan itself does not promote a particular form of cycle route for these reasons.
|See comments above regarding the amendment to Objective 11.|
It is recommended that the following paragraph be inserted after the existing paragraph 2.6:-
“In 2004, Surrey County Council, in conjunction with 8 of the Surrey districts, published the “Cycle Friendly Employers’ Guide”. This is intended to encourage and support cycling to work.
It is recommended that Objective 3 be amended to read:-
“To promote utility cycling and to improve the safety and accessibility of the town centres of Farnham, Godalming, Haslemere and Cranleigh to their adjoining residential areas and villages.”
It is also recommended that Objective 3, Action Point 2 be amended to read:-
“Promote cycle access to all new developments and, where appropriate the provision of secure cycle parking and shower facilities for cyclists.”
It is also recommended that an additional Action Point be added in support of Objective 3, as follows:-
“Encourage existing employers to make provision for employees wishing to cycle to work.”
No change to the Plan
No change to Plan.
|7. Mrs I C Birch||Considers Cycling Plan to be very good, but hopes it is not at the expense of local bus services or footpaths.||Cycling Plan is intended to complement other strategies to promote alternative means of travel. In relation to public transport it also seeks to provide better integration with existing public transport (see Objective 5). In relation to footpaths, Officers recognise that some cycleways may follow the line of existing footpaths. However Cycle Forum is very mindful of the need to ensure that in such situations the use by cyclists does not compromise use by pedestrians. This is a matter of detailed design.||No change to Plan.|
|8. Mr E Manley||Specific comments concerning the cycle path provision at Coxbridge roundabout. Considers that existing arrangements are dangerous.||Cycle Forum keeps under review schemes that are considered to be a priority, based on experience of the local representatives. With regard to the particular works at Coxbridge Roundabout, these are the responsibility of Surrey CC and Mr Manley’s concerns will be passed on to the relevant officer. The Waverley Cycle Forum has already identified the Coxbridge Roundabout as a priority severance point on the strategic cycle network. It is considered that prioritisation list of severance points and sections of the network (produced in December 2003) should be added as a further annexe to the Plan.||It is recommended that the prioritised list of suggested projects, relating to severance points and sections of the network, be added as Annexe 12. It is also recommended that a new paragraph 5.2 be added to read:-|
“In addition, the Cycle Forum has produced a prioritised list of suggested projects relating to severance points and parts of the network. This list is attached as Annexe 12. As well as keeping the Action Plan under review, the Forum will review the prioritised list and the maps showing the Waverley Cycle Network annually.”
|9. Mr R Evans (Godalming and Haslemere Group, 9. Ramblers’ Association)||Rambler’s Association generally welcomes aim of increasing levels of cycling in Waverley. Understand that the Plan will evolve to meet the needs of the second edition Local Transport Plan (LTP).|
Look forward to being consulted on specific proposals regarding mixed use by cyclists and walkers.
|The Cycle Forum acts to bring together views from other vulnerable user groups.||It is recommended that an additional action point be included in support of Objective 1 as follows:-|
“Consult with other users for the development of mixed-use routes.”
|10. Capt. J Stratfield-James (RN)||Four main points raised:-|
1. Concerned that plan proposes more cycle parking provision without showing details of the cycle routes between them.
2. Concerned that the map of the cycle network in the Borough lacks detail. For example, it does not identify towns and villages by name.
3. Concerned that the plan is suggesting increased cross-country cycling without reference to day/night or weather conditions. Failing to give an assurance of safety for cross-country riders on lonely roads.
4. With regard to the plan overall, expresses view that there are more pressing issues requiring Council funds
|Suggest that map of the Waverley Cycle Network should show more detail. This would be achieved by:-|
· Adding the names of the towns and the main villages;
· Providing larger scale inset maps for Farnham, Godalming, Haslemere and Cranleigh.
It is agreed that safety and security are important issues to consider in relation to all cycle routes (on or off-road). The issue of safety on cycle routes is already identified in Objectives 1 and 3. The Plan acknowledges the need for safety and security for cycle users and would not endorse and promote routes that are potentially unsafe. On the contrary the Cycle Forum is keen to improve safety, for example, by seeking to eliminate severance points on the current network.
Consider the Plan to be an important part of a wider strategy to increase travel choice and reduce dependence on the car.
|It is recommended that the Maps accompanying the Cycling Plan be amended accordingly.|
No change to Plan.
No change to Plan.
|11. Tourism South East (TSE)||Very pleased to see that cycling has been given a discrete plan of its own. The Draft Plan highlights the many advantages of cycling, something that TSE is keen to exploit.|
Suggest addition to Objective 6, which relates to exploiting the potential for recreational and tourist cycling. Suggest that it should indicate that it is equally desirable to ensure that designated cycle networks can be linked, where possible, to attractions, pubs, nature reserves, food and drink outlets and transport providers e.g. buses railway stations. Consider that this would maximise the opportunities arising from secondary spend associated with cycling.
|The issue is dealt with generally by Objective 1 and its aim to develop a strategic network of safe, convenient and continuous cycle routes in the Borough. One of the associated Action Points (No. 2) is to identify key destinations (e.g. public transport interchanges) and establish a target for increasing accessibility over the period of the Plan.|
As the issue was raised specifically in the context of recreational and tourist cycling, it is suggested that Objective 6 be expanded to include the additions recommended by TSE and that the Action Plan be revised to include an additional Action Point under Objective 6 relating to the identification of key recreational and tourist facilities that would benefit from improved accessibility by cycle.
|It is recommended that Objective 6 be amended to read:-|
“To exploit the potential for recreational and tourist cycling in Waverley’s countryside and to ensure that where possible, designated cycle networks be linked to tourist attractions, pubs and food & drink establishments, nature reserves and public transport interchanges.”
It is also recommended that a further Action Point be added in support of Objective 6 as follows:-
“The identification of key recreational and tourist locations where cycle access should be improved.”
|12. Mr P Gregory ||Two points raised:-|
1. Points out that Annexe 5 (the map showing cycle parking in Weyhill) should be amended to show the additional set of stands at the Majestic Wine Warehouse.
2. Comments on the related Sustainability Report and questions why the Social Sustainability Objective – “To reduce Poverty and social exclusion” was not used in the Sustainability Appraisal of the Cycling Plan.
|Forum notes the existence of cycle parking on the forecourt of the Majestic Wine Warehouse. However, it is not proposed that these be added to the map, as the map is intended to show the main public cycle parking provision.|
An update to the original Sustainability Report has been produced. One addition is the ‘testing’ of the Plan objectives against the additional ‘social’ sustainability indicator referred to by this respondent. This has not raised any issues requiring modifications to the Plan.
|No change to the Plan.|
No change to the Plan
|13. Government Office for the South East||Plan is consistent with national and regional planning policies and is clearly cross-referenced to the saved policy in the Local Plan, which it would supplement. No further comments.||Comments Noted||No change to the Plan.|
|14. Mr A Leggatt ||Admires the ambition of the plan but questions the priorities, if they accord with the ordering of the objectives and the Action Plan.|
Assumes the ‘Strategic Network’ referred to in Objective 1 relates to routes linking major centres in the Borough. Considers there to be hardly any historic, economic or social connections between the towns. Potential cycle traffic minimal due to journeys being too long and hilly. Considers the priority should be on utility cycling, primarily on safe routes to schools and then on commuting routes to work. The latter requires that plans should overlap political boundaries (for example linking Farnham with Aldershot and Farnborough, or Godalming with Guildford).
At first priorities should concentrate on relatively short routes (suggests up to three miles), feeding the towns, villages and schools.
Refers to Farnham and states that he is aware of several calm routes in and out of town that are not designated as cycle ways.
Considers that Objectives should be re-ordered as follows:-
Safe routes to school (no. 4);
Access to town centres (no. 3);
Integrate with public transport (no. 5);
Public awareness (no. 9);
Cycle Parking (no. 8);
Training (no. 11);
Then 1,2,6,7 and 10
|The Objectives in the Plan are not set out in order of priority. However, the Forum has previously identified priorities in terms of severance point and other parts of the network requiring attention. This list of priorities was originally produced in order for Surrey County Council to be aware of local cycling priorities as part of its planning of highway schemes. The Forum considers that this list of priorities should be added to the Cycling Plan as an annexe. It is the intention of the Forum that these priorities will be reviewed annually at the same time that the Action Plan is reviewed.||It is recommended that the Plan be amended as follows:-|
1. That paragraph 4.3, which precedes that list of objectives, be extended with the following:- “(these are not set out in any order of priority)”
2. The prioritised list of suggested schemes/works be added as a further annexe to the Plan.
|15. R S Dennis ||Makes the following comments:-|
1. Considers cycle routes should be as direct as possible. - Dislikes ‘meandering’ routes.
2. Dislikes pavement options. Refers to hazard in relation to pedestrian/cyclist conflict and other hazards such as trees, street furniture, driveways and the need to negotiate road junctions.
3. Considers safe and secure cycle parking to be important. Would consider paying for locking storage facilities. Stations and town centre car parks would be prime sites for these.
4. With reference to the map showing cycle parking in Farnham Town centre, he suggests that there may also be some parking stands in the Central Car Park. He is surprised to see a proposal to provide cycle parking at the Borough/Castle Street junction, given the limited space available and the high level of use of the footpaths.
|Comments are noted. However there is no overall policy concerning this issue. The type of route provided would depend in part on the type of cycle usage envisaged (i.e. utility or leisure).|
Again comments noted. Plan does not itself promote one type of route over another. This will depend on the individual circumstances. However, the Cycle Forum is very mindful of the importance that routes are safe and secure.
Objective 5, Action Point 2 relates to provision of cycle parking at railway stations. Cycle Forum is committed to working with railway operators to ensure that secure cycle storage is available at stations. Comments regarding willingness to pay for such a facility are noted. However, in the first instance the Cycle Forum considers that rail operators should be encouraged to provide such facilities free of charge.
The map of cycle parking in the centre of Farnham already shows the existing provision in the Central Car Park, adjacent to the public conveniences.
The map should be amended to correct an error in relation to the location of proposed cycle parking at the bottom of Castle Street. The proposed provision is on the eastern side of the road. However, the Forum would add that any parking in that location would be contingent on either pavement widening along the Borough or the establishment of an ‘Historic Core Zone’ in Farnham.
|No change to Plan|
No change to Plan
No change to the Plan
It is recommended that the map of cycle parking in the centre of Farnham be corrected to show the proposed provision on the Eastern side of the Castle Street/Borough junction.
|16. Mr P Cotton and Mr N Cotton ||Considers that the Plan is “…making all the right noises..” and points out relevant facts. Considers it important to separate “window dressing” from genuine infrastructure improvements for cyclists. Makes a number of specific points:-|
1. On-road cycle routes not particularly helpful unless continuous and running through an area which will be frequented by cyclists. Status must be enforced and if this is best option then surface should painted a different colour and quality should be excellent. Special attention needed at narrow points, junctions, roundabouts etc to ensure integrity of route not compromised.
2. Cycle parking stands in town centres will not, in themselves, convince people to cycle. Not difficult to find somewhere to leave a bike for short periods of time. Considers that money would be better spent on new traffic free routes, routes through parks, contraflow cycle lanes in one-way streets, shared-use pavements on wide pavements and dropped kerbs to make them flush with the road surface.
3. Safe and covered cycle parking far more important where people may want to leave their bikes all-day. This applies to schools, colleges, workplaces and railway stations.
4. A lot of the effort needed to increase levels of cycling consists of knocking down the excuses used for not cycling: “It’s dangerous, it’s hard work, I’ll get wet, I’ll get sweaty, my bike will be stolen” etc. Should be stressed that it is not “all or nothing” – cycling to work one day in 10 could be a 10% reduction in car use.
5. Promotes use of individual travel plans. Can help to plot home to work/school journeys.
6. Identifies need to establish the most dangerous places for cyclists – roundabouts, turning traffic, squeeze spots on narrow streets.
7. A 20mph speed limit around schools and in many built up areas will reduce accidents, noise, and pollution and make walking and cycling more pleasant.
8. Many of the best ideas come from the bottom-up. People who already cycle will have wish lists of small improvements that should be collated, surveyed, costed, prioritised and implemented.
Above suggestions based on years of cycling in Bristol – happy to submit leisure cycling ideas if needed.
|The various points made have been noted and the response from the Cycle Forum is as follows:-|
1. The Cycling Plan encourages a range of options in terms of the form of cycle route (on-road, off-road etc.) depending on the local circumstances.
2. Agree with point regarding cycle parking alone. However, the Plan promotes a wide range of measures, including cycle parking but also promoting the provision of routes for both utility and recreational cycling.
3. Agree – dealt with by Objectives 5 & 8.
4. Agree with the sentiment regarding the reasons why people choose not to cycle. Objective 9 aims to raise awareness of the benefits of cycling.
5. Comments noted.
6. The Cycling Forum has produced a prioritised list of suggested schemes/works in the Borough. The Forum also intends to keep this under review and give it to the County Council to feed into the LTP process. The Forum also considers that this list should be included as a further annexe to the plan.
7. This is an issue for the County Council as Highway Authority. However, Officers would support in principle measures that make cycling safer and more enjoyable.
8. The Cycling Forum already adopts this approach, through the input of the various local representatives. It should be pointed out that the majority of Cycle Forum members are local cycle activists.
|1. No change to the Plan.
2. No change to the Plan.
3. No change to the Plan.
4. No change to the Plan.
5. No change to the Plan.
6. It is recommended that the prioritised list of suggested schemes/works be added as a further annexe to the Plan.
7. No change to the Plan.
8. No change to the Plan.
|17. Dr D Gates ||Considers that there should be a cycle path on the town side of the road between the Six Bells roundabout and the Water Lane roundabout in Farnham.||This route is shown on the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and should be retained. The Maps of the Waverley Cycle Network should be amended accordingly. It is also suggested that the respondent should be encouraged to contact the Cycle Rights Network in Farnham to discuss this in detail.||It is recommended that the maps showing the Waverley Cycle Network be amended to show the desired route between the Water Lane and Six Bells roundabouts in Farnham.|
|18. Mr G Williams (Transport Development Officer, East Hants DC)||Considers that it would be helpful to discuss cross boundary routes. East Hants DC has just reviewed and re-written its Cycle Plan.||Objective 1, Action Point 4 relates to the development of links with cycle fora in adjacent Boroughs/Districts, to ensure the continuity of cross-boundary routes. It is suggested that this Action Point be amended to refer to relevant Council officers in the event that there is no equivalent cycle forum. It is particularly important to liaise with authorities outside Surrey, such as East Hants, to ensure continuity of routes. Where any changes to the maps of the Waverley Cycle network arise as a result of this cross-boundary liaison, they should be dealt with as part of the proposed annual review of Action Plan, the Cycle Network Maps and the prioritised list of schemes.||It is recommended that Objective 1, Action Point 4 be amended to read: “Develop links with cycle fora of adjoining Boroughs/Districts, or other relevant officers, to ensure continuity of cross-boundary routes.”|
|19. Mr D Potts||Find it impossible to construe the plan because there are no identifying words. Asks for copy of proposed cycle route plans. ||See comments above regarding amendments to the maps of the Waverley Cycle Network to make them clearer.||See above for recommended changes to the maps of the Waverley Cycle Network.|
|19(a). Mr D Potts (additional comments)||1. Comments on issues that hinder cyclists (such as need to give way in situations where there would be no such requirement if driving a car).
2. Criticism of provision on A31.
3. Considers that cyclists need priority if this mode of transport is to appeal to a wider audience. Considers that cyclists need clear wide lanes with as few stops and unnecessary changes of direction as possible.
4. Questions where bike can be parked in Farnham without risk of vandalism or theft. Suggests stands at the police station.
5. Still requesting copy of map showing links into Hampshire.
6. Desire line west from A31 south of Dippenhall cannot have a cycle lane because it is too narrow for an exclusive lane and is dangerous with too many potholes on both sides of the county boundary.
7. Questions commitment to resource the plan||The Cycle Forum endorses the hierarchy of measures, Cycle Friendly Infrastructure and Cycle Audit and Cycle Review. This includes the principles of coherence and directness.|
The Forum is aware that until NCN22 is in place, the A31 route to Guildford is difficult.
See comments for 1 above.
The Forum is aware of the need for safe cycle parking facilities (see Objectives 5 & 8). The Forum also intends to keep cycle parking provision under review.
Some cross-boundary links are being co-ordinated by Sustrans (NCN22 & 23). It is suggested that this respondent contact the local Cycle Rights Network representatives to discuss these detailed issues further.
The proposal south of Dippenhall is the NCN23 proposed route to Alton. This is being proposed and co-ordinated by Sustrans. Hampshire County Council is involved in the routing of NCN23. The road surface should be brought up to NCN standards before opening. There is no intention to use cycle lanes, as these are not normally appropriate for country lanes. The ‘desire lines’ do not define a specific measure (such as speed restrictions, traffic calming, cycle lanes etc.).
Principal funding will continue to be from the County Council through LTP and LTP2.
|No change to the Plan.|
No change to the Plan.
No change to the Plan.
No change to the Plan.
No change to the Plan.
No change to the Plan.
No change to the Plan.
|20. Mr R Palmer||Welcomes plan to promote cycling in Waverley, but questions whether this will bring real benefits. Considers targets to be generally vague, not quantifiable and mostly not time-bound.|
Specific reference to cycling to Weydon School in Farnham. Refers to Action Plan in relation to ‘Safe Routes to Schools’. Full of language like ‘consultation’, ‘provide information’ and ‘ongoing’. Does not consider there to be any real action in mind. Suggests targets such as: “nos. of km of cycle routes created by a certain date?” “growth per annum in cycle counts on key routes?” 0r “growth per annum in nos. of children cycling to school?”
Considers there to be a paucity of existing and proposed routes, except in remote rural areas – suggests that little will change.
Considers Plan should contain well designed measurable time-bound targets that will force an improvement in cycle facilities in Waverley.
|Comments regarding the Objectives and Actions are noted. However, Surrey County Council is responsible for the implementation of most schemes and has appropriate targets in the LTP. Similarly, the County Council is responsible for the Safe Routes to Schools programme and it is for the County to set targets for the implementation. Members of the Cycle Forum attended a county-wide review of the LTP objectives as part of Surrey County Council’s preparation of LTP2. Forum representatives spoke in support of measurable LTP2 objectives.|
For Waverley, it is the intention of the Cycle Forum to monitor and measure progress in terms of the identified and prioritised sections and network severance points.
See proposal above for providing more detail on the maps of the Waverley Cycle Network. In addition, the inclusion of the prioritised list of suggested schemes/works provides a clearer picture of the local priorities.
|No change to the Plan|
It is recommended that the maps showing the Waverley Cycle Network be amended and the prioritised list of suggested schemes be added as a further annexe, as detailed above.
|21. Mr S Bailey, Manager, Blackwater Valley Countryside Service||Very pleased to see Waverley considering cycling in this way. Supports actions in the Plan, particularly pleased to see Objective 1, Action 4 relating to links across district boundaries. States that this is one aspect of cycling provision that often fails.|
They are working to develop improved cycling links in the south of the Blackwater Valley, including developing sections of the riverside Blackwater Valley path for cycle use. Would welcome improved cycle links to these routes and routes within Waverley.
Slightly concerned that the Sustainability Report is so totally positive. Their experience of creating cycling facilities shows that there are potentially negative impacts:-
· Conflict with other users of the route (walkers, horse riders);
· Negative impacts on landscape e.g. widening and surfacing routes, clearing undergrowth;
· Light pollution;
· Negative impacts on wildlife conservation due to increased disturbance, light pollution, hard surfacing;
· Cycling routes opening up areas for other unsuitable users e.g. motorcyclists.
Considers that these conflicts and negative impacts are particularly great where the route is an official cycle route and part of the highway network, due to the standards for such routes being more appropriate for urban locations.
|Objective 1, Action Point 4 is intended to ensure that cross-boundary routes are considered. Suggest that the Blackwater Valley Countryside Service provide details of the proposals to improve cycle provision in the Blackwater Valley, so that this can be considered in conjunction with the cycle routes within Waverley.|
Comments regarding the Sustainability Report are noted. However, much of the Waverley Strategic Cycle Network is located in urban settings and/or uses the existing road network. In addition, whilst the comments regarding illegal motorcycle use are noted, these can be a problem not just on the bridleway network.
In the light of the comments from the Blackwater Valley Countryside Service, the Sustainability Report accompanying the draft Plan has been updated in consultation with the Council’s Sustainability Co-ordinator. The comment regarding the potential negative impact where walkers, horse riders and cyclists may be using the same route is noted. It should be pointed out, however, that one of the changes proposed to the Action Plan, in response to the representations on behalf of the Ramblers’ Association, is to consult other non-motorised transport users on proposals for mixed-use routes.
One of the existing Action Points supporting Objective 2 is to contribute to guidelines regarding the appropriate forms of surface treatment, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas.
Overall, whilst the comments on the Sustainability Report are noted, it is not considered that there would be adverse environmental effects such that the Cycle Plan itself requires further change.
|No change to the Plan.|
No change to the Plan
|22. Mr S Trantom||Commends proposals in the Draft Plan as a starting point for encouraging cycling in the Borough. Particular interest is in Farnham and agrees that there is a need to provide dedicated routes for ‘utility’ cycling such as access to schools and work in addition to recreational use.|
Pleased with progress made in Farnham in relation to specific traffic calming schemes (Weydon Lane, Echo Barn Lane etc). Will provide some protection for cyclists, particularly students, who cycle to Weydon School, South Farnham School and Farnham College.
Considers that there are sections of the A31 that are well served with a cycle lane to link Weydon Lane with South Street and the North Downs Way via the lane provided on the interim improvement measures to the A31.
In order to develop utility cycling, routes need to be sought on relatively flat ground for every day commuting, in addition to protecting cyclists from other traffic use.
Specific reference to difficulties in commuting from south Farnham to areas to the east (The Sands etc). Purposes that utility cycling in this part of Farnham to the east would be greatly enhanced by developing cycle access along the south side of the A31 Farnham Bypass, which is relatively flat.
A new ‘utility’ route could be implemented by linking the existing cycle lanes on the A31 mentioned above via a new a new cycle path along the wide verge between the Shepherd and Flock Roundabout and the North Downs Way access beside the BP filling Station.
It is possible to join the A31 westbound from the Sands using an existing cycle lane. However, this tapers out as the A31 approaches the Shepherd and Flock Roundabout. Suggests that it would not be difficult to provide access to central Farnham and south Farnham from a common link in the middle of the Shepherd and Flock Roundabout. Hopes that in the interval following the rejection of the A31 underpass proposals, this comment and proposal can be given some consideration in future plans.
|Objective 3 deals generally with the improvement of accessibility between town centres and the surrounding residential areas and villages.|
With regard to the comments about specific routes, these issues are to be reviewed annually by the Cycle Forum. In this particular case it is suggested that the respondent be encouraged to contact the local representatives from the Farnham Cycle Rights Network [CRN(F)] to discuss the routes, particularly the final route for NCN 22, which supersedes the route identified in the Local Plan 2002
|No change to the Plan|
|23. Ms S Todd (Head of Rights of Way and Countryside Access, Surrey County Council)||Fully supports the aims of the Plan and hopes to continue working closely with colleagues to help implement those aims that are relevant to this group.|
One comment of detail relating to Objective 1. Currently states “….utilising, bridleways…”. Suggests that it would be preferable to reword this to read “…utilising rights of way…”. This is because cyclists are also able to use ‘Byways Open to all Traffic (BOATs), which are a category of right of way. Suggests that it may be appropriate to route them along one of the BOATs in Waverley. Furthermore, she points out that in law it is an act of trespass for a cyclist to use a public footpath without the permission of the landowner. Does not consider that the plan should give the impression of encouraging cyclists to ride on footpaths. Recognises that it is an entirely different matter if negotiations with a landowner result in permission being given for them to put a new promoted cycle route over a public footpath.
|Suggest that Objective 1 be reworded as recommended by this respondent.||It is recommended that Objective 1 be reworded to read:-|
“To develop a network of safe, convenient and continuous cycle routes in the Borough, including links with adjacent cycle networks and utilising rights of way and roads, where appropriate.”
|24. Mrs J Harris||Agrees that there are many advantages in encouraging cycling. Has one specific concern. Refers to the intention to provide a cycle route between Godalming and Farncombe. Hopes that this does not mean that it is proposed to construct a cycle route across the Lammas Land between Chalk Road and The Burys. Also notes that Environment Agency has not been consulted about any of the cycle routes.||The Cycling Plan does not go into detail about individual routes. Suggest that the Forum and the County Council are made aware of the concerns raised by Mrs Harris so that they can be taken into account when the details of this route are being considered.||No change to the Plan|
|25. Mr D Moxon ||Welcomes the general encouragement of cycling. Points out that one less obvious benefit is that it can save mileage. Example is cycling to school or station as opposed to being dropped off, where the car journey is both to and from.|
Key points raised are summarised as follows:-
1. Persuading people to cycle more requires a mixture of inspiration and education. Suggests articles in “The Link” perhaps even a regular slot?
2. By all means support dedicated cycle tracks, but cycle friendly roads matter just as much. Cycling Plan does make reference to roads, but considers that their contribution towards the cycling infrastructure could be made more forcefully.
3. Comments that it is assumed that cycling on bridleways is a leisure activity. However, he refers to the benefits for utility cycling. Gives an example where the off-road route was shorter than the on-road equivalent. However identifies maintenance of off-road routes as the problem. Should identify which bridleways (and other off-road routes) can best contribute to the cycling infrastructure. Ensure that they are then well advertised and maintained so that they remain fit for the purpose.
4. Refers to some statistics regarding cycle use as a proportion of journeys. However, he comments that census information would not include cycle trips made as part of a journey using other modes (i.e. cycling the station for an onward journey by train). Set targets if the data is there, but be sure that you have a reliable baseline in respect of current cycle use and can then measure trends accurately.
5. Contribute to the development of Surrey Cycle Guides.
6. Ensure adequate provision of perking space at railway stations. An up-to-date survey of the adequacy of current provision is needed. (gives an example where cycle parking provision at a station was inadequate resulting in a number of bikes being left in the open and padlocked to other things.
7. Work with South West Trains to make travel by train with a bike more practical. Sad to find that trains are now less cycle-friendly than they used to be.
|Objective 9 Action Point 1 proposes an annual contribution to the Link magazine.|
It is proposed that paragraph 3.2 be extended to refer to the fact that the existing network of roads will continue to be an important part of the local cycle infrastructure?
Cycle Forum considers that paragraph 3.1 of the Plan should be amended to state that the existing network of rights of way can support both utility and leisure cycling.
The Forum notes the suggestion that bridleways should be surveyed to establish their suitability for cycling. However, such work would have resource implications. The Cycle Forum itself is not resourced to do this and, therefore, the issue would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The Cycle Forum encourages the quantitative monitoring of cycle use, but gathering cycle rates is the responsibility of the County Council.
The Forum as a whole does not have the detailed local knowledge. However, on a local basis participants have and may continue to support the guides.
Cycle Plan already includes a commitment to keep cycle parking under review.
Objective 5 and its associated Action points relate to the integration of cycling with public transport.
|No change to the Plan|
It is recommended that paragraph 3.2 be extended with the addition of the following:-
“Notwithstanding the provision of dedicated cycle routes, existing roads will still form the basic framework for the local cycle infrastructure.”
It is recommended that paragraph 3.1 be extended by the addition of the following:-
“The existing networks of public rights of way can support both utility cycling and leisure cycling.”
No change to the Plan
No change to the Plan
No change to the Plan
No change to the Plan
|26. Mr M Ellis||Regular cyclist between Weybourne Village Hall and Farnham Hospital as well as into Farnham Centre and surrounding district. Identifies the following needs and problems:-|
1. Creation of cycle path between Six Bells roundabout and the Sainsburys roundabout is a priority;
2. Six Bells roundabout, Sainsburys roundabout and Shepherd and Flock roundabout are very dangerous at the cycleway crossing points. Needs pedestrian controlled lights, or at least a zebra style crossing;
3. Companies and public authorities need to be encouraged to provide secure locked gate areas for staff cycles. Example of Farnham Hospital where there have been incidents of vandalism to employees bikes;
4. A continuous cycle path is required from Farnham Town centre to the Weybourne Schools;
5. All public cycle parking to have shelter from the weather.
|Forum considers that CRN (F) should consider this particular suggestion and feed this into the annual review of the Action Plan and priorities in July.|
The Forum notes the comments about these roundabouts. Works in this area have already been identified by the Forum as one of the highest priorities in Waverley. (See the prioritised list of suggested schemes now to be attached as a further annexe to the Plan).
See proposed change to Action Point 2 for Objective 3 and the proposed additional Action Point in support of this Objective (page 3 above)
See comments in response to the second comment from this respondent. The Six Bells roundabout is the severance point for this route to the schools in question.
Sheltered parking is preferable and should be required for long-term parking (rail stations, places of work, etc.). However, In some locations available space precludes covered stands.
|No change to the plan|
See comments above regarding the addition of the prioritised list of suggested schemes as a further annexe to the Plan.
See changes identified above (Representation No. 6, page 3).
See response to point 2 of this respondent’s representations.
No change to the Plan.
|27. Ms C Allan ||Comments as follows:-|
1. Suggest update section 2.2 to reflect up-to-date National policies. Should refer to the White Paper “The Future of Transport” published 2004. Reference to Chapter 6 and the quote:- “moving away from the ‘one size fits all’ national target and towards working closely with individual local authorities to put in place sharper, more focused, local plans and targets for cycling and walking.” Considers the plan to be a good opportunity to further these locally focused goals. Also refers to the Dept. of Transport “Walking and Cycling: an Action Plan”. Contains good practical examples. Considers that the Plan should also refer to this.
2. Refers to the ‘Hierarchy of Provision’ – and also to the Dept. of Transport draft Local Transport Note LTN1/04. Considers that the Cycle Plan should specify as a clear objective that – “all decisions relating to cycle provision will be governed by the principles of the hierarchy of solutions as set out in ‘Cycle Friendly Infrastructure’ (or LTN1/04 if this is adopted).” Considers that embracing the Hierarchy in the Cycling Plan will ensure that issues of speeding and traffic volume are not ignored.
3. Considers that overall the Plan is too ‘route’ and ‘network’ orientated. Considers that cyclists should be welcome on all roads in the Borough and not directed onto those that are deemed to be safe. Plan should make sure that dedicated provision is not seen as a substitute for Borough-wide cycle friendliness. Considers that wording to this effect should be added to Objective 2 as follows:- “…and to work with the appropriate authorities to ensure that no road in the Borough continues to be or becomes unfriendly or unwelcoming to cyclists.”
4. Reference to National Cycling Strategy (NCS), which states that one of the objectives a local cycling strategy should have is:- “To maximise the role of cycling as a transport mode, in order to reduce the use of private cars.” Considers this should be added to the Cycling Plan.
5. Although the Sustainability Report refers to other Waverley strategies, considers that the Cycling Plan should clearly state the need to maintain on-going links with them. Suggest additional Objective to read:- “To ensure that policies to increase cycling and meet the needs of cyclists are fully integrated into all other strategy documents produced by the Borough.”
6. Proposes an amendment to Objective 2 Action Point 1 to indicate that an audit, backed by consultation with the Forum, should be carried out for all highway improvement schemes, not just those considered to be ‘significant’.
7. Proposes additions to the Action Points in support of Objective 2 (all outlined in the Annexe to the NCS:-
· The authority will ensure that development does not sever routes used by cyclists or pedestrians or unjustly prejudice accessibility by walking and cycling.
· Measures will be provided, wherever possible, to improve cyclists’ safety and give cyclists greater priority (in terms of access and journey time) over other traffic, on all roads with significant cycle flows or significant potential cycle flows. Cycle priority measures include, for example: traffic management to reduce traffic volumes, supported wherever possible by exemption for cyclists from traffic restrictions applying to general traffic, where it is safe to do so; speed limit reduction, traffic calming and junction treatment to reduce traffic speeds; advisory and mandatory cycle lanes, bus/cycle lanes and widened nearside lanes; advanced stop lines; changes in junction priority; toucan crossings and cycle priority at traffic signals.
· Wherever possible, ‘planning gain’ opportunities will be exploited to improve transport infrastructure to aid cyclists.
8. Suggested additional Action Point to support Objective 9, as follows:- “The Borough will support the annual national event ‘Bike Week’ and the promotional activities staged by local cycling groups in celebration of it.”
9. Comments on the Sustainability Report and the Social Objective to “reduce poverty and social exclusion.” Would argue that this is relevant. Cheaper than driving, quicker than walking, and more flexible than public transport. It is a readily accessible, affordable and simple means of transport that offers much to the cause of reducing social exclusion.
|Suggest that paragraph 2.2 be revised to refer to the most up-to-date national guidance.|
Suggest that paragraph 2.3 be amended to refer to Department of Transport guidance LTN01/04.
Cycle Forum may wish to use the Hierarchy to underpin its consideration of proposed schemes. However, it will be a matter for the relevant authority (usually SCC) to determine its approach to individual schemes.
It is proposed that Objective 2 of the Plan be amended to refer to safeguarding, maintaining and enhancing the suitability for cycle use of the general road network, with priority given to the Waverley Cycle Network.
Suggest that paragraph 2.1 be expanded to refer to Annexe 2 of the National Cycling Strategy. Also suggest that the Aim of the plan be modified to incorporate the aim set out in that Annexe.
Whilst the Forum may wish to encourage Authorities to include references to Cycling Policies in other strategies, it will still be for the respective Authorities to determine whether such reference is made and if so, what form it takes.
Local cycle representatives on the Forum would like to see the word ‘significant’ dropped from Objective 2, Action Point 1. It would then read:- “Carry out a cycle audit on all highway improvement and maintenance schemes and then consult the Forum to obtain best value for cyclists.” However, the responsibility for implementing this Action is with Surrey CC. Therefore any change to this Action point must be subject first to the views of the County Highway Authority. The proposed annual review of the Action Plan will give the opportunity for the Forum to consider this further.
It is the intention that the Forum will review the Action Plan annually. It is proposed, therefore that the first two additional points be considered at this annual review. It is proposed that the third point, relating to planning benefits be added at this stage.
It is proposed that the Forum show its support for National Bike Week with the addition of a further Action Point in support of Objective 9.
See comments above regarding the Sustainability Report.
|It is proposed that paragraph 2.2 be replaced with a new paragraph to read:-|
“The Government White Paper The Future of Transport, published in 2004, includes a section relating to ‘Walking and Cycling’. The overall aim is to increase walking and cycling. It states that this will:-
· Help to reduce car use and to tackle social inclusion, making towns and cities safer and more pleasant to live in;
· Help to reduce congestion and improve air quality; and
· Increase levels of physical activity to improve health.
It sets out a list of aims and objectives to achieve this. One of these states:-
“Moving away from the ‘one size fits all’ national target and towards working closely with individual local authorities to put in place sharper, more focused, local plans and targets for cycling and walking.”
The Department of Transport has also published its ‘Walking and Cycling Action Plan’. This includes good practical examples relating to the promotion of cycling and walking.”
It is recommended that paragraph 2.3 be amended to read:-
“As part of the NCS, the Department for Transport has sponsored the development of national guidance: Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure Guidelines for Planning and Design and Traffic Advisory Leaflet (TAL) 7/98, Guidelines for Cycle Audit and Cycle Review. These guidelines, and PPG 13 (see below), define a hierarchy of solutions (starting with traffic reduction, then speed reduction and so on, through to off-road provision) that should be applied when designing schemes to meet the needs of cyclists. The types of solutions applied are not mutually exclusive and ideally should be combined to increase cycle uptake. Local Transport Note (LTN01/04) was published by the Department of Transport as a Consultation Draft in April 2004. It also refers to the hierarchy of provision in relation to pedestrian and cycle provision. It does add that the hierarchy does not necessarily apply to schemes where it is intended to construct totally new cycle tracks/footpaths to a high standard which offer a more advantageous route than the equivalent route for motorised traffic.”
It is recommended that Objective 2 be amended to read:-
“To safeguard, maintain and enhance the suitability for cycle use of both the Waverley Cycle Network and the general road network, with priority given to the Waverley Cycle Network.”
It is proposed that paragraph 2.1 be extended with the addition of the following:-
“Annexe 2 of the NCS provides ‘A Model Local Cycling Strategy’. One of its objectives is to maximise the role of cycling as a transport mode, in order to reduce the use of private cars.”
It is also proposed that the overall Aim of the Plan be amended to read:-
“To maximise the role of cycling as a transport mode in Waverley, so as to reduce the use of private cars, to help achieve the cycle-related targets in the Surrey Local Transport Plan and to give real travel choice by providing opportunities for cycling.”
No change to the Plan.
No change to the Plan.
It is recommended that a further Action Point be added in support of Objective 2, to read:-
“Wherever possible, ‘planning gain’ opportunities will be exploited to improve transport infrastructure to aid cyclists.”
It is recommended that an additional Action Point be added in support of Objective 9, to read:-
“Support the annual National Bike Week event and promotional activities staged by local cycle groups to celebrate it.”
See comments above regarding the Sustainability Report.
|28. Mr P Burrell (Town Planning Manager Strategic Rail Authority)||Fully supportive of the principles contained in the Plan, especially those set out in Objective 5 of integrating cycling with public transport services and facilities.|
SRA published its own Cycle policy in November 2004. This sets out a positive agenda for the railway industry to encourage, amongst other things, passengers to cycle to stations. Would be helpful if this guidance were referred to in Section 2, given its shared aims in many respects.
The sections of the SRA Cycling Policy that are particularly relevant to Objective 5 of the Waverley plan are contained in ‘5. Station Access’ and 6. Cycle Parking at Stations’.
|Suggest that additional paragraph be added after the existing paragraph 2.4 to refer to the SRA document.||It is recommended that an additional paragraph be added after existing paragraph 2.4 to read:-|
“In November 2004, the Strategic Rail Authority published its Cycling Policy. It sets out various aims, including increasing the provision appropriate cycle parking facilities at stations; and ensuring that the train operating companies take into account the wider benefits of cycling when considering investment in cycle facilities and rules for carrying cycles.”
|29. Mr P Minshull, Network Strategy (South East), Highways Agency||Welcomes Cycling Plan as an initiative to reduce the amount of car based travel. From documents it is not clear if the Cycling Plan impacts on the A3. It appears not to do so, in which case, the Agency does not have any specific comments on the plan. However, would like to be informed if cycleways do make use of the A3.||One of the proposals in the prioritised list of suggested schemes relates to a link section on the west side of the A3, between Lower Eashing and Norney. The intention is to pursue this with the Highways Agency.|
Local Cycling interest groups made representations at the recent A3 Public Inquiry about their preference for the existing A3 to be retained for cycling use once the new tunnel has been built.
|No change to the Plan.|
|30. Mr D Baker (Environment Agency)||No substantive comments to make on the Sustainability Report.|
Welcomes Draft Plan as a contribution to promoting more sustainable modes of transportation.
|Comments noted||No change to the Plan|
|31. Farnham Town Council||Comments in response to the 11 Plan Objectives as follows:-|
1. Strongly supports development of a strategic network of cycle routes in Farnham and adjoining, providing a more attractive alternative to reliance on the car.
2. Strongly believes that maintenance and improvement of the strategic cycle network must be adequately resourced to ensure long-term viability as an alternative to reliance on car.
3. Strongly supports improvements to achieve safer and easier cycle access to and from Farnham town centre and adjoining residential areas as a means of encouraging modal shift from the car to cycling and walking.
4. Town Council urges Waverley Borough Council to support Safe Routes to Schools Initiatives, including development of school transport travel plans in order to address over reliance of the car for home to school journeys.
5. Town Council urges Waverley Borough Council and Surrey County Council to work in partnership with the local train and bus operators (South West Trains and Stagecoach Hants and Surrey), in delivering and securing improvements such as secure cycle storage at Farnham station and improved cycle links to make use of cycle and rail journeys more secure and attractive.
6. Town Council wishes to work in partnership with Waverley Borough Council, Surrey County Council and other bodies in promoting cycling for recreational and tourist purposes in and around Farnham’s attractive rural hinterland.
7. Town Council urges Waverley Borough Council to work in partnership with Surrey County Council, Hampshire County Council and Sustrans in linking Waverley to the National Cycle Network. Farnham Town Council supports the principle of the proposed National Cycle Network Route 22 (London to Portsmouth) subject to sensitive and careful planning through the Farnham area.
8. Town Council wishes to work in partnership with Waverley Borough Council, Surrey County Council and other relevant bodies in improving the standards and number of secure cycling facilities in appropriate locations.
9. Town Council welcomes Waverley Borough Council’s objective of raising public awareness of the environmental and health benefits to be gained from cycling.
10. Town Council strongly supports the objective of making the crossing of busy roads such as the A31 and A3 safer for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders.
11. Town Council strongly supports the provision of cycle training in appropriate locations and urges Waverley Borough Council to work in partnership with Surrey County Council in achieving this objective.
|Town Council’s broad support for the Plan and its objectives is welcomed. The comments regarding partnership working between different authorities are noted. However, the principal funding for projects is still likely to be from the County Council. As far as this Council is concerned, any proposals requiring increased resources would need to be considered separately. |
|No change to the Plan|
|32. Mr A Fordham (Cycling Officer, Surrey CC)||Proposes updating of the text in the Cycling Plan relating to the LTP and LTP2.|
Comments that at a County-wide forum meeting it was agreed that the word ‘strategic’ be removed from the phrase ‘Strategic Cycle Network’.
|Comments noted – agree that text should be updated.|
Noted and agreed.
|It is recommended that the existing paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7 be replaced with the following new paragraphs:-|
“2.6 The first Surrey Local Transport Plan (LTP1) set out the County Council's objectives, targets and strategies for transport in Surrey covering the five years from 2001/2002 to 2005/2006. It advocated an integrated approach to transport provision, which sought to widen travel choices whilst also managing the demand for travel. LTP1 included a number of targets relevant to cycling, including those related to reducing road casualties and increasing accessibility to town centres, schools, colleges by public transport, cycling and walking. However, the two key targets
3. to raise the cycling proportion of all trips in Surrey from 2% in 1999 to 4% in 2006, 6% in 2011 and 8% in 2016;
2.7 LTP1 included a topic strategy on cycling. This strategy set out one overriding objective, which was to improve the quality of journey and the facilities at the cyclist's destination. When LTP1 was published in July 2000, there were some 470 km (300 miles) of on or off-road cycle routes within the county. The cycling topic strategy aimed to implement another 1,000 km (625 miles) of cycle network within the five years of LTP1. It intended to extend the total network to reach 4,000 km (2,500 miles) by 2016. The County Council is now preparing LTP2 that will focus on five shared priorities: Accessibility, Congestion, Safety, Air Quality and Quality of Life. Cycling targets forming part of LTP2 will be based on % number of journeys. Lengths of cycle routes will no longer be a target. Cycle fora have been consulted in order to identify priorities.”
It is recommended that the network within the Borough be referred to as the Waverley Cycle Network by the omission of the word ‘strategic’.
4. to raise the cycling proportion of school trips in Surrey from 7% in
1999 to 9% in 2006, 15% in 2011 and 20% in 2016.