Folding bike brand Brompton’s plans for an ambitious new eco-friendly factory and headquarters in Kent are facing further delays after the highways authority raised concerns about the scheme’s impact on the local road network and the lack of any car parking facilities at the site.
Brompton first announced plans to move from its current factory in Greenford, west London, to a 100-acre floodplain in Ashford, where Ashford Borough Council aims to create a 60-acre public nature reserve including a community cycle path, in February 2022, before formally submitting its proposals to the local authority that December.
Initially scheduled to open in 2027, the proposed state-of-the-art factory and headquarters, which would double Brompton’s manufacturing capacity to 200,000 bikes a year and create up to 4,000 jobs, is focused on sustainability and active travel, and will include paths specifically designed for cyclists and pedestrians which will lead directly into the facility.
Under the travel plan drawn up for the site, no new parking spaces will be also created. Staff and visitors will instead be encouraged to cycle, walk, or use public transport to reach the factory, which will also have a visitors’ centre, museum, and café.
> Brompton unveils plans for new eco-friendly factory and HQ in Kent as it aims to double capacity
However, the active travel-centred nature of the £100m scheme now appears to have been the catalyst for a series of delays to the project.
Kent Online reports that National Highways has advised Ashford Borough Council to delay making a decision on the scheme – the fourth time since January 2023 that the approval process has been postponed due to National Highways’ objections – with the traffic body sending Brompton a list of concerns it wants to address before proceeding with its application.
In documents published in January, National Highways claimed that it had not heard from Brompton since July and “recommended that the application should not be granted permission until 10 June”, unless the folding bike company meets the body’s requirements and addresses its concerns in the interim period.
In a more recent document from last week, Christine Allen, regional director at National Highways, said: “We will be concerned with proposals that have the potential to impact on the safe and efficient operation of the strategic road network, in this case, particularly within the vicinity of the M20 and A2070 near Ashford.
“In carrying out our assessment, we are mindful of the highly innovative and sustainability seeking nature of the proposed development and the responses to date by KCC Highways on matters such as on-site and off-site parking.”
Chief among National Highways’ concerns is the requirement for a more detailed traffic and transport assessment to be carried out, especially in relation to Brompton’s desire to not include any car parking spaces at its site.
Assessments previously carried out by Kent County Council’s highways department suggested that the brand should consider alternative options for those staff and visitors who “have no choice but to drive”. This prompted Brompton to last year open discussions with HS1 Ltd, the owner of the multi-storey facility previously used by Eurostar passengers, and the nearby Ashford Designer Outlet to see if the company can share their car parks.
According to this plan, staff would be permitted to park their cars in the outlet’s south car park – located directly next door to Brompton’s proposed site – but on busy shopping days would instead be encouraged to park a mile away at the large multi-storey at Ashford International station, and walk or cycle the remaining distance to the factory.
National Highways has since acknowledged Brompton’s willingness to put these contingency plans in place, but says, however, that “this matter will have a bearing on trip generation, since if employees can drive and can park, many may do so”.
When contacted by road.cc, a spokesperson for Ashford Borough Council said that, as the authority responsible for approving or rejecting the plans, it “would not be appropriate” to comment on the status of Brompton’s planning application at the moment.
Brompton is yet to respond to road.cc’s request for comment, though we have been told that the company has now provided the necessary information requested by National Highways, addressing the traffic body’s objections.
In 2022, when the project was first announced, Brompton CEO Will Butler-Adams said: “As we face climate change, combined with poor mental and physical health in our cities, where most of the world population live, we need to adapt.
“There has been a global realisation post-pandemic that we need to change how we live in our cities, to design them around the people that live in them, not the automobile. Brompton has a large part to play in supporting that transition, but we need to have more space to innovate and create the products of the future.
“London was the inspiration for the Brompton and our success is in large part is due to our diverse and skilled staff who continue to nurture and develop our company. By choosing Ashford we can retain this strong connection to London and the UK, whilst being on the doorstep of Europe.
“We have a long journey ahead with the planning and development of the new site, but we’re thankful for the support of Ashford Borough Council, Hollaway Studios, and Quinn Estates towards achieving our combined ambition to build this revolutionary and sustainable bicycle factory of the future.”
72 thoughts on “New “car-free” Brompton factory facing delays as traffic authority calls on bike brand to consider those with “no choice but to drive””
Quote:
As Sir Winston famously said, this is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put!
Seems a bit bizzare unless
Seems a bit bizarre unless there is missing context.
Not having disabled parking spaces sounds like a red flag and probably a breach of descrimination law.
Whats the rail frequency – anything more than half hourly at rush hour is problematic. Are Brompton running staff buses?
It doesnt add up or its extremely bloody minded.
There’s 30 disabled spaced.
There’s 30 disabled spaces.
gareth [at] attrill.uk wrote:
30 spaces for a staff numbering 4000, Then visitors ?
Stephankernow wrote:
Seems a minor quibble. Presumably there is a formula to estimate this.
yes thanks. Just found this.
yes thanks. Just found this.
https://x.com/shamrocksoup/status/1755512152125776307?s=46&t=4N9mCgXIJQiwi_UKTiriXQ
TL-DR; – “since if employees
TL-DR; – “since if employees can drive and can park, many may do so”
THE WHOLE F’ING PROBLEM
I struggle to see the coherent point the moaners are trying to make.
One assumes that the Highways
One assumes that the Highways authority has resolved all the issues of poor road maintenance and bad driving that make it unsafe for those who have no choice but to cycle?
Backladder wrote:
Do you know the area? Its already overcrowded and nearly all roads are underfunded and poorly maintained.
This is about 4000 people going to work and in the autumn and winter cold, wet and it can be very windy around Ashford and Romney Marsh.
The highways agency is right to query this as its on a flood plain and car parking will be required
I wonder have you ever worked shifts? Then had to cycle miles home after a 06-14, 14-22 or 22-06?
This needs proper planning not pipe dreams of architects and designers.
It has to practical!
Stephankernow wrote:
One assumes that the Highways authority has resolved all the issues of poor road maintenance and bad driving that make it unsafe for those who have no choice but to cycle?
— Stephankernow Do you know the area? Its already overcrowded and nearly all roads are underfunded and poorly maintained.— Backladder
I don’t know the area but lots of places are overcrowded with poorly maintrained roads,that was my point.
My first employer provided buses for workers from local stations etc. as most people didn’t have a car in those days, if the conditions aren’t suitable for cycling or walking there are other ways that don’t involve 4000 cars with one person in each.
What happens to all the cars when the flood plain floods, at least bikes can be cheaply repaired if damaged by flood water. When I did work shifts (not for very long I admit) I enjoyed riding to and from work when there was little traffic about rather than fighting it out with cars in the rush hour.
I’m quite happy driving round in my car too but things are going to have to change.
Agree – but given the
Agree – but given the highways / planning authority is set up to expect cars just saying “there won’t be many, honest” probably does not compute.
Perhaps a useful comparison would be to what would happen if you built a large office block (4000 people…) in the centre of a town? Thinking back to some of the large offices / sites (newer ones) that myself / friends have worked for I recall they had parking but not necessarily for all (I remember the moans). IIRC that was either a limited number of places on a first-come first-served basis or peons like us didn’t get to have access).
Wonder what exactly the planners would require as a minimum e.g. enough just to cover likely disability access and a few visitors, or what? Do we mandate large car parks for e.g. schools?
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say “we’re adding minimal parking because the site is well-served by being connected by buses and railways. And – y’know – being within a couple of miles of a hundred thousand people”. I’m probably wrong here for the UK though and the system may effectively require a large parking allocation “because people will have to drive and otherwise they’ll just park all over the place”.
Providing convenient parking will of course guarantee those roads the authorities are responsible for will get more traffic, at least twice a day…
We do need (gently… gradually…) discourage driving if we want to fix any of the current crop of woes (congestion, emissions and pollution, running out of money for fixing the existing roads, no-one uses buses or trains, we’re all sitting too much and no-one likes to walk or cycle because motor traffic etc….) Especially where you can just get the train / bus / cycle or walk.
In places where people cycle they build cycle parking for customers / visitors and employees. Including by factories / warehouses. Not everyone will cycle to work, and not everyone will live within a walkable / cyclable distance. But many will use e.g. a train and a bike for the last mile or so (given adequate cycle parking or even an integrated cycle hire / public transport system!)
Anyway as wiser folks have suggested there seem to be issues on both sides here, or more details to this that haven’t been reported.
It’s pretty obvious what
It’s pretty obvious what their issue is, they will object to any development which has insufficient parking as it would likely result in nuisance parking from employees and visitors.
The factory is expected to have 4000 employees, not all of them will be cycling evangelists and it’s not even in a particularly good location for public transport, it’s nearly 1km from a station. That also assumes that everyone who will be employed lives at the other end of a decent public transport corridor.
So you could have a situation where their 4000 employees generates 2000 cars (even with the best public transport encouragements), it totally overwhelms the parking arrangements with the nearby retail park and you end up with 100’s of anti socially parked cars on the nearby housing estates.
FYI you cannot discriminate during hiring against anyone on the basis of how they travel as it’s an indirect method of discriminating against multiple protected characteristics.
It’s not the employer’s
It’s not the employer’s problem how people get to work, plenty of employers provide no car parking facilities but people still manage to work there. If employees park illegally or irresponsibly then it is an issue for police or parking wardens.
Backladder wrote:
It is a problem for the planning system, which makes it an issue for the applicant to solve.
Backladder wrote:
Er yes, it is their problem. Especially under modern planning policies, which try to design out these kind of problems (see the National Planning Policy Framework doc – it’s not very long). Parking wardens are important, but they are a sticky plaster on a problem which should not exist.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65a11af7e8f5ec000f1f8c46/NPPF_December_2023.pdf
Parking wardens – if we allow
Parking wardens – if we allow mass motoring we need some kind of enforcement of parking. Same as even where we’ve set “design speeds” in the infra we’ll still need some kind of road policing. Particularly since in the UK we have things back to front e.g. you can park anywhere you’re not specifically restricted. So we need a LOT of paint and signs and in practice this is widely ignored, along with pavement parking (decriminalised).
That document reads very much like “business as usual, with a nod to active travel in the text only”. I guess if you were a wild active travel enthusiast you could frame parts of it to support you but I doubt there are many who’re in a position to use the document to that effect. Not that I’d expect this kind of document to be leading the charge for change anyway!
We’re emphasising “choice” but as we know if you provide for driving at anything like current capacity the choice has already been made. (Yeah – how to change from our current equilibrium is hard. But that needs a significant initial change at some point – else we won’t get anywhere different).
massive4x4 wrote:
Indeed local college built a new halls of residence, we objected on the grounds of insufficient parking and likely nuisance parking. their response “students will not be allowed to bring cars” End result student cars parked on my road and don’t move for sometimes two weeks at a time. Obviosuly no way for the college to police the bringing of cars and storing off campus.
National highways agency
National highways agency gobsmacked and dismayed at the thought of a big development without thousands of beautiful cars and roads. Heresy!
What does this have to do
What does this have to do with the Highway’s Agency?
It seems like this decision is based on a Business Risk/Opportunity assessment that I assume is based on some level of staff consultation internally. Brompton know their business.
There might be a question in legislation for equality of access in some discrimination legislation, but that is for Brompton to deal with to manage their regulatory compliance.
The Highways Agency should get stuffed.
Maybe the HA are concerned
Maybe the HA are concerned that 4,000 cars are just going to be dumped for 0 hours a day, on Public roads, with no consideration for locals or other road users.
We all see it … industrial estates, schools, beauty spots … people going to work don’t give a feck where they park – or how … they’re just going to work, man …
Can the the rest of the infrastructure support these 4k cars parked elsewhere?
Can the public transport system support an additional 4k users?
Active travel on its own is not sufficient… there needs to be a fully cohesive integrated transport system that can cope with the demand.
That doesn’t mean that I agree or support the HA, but I can see where they are coming from.
Quote:
The Highways Agency is a statutory consultee on any project that may affect the National Road Strategy or nationally significant infrastructure projects, and a named consultee (i.e. can be invited to comment on planning applications) for local projects. It’s just common sense for them to be so, even if one doesn’t agree with their objections, major factory projects like this one will clearly have an impact on local roads, however much Brompton encourages people not to visit using cars.
Though the whole project looks very exciting and definitely one to be encouraged, the lack of car parking does look like a bit of window dressing when Brompton are arranging for staff and visitors to use the car park a mile away, if somebody comes from Birmingham in their car and then walks or cycles the final mile it might make the factory look virtuous but it isn’t really doing anything for green travel.
I’m still a bit lost as to
I’m still a bit lost as to why they are objecting, the factory apparantly will have 30 disabled parking spaces which will not generate a significant amount of traffic, the remote car park already exists and its maximum capacity has presumably already been considered so where is the problem?
Backladder wrote:
I’d assume they’re thinking of the bigger picture in terms of the road network in the area, after all if all employees and visitors drive to a carpark a mile away that’s not going to reduce the stress on the roads in the area in general. National Highways seem to be more concerned about the increased number of car trips that will be generated by the facility rather than the parking, as far as I can see.
Because if you drive from
Because if you drive from Bristol to attend a meeting with Brompton, you need somewhere to park. If there is no on-site parking, people tend to park on the road and disturb traffic.
It’s kind of self-explanatory.
TheAdebo wrote:
Then you don’t drive. You get a train and then a taxi.
It’s their statutory role,
It’s their statutory role, and the Highways Agency are on the list of bodies requiring to be consulted in planning applications.
For example, there are people who genuinely have no practical option other than driving – just nothing like as many as we are often told.
It sounds like a straightfordward one to work through, with a bit of give and take.
Have the needs of those who
Have the needs of those who have no choice but to walk, bike, or take public transport ever been considered for the majority of other buildings?
I can think of quite a few businesses in industrial parks with access only by roads that are unsafe for cyclists, have no sidewalks for pedestrians, and very poor access by public transport yet nobody bats an eye.
I was going to comment
I was going to comment exactly the same. We can all think of plenty of locations that do not consider those who have ‘no choice’ but to cycle or walk.
My last big employer only got
My last big employer only got their 2000+ person office approved by including active travel provisions. Huge number of secure bike parking spaces in the undercroft, showers, lockers, changing rooms, even a repair hub. This was in Southampton circa 2008.
Quote:
In other news, drug pushers object to the opening of rehab clinics, and religious leaders object to non-faith schools.
I applaud the ambition but I
I applaud the ambition but I can also understand the concern. Perhaps a compromise with a few visitor parking spaces on-site added to the access to the negotiated off-site parking for staff, will allay the highways agencies fears.
Don’t you just love planning
Don’t you just love planning policy and procedure!
I had a quick look at the application on the Ashford planning portal. Given a day or so, I could wade through the paperwork and work out the crux of the matter. But it looks as if the potential for site users (employees) to drive and park elsewhere is the key issue. That could affect the strategic road network, local businesses and residences etc. That means that Highways England and the local planning authority need to work with Brompton to get the issue sorted.
I applaud Brompton’s vision for the site. I hope that they have really switched-on transport consultants on board, who can help resolve the outstanding concerns. If I were advising them, I’d be looking to give them the evidence to allay concerns about the network, while highlighting a clear narrative about any car-centric biases within the planning system.
Anyone that goes for an
Anyone that goes for an extreme position is wrong, 100% of the people will not be able to do 100% of the demand 100% of the time.
I see a great marketing opportunity being lost here where Brompton can’t have this car free environment, in spite of offering car parking nearby.
I’d love to see the building design and all the eco friendly options put in there, especially the ventilation (that’s my bag, dudes). What is the full net zero story?
Without wading through the
Without wading through the planning application, I’m pretty sure there would have been a travel plan, which should have addressed the problem of those who have no other option but to drive. Such documents vary hugely in their quality* (I’ve seen quite a few as I am on a planning committee) so it is possible that it didn’t include the relevant details, but if that was the case, Brompton should have refused to accept it.
* I’ve just read one which claims that the site has a regular, high quality train service: it’s about 7 miles from the nearest station.
Fascinating case study of the
Fascinating case study of the car-centric planning system. Seems there is no proper understanding of what Brompton trying to achieve – though I get the idea that disabled access etc, for those not able to walk or cycle, should be addressed.
If it was other way around and only a token effort to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists, this would have been approved ages ago. I speak as someone who worked on a business park where the cycle lane was only ever used to park cars in, and nothing was ever done to stop this.
For comparison it would be
For comparison it would be good to knkw how National Highways meets the needs of people who have “no choice” but to walk or cycle?
Where is their provision for these road users on motorways and dual carriageways closed to these users?
Sadly NH are not responsible
Sadly NH are not responsible for most roads that are not Motorways or Trunk Roads so they don’t care
Take the A1307 in Cambridgeshire (formerly the A14) it has been handed over to Cambs CC now as NH now has the shiny new A14 but the A1307 is still a full Dual Carridgeway mostly to near Motorway standard.
And I would think there are
And I would think there are more people in this category.
I don’t drive, so I don’t
I don’t drive, so I don’t apply for jobs that I could only get to by car. If I’m visiting somewhere like that for work, I get a taxi and claim the cost back from my employer.
I get the arguments around illegal parking etc, but that can be fixed by enforcing rules about illegal parking. If an employer doesn’t want to use the finite space on its premises for (non-disabled) car parking, I don’t see that’s any business of a state agency.
Indeed, even though I do
Indeed, even though I do drive there are many jobs that are beyond reasonable commuting distance and I don’t apply for them. If you know at the interview that there is no parking then you find another reliable way to get there or you don’t accept the job.
Brompton “no car parking,
Brompton “no car parking, active travel for 100% employees”
HA “you must allow for those with no optiopn but to drive”
Brompton “OK, this is the provision” use of existing car park
HA ” now you have allowed for parking, we need a traffic assessment because many will just because they can”
1) that sort of highlights the flaw in HA’s fist demand
2) the existing retail car park is presumably manageable for the highways when working at capacity, so will not be worse when Brompton are using it.
Incredible
I was about to say something
I was about to say something similar – although reading the article again, it does appear that different bodies are involved:
It was Kent County Council’s highways department that said they must make provision for people who have no choice but to drive.
Having made such provision (by means of an agreement to use existing car parks), it is now National Highways who are calling for a traffic assessment, given the number of people who may now choose to drive instead of public transport/active travel.
“no choice but to drive” – so
“no choice but to drive” – so a crime not to drive?
This story is quite an
This story is quite an interesting contrast to the new world cup final being in the Met Life stadium in New Jersey.
28,000 parking spaces and you have to take a taxi from the nearest hotel as you can’t walk.
I was struck last year by an
I was struck last year by an overhead shot of Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas, the parking looked massive – apparently thats circa 19,000. Found this showing the comparable area!
So do you park there and then
So do you park there and then get another car/taxi/bus to get across the car park?
Ive stayed in that hotel and
Ive stayed in that hotel and while its odd, you definitely wont want to leave on foot. On game days though they provide shuttles etc. so its no different to a park and ride, only you can sleep and eat there too.
Yep.
Yep.
It’s an example of planning and masterplanning failure, in a society that has designed out non-motor vehicle options.
They did it all but by bit at each stage without thinking about the future.
For a comparator, London has I think around 6 fairly new venues in the 50-100k capacity range. The largest number of parking spaces I am aware of is 3200 at Wembley stadium for a 90k capacity stadium.
And both are around 10 miles from the city centre – says Google.
mattw wrote:
Bit off topic – but then if we want to change the world we would do well to understand it – but I think that’s a question not a statement! I’m mostly a believer in cock-up, “things just happen” and evolutionary change (good enough right now wins, with zero foresight). But – to paraphrase Douglas Adams – around large concentrations of money reality is not merely warped, but bent.
I suspect conspiracies tend towards the small (as humans don’t last long). However there were definitely some deliberate and questionable choices around plumping for cars and mass motoring – made by smart, powerful individuals and groups. Some of whom were definitely looking further down the track. There are some data points worth pondering like the invention of jay-walking in the US (literally transforming victims into criminals), the leaded petrol case and many more.
Anyway that’s probably a *series* of books, not a comment!
The USA opted to have a
The USA opted to have a planning and zoning system that in practice enforces use of motor vehicles. Eg if you can’t have schools or shops, or even dog parks or different types of houses, in the middle of a large (miles by miles) suburban area, then attempts to encourage eg walking are basically f*cked from the start.
This is part of the same history.
A question covered very well in various urban design Youtube channels.
True, that certainly feeds
True, that certainly feeds into it. (I can’t recall where those requirements actually came from or why – another rabbit hole I’ll avoid falling into right now though).
The role of the military and war* is also maybe a factor (military-industrial complex etc). But again that’s a whole ‘nother library.
* Actually in all senses e.g. economic competition with those you distrust as much as active warfare.
I’d move production to
I’d move production to Holland and rename the company to Obrecht.
I swear that most people who
I swear that most people who cry “won’t you think of disabled people” are the very last people who actually think or care about disabled people. Its just a really nice way to take the moral high ground when they don’t want something to happen.
I don’t hear many people complaining about the frankly awful state of our pavements, road crossings and the fact that in so many areas you cannot get a wheelchair/pushchain along the pavement because people have parked their cars so far onto them.
A new build estate near us has a cycle lane and pedestrian lane on the pavement and shock shock horror, the bike lane is just used as parking.
Selective concern, you mean?
Selective concern, you mean?
The only way to get people to
The only way to get people to use bikes as a commuting vehicle or walking is by making it more convenient to use a bike, not the making of 0 parking spaces. There is always a situation where a car is needed; if you are disabled, transport big and bulky items, long distances to commute, that kind of stuff.
If for example it is easyer to just get a bike and cycle there, then I would definetly do that. Take the Netherlands as an example; most places do have parking places, yet there is always a bike lane that is often separate from the road, separate pedestrian crossing, that kind of stuff. If road design in the UK is car centric, then 0 parking spaces will make the commute very awkward. You cannot take the bike because there are no safe roads to use so you must take the car, but you cannot park it anywhere. Should I then walk through fields or something because this is easyer at my destination and safer in terms of road usage (no cars in fields)?
If there is good bike infrastructure (separate bike lanes that are not part of the car roads!) then it is only a question of time before bikes will be the main mode of transport, simply because it is faster in cities to ride a bike and avoid any traffic jams. Look at the Netherlands guys!
People who have no choice but
People who have no choice but to drive. FFS. There is not a single situation where anyone visiting this factory has no alternative but to drive themselves there. Taxis will be allowed, Disabled parking will be provided, Courier vans will be catered for. It’s absolutely pathetic and disgraceful that a public body can reject this on the basis that they deem insufficient catering for motor vehicles, yet up and down the country they approve plans for large housing estates that ignore local complaint about insufficient protection and consideration for vulnerable road users.
I have parking challenges for
I have parking challenges for work etc. I generally think it needs to be priced to allow when “needed” but to discourage.
Eg for employees they could be allowed to park but charged each time they do, perhaps with premium prices if they do it a lot. If they car share it should be priced to be reasonable if there’s 3 or more.
robike wrote:
Encouraging car share always sounds useful.
The problem we have is if it’s there it will be “needed”. Then we’ve got the issue of separating who can, who can’t and policing that. One of the great things about the car is it allows people to chain multiple journey tasks – and we build our lives around that ability (pick up shopping on the way home, zipping off for different activities etc). So we often start out the day in the car (maybe drop the kids off) and then we’re using it all day and want to park at destinations.
Anecdata from conversations suggests price increases don’t do much more than increase complaints*. What definitely changes people’s approach is if they think there’s a fair chance they won’t be able to park nearby (and the wider the “parking difficulty” area the more people say “I’ll get the train / share a life with someone who has parking” etc.
* Obviously there will be some “unacceptable” amount but I suspect that would need to be wild by current standards (30 quid per day?) and this risks running into the usual “it’s only for the rich but not us now?”. Also the complaining starts at any figure above zero – because we have an expectation of usually being able to store our cars in public space for free.
chrisonabike wrote:
I have to admit that as soon as the cost of parking rises beyond £0.00 I will put in considerable effort to find a legal alternative place to park, this is probably because all my working life there was an excess of free parking at my place of employment and you get used to not paying.
Phizer in Ashford paid people
Phizer in Ashford paid people a small amount for not driving.
Carrot rather than stick.
How did it work out? Was the
How did it work out? Was the car park noticably emptier? If so were employees mostly living locally, or did car-share become more popular (if that was allowed)?
Pfizer in Ashford paid people
Pfizer in Ashford paid people a small amount for not driving
They made a lot of money from sildenafil/ Viagra- designed for people whose device doesn’t work because of vascular disease brought on by unhealthy living and lack of exercise (among other things) – so it was a noble gesture, encouraging people to exercise instead of slobbing it in the car
The answer to that one is the
The answer to that one is the Workplace Parking Tax, and can be done now.
In Nottingham employers who provide >10 liable spaces (eg not disabled) for employees are charged approx £550 per year for each parking space they provide.
https://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/information-for-residents/transport-parking-and-streets/workplace-parking-levy/cost-of-a-wpl-licence/
Fook Brompton for being
Fook Brompton for being senseless, and for discriminating illegally and wrongly against car users. Bikes are awesome, but it’s hard enough to park already, and even avid cyclists aren’t keen to ride every where, every day.
Graveltravelwpww wrote:
It’s neither illegal nor discriminatory not to have parking spaces, unless there isn’t sufficient provision for the disabled.
Not sure how much it applies
Not sure how much it applies to this location but don’t forget about buses and trains…
Discrimination? What was that quote about “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression”? Of course it may not feel like it but drivers are right at the very top of the tree – just … intolerably below some other drivers.
chrisonabike wrote:
The proposed new facility appears to be well under a mile (1350m) from the exceptionally well connected Ashford International train station and Brompton are proposing that they build a walking and cycling path to it, so it could hardly be more accessible by public transport.
Exactly – this is one of
Exactly – this is one of those points – perhaps, hopefully – where we as a society start to grasp the potential of multi-modal transport with cycling.
It’s not obvious until it’s easy and ubiquitous* but here’s what we could win:
(Old style)
New – even more convenient and you don’t even need a manned station
Of course, having a unified public transit system that just has a single interfact (card you can use) is also a wild pipe-dream in the UK…
* I didn’t get the point myself. Even when Abelio had the ScotRail franchise and had some rental bikes in a few stations. I think I still saw this as being like a city public bike scheme – but it only operated from a single point in Edinburgh (wasn’t at Waverley)!? Useless! Also I though the bikes were “a bit heavy”. But they’re not designed for going for a 20 mile country ramble. They’re for the last mile or few from a station or transport hub (possibly carrying shopping and another adult), then back there later. At that time I wasn’t doing those kinds of journeys from the stations that had this.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Perhaps they could use a folding bike of some sort to facilitate the last mile?
Graveltravelwpww wrote:
if it’s illegal not to provide car parking, can we start cases against all employers that do not provide parking for bikes?
wycombewheeler wrote:
if it’s illegal not to provide car parking, can we start cases against all employers that do not provide parking for bikes?
— Graveltravelwpww
In certain circumstances, very likely you can.
eg If you are unable to get a driving license for medical reasons due to disability, and your employer refuses to provide secure parking for your chosen mobility aid, I think you could have a case under EA2010 – as it would be a reasonable adjustment.
Highways Agency seem to go to
Highways Agency seem to go to great lengths in restricting anything to do with active travel. You only need to look into their recent escapades of forcibly infilling bridge structures over disused railways, therefore preventing these disused railway routes being developed for active travel and destroying the surrounding environment with tonnes of concrete.