- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Brompton Ashford proposed factory (picture credit Hollaway Studios) 03.jpgNew “car-free” Brompton factory facing delays as traffic authority calls on bike brand to consider those with “no choice but to drive”
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.”
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- NickJP 2 sec ago
The review says "tapered head tube", but the photos accompanying it clearly show that the head tube is not tapered.
- mark1a 2 hours 2 min ago
Well... as it happens, I have the Bosch EasyPump. I bought it a year ago with some Christmas gift money. Its main use is on my van which doesn't...
- eburtthebike 2 hours 51 min ago
"...as mayor aims to bring “credibility” to active travel initiatives...."...
- Simon E 5 hours 3 min ago
I do too. It's a 'real world' read fill of people doing real world riding instead of a glossy lightweight brochure for spenders and dreamers....
- FionaJJ 5 hours 48 min ago
Exactly. I won't lie, I did quite enjoy pointing out that the reason olive oil had got so much more expensive was because of the droughts in the...
- chrisonabike 9 hours 15 min ago
What about all the computer misuse? Stop with the downloading already!
- brooksby 9 hours 38 min ago
"Professional Triangle tire Punctured tire Nail for Spike Anti-Theft car Safety Emergency car" Sorry, but WHAT??
- HollisJ 11 hours 32 min ago
Have you seen the size of Micras these days? Now, it it were a Micra from the 80s...
Add new comment
72 comments
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 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.
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 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.
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 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 more people in this category.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
In other news, drug pushers object to the opening of rehab clinics, and religious leaders object to non-faith schools.
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 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 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.
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 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.
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 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?
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 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.
Then you don't drive. You get a train and then a taxi.
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.
National highways agency gobsmacked and dismayed at the thought of a big development without thousands of beautiful cars and roads. Heresy!
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 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.
It is a problem for the planning system, which makes it an issue for the applicant to solve.
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/...
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).
Pages