Plans for a “fantastic” new cycleway have been approved by councillors, despite opposition from the local police amid concerns about anti-social behaviour caused by illegal bike and motorbike users, with the proposed infrastructure described by one local as a potential “highway for illegal e-bikes on drug runs”.
Last week, Stockton Council’s planning committee signed off on a planned new cycle and footway to be situated on land, through a park and green space, to the east of Clarendon Road, Thornaby, North Yorkshire.
The cycling and pedestrian route, which will connect Milbank Lane to St Patrick’s Catholic College, forms part of the local authority’s plans to deliver a joined-up network of cycle routes across Thornaby to improve access to the town centre and connect with existing cycling infrastructure in the south of the town.
During a public consultation process last year, Cleveland Police said it did not support the proposed route as it had the potential to “exacerbate issues of motorcycle nuisance”. Residents who live near the parcel of land to be used for the infrastructure also questioned whether they would be “met with two lanes of cycle path when exiting their gardens”.
At a meeting of the council’s planning committee last week, Cleveland Police reiterated its opposition to the scheme, despite the local authority agreeing to changes intended to combat anti-social behaviour, including removing fewer trees and installing barriers and rocks along the route.
Other objectors argued that the “revised proposals have not gone far enough to protect the area from anti-social behaviour”, the Stockton Times reports.
According to one resident, based on the council’s plans, “the rear of properties are exposed with increased footfall and a highway for illegal e-bikes on drug runs and suchlike”. They also claimed that the scheme would make it “impossible” for dog walkers and children to enjoy the path, while concerns were also raised about potential flooding and the loss of green space.
In response to these objections, the council said the route would also be lit to reduce anti-social behaviour (while noting that there was no evidence the scheme would increase crime in the area), and that the proposed bike path was designed with the safety of children in mind.
Speaking in support of the proposals, Thornaby town councillor Steve Godwin said: “It’s an excellent project which has been developed across Thornaby.
“We are very au fait with the challenges that piece of land brings. However, none of the challenges put forward I would say are insurmountable.
“Looking at the new proposals, it would appear that the area would be far safer with them than without them. It’s an important scheme and I think it’s fantastic it comes right the way through Thornaby.
“It connects the top end of Thornaby with the bottom. It gives access to St Patrick’s School, which allows children and others to walk and ride there.”
Addressing the issue of illegal bike use and nuisance behaviour, Godwin continued: “Whilst it’s difficult to stop the electric bikes, the cars and quad bikes would definitely be challenged in gaining access to that area with the new proposals.
“We’re well aware of the complexities around parking. Within Thornaby alone over the last eight years, there have been 36 incidents which involve cars and bikes, seven of those resulted in seven serious incidents and the rest were classed as slight.
“The roads around the whole school complex or complexes within Thornaby are manic at certain times of the day. So anything that gives an opportunity to avoid that mania is certainly welcome.”
At the meeting, Stockton Council’s officers recommended that the planning committee approve the scheme, with the committee unanimously passing the proposals.
Planning services manager Simon Grundy said: “Whilst the comments and lack of support from Cleveland Police are acknowledged, the proposed mitigation measures would help to reduce opportunities for anti-social behaviour.
“The concerns over crime and anti-social behaviour, but they fall outside the scope of this application. On balance there is not considered to be sufficient evidence to strongly indicate a direct link between the proposals and any further nuisance occurring.”
19 thoughts on “Police oppose new cycle lane amid fears of “a highway for illegal e-bikes on drug runs” – but council insists area will be safer and avoid “mania” of local roads”
Having watched a couple of episodes of Police, Camera, Action. I’m eagerly awaiting the Police call to close the M62.
I was thinking the exact same thing about Corley services on the M6; a major distribution hub for county lines. It’s remarkable the number of overly blacked-out mercedes cars, driven like assholes, which join the M6 from the A444 and immediately pull into the services…
Whilst the tired complaints of bike-hating locals is only to be expected, the police really haven’t done themselves any favours with their ‘e-bike drug runners’ comments. I would be very surprised if every illegal drug hadn’t at some point been transported in a car, but I’ve never heard them oppose new roads on the grounds that it would encourage drug-running drivers.
I’m really astonished that they would even make such comments, and can we be told if they managed to keep a straight face when they made them?
I am normally commenting about car owning anti Active Travel local councillors, so I am really pleased to congratulate these forward thinking councillors on their tenacity in bringing their community into this century, allowing people to have greater disposable income with the potential that could be spent with local shops and businesses, and allowing people to stay fitter longer to reduce the drain on local health and social care budgets.
The police, of course, may have an answer to the pot hole repair budget by closing existing drug running infrastructure….
I spent about a decade managing the installation of bike hangars in certain parts of London. People often assumed we just plonked them into the ground and that was it – but it was actually a long, tedious process including a statutory consultation and a resident’s consultation. Each hangar then had to attain cabinet members approval and local Cllr approval. An incredibly long and complex process just to install a cycle hangar – which is a non permanent fixture anyway as it can be removed. Anyway, one of the most frequent complaints / concerns we would get is that bike hangars encourage drug running and drug dealing. (Not from the police it has to be said) Now I’ve never been a drug dealer, and I could never figure out how a cycle hangar might improve my business.
Drug dealers yearn for the paper trail connecting their name and address with the the vehicle they use to do crime.
@Rome73 “a resident’s consultation”… just the one resident?
Just when OAP-arresting police-state Little Britain is considered to have the lowest level of respect for its police force, some idiot officer says this publicly. I say ‘idiot’ with thought, because only in motornormative petrolhead UK would this objection even get beyond locker room banter.
Given the death of more people by drivers, just because they were cycling, the police farce could focus on this countrywide cultural toxicity and the damage it is doing, and STFU about infrastructure design.
As it happens, I visited a local park on Sunday and saw a drug dealer in action. He was kitted out in a high viz vest and on an illegal e-bike. The thing is that having spotted him once I subsequently saw him again and he seemed to be utilising the roads very well to get around. He is no doubt a local advocate for installation of cycle lanes to help him and his growing business….
Hi-vis vest you say? That’s a cunning strategy – will throw the law of the scent! Next you’ll say he had no face covering and was wearing a helmet…
Local police are clearly longing for the simpler days when the criminal element wore stripy ex-prison uniforms and carried a large sack marked “swag”.
Perhaps they could arrange to issue them with tabards marked with the main line of business of the offender? “Twocker”, “dealer” etc?
@chrisonabike Or ‘Palestine Action Supporter’
@eburtthebike That’ll have an entire squad of heavily armed cops descending on them within minutes.
Clearly the police tolerate low level drug dealing if it is quiet and orderly. A few years back I was walking my labrador in the local park, his usual boisterous friendly self, the only other visible person on the usual bench a local presumed drug dealer, you noticed the occasional furtive visits to his bench and the occasional balaclava’d resupply. When I was leaving the park I bumped into a policeman, who rather jumped, then commented, “Thats not a dangerous dog”, It turned out our local drug distributor had reported Alex as a public out of control hazard. The police had responded, but didnt bother doing anything about the huddled lad on his bench, British policing can be quite bizarre, though I raise my hat to the lad and his clear trust in the British Bobby.
” On balance there is not considered to be sufficient evidence to strongly indicate a direct link between the proposals and any further nuisance occurring.”
Fair play to the local council for telling the fuzz to do one.
(OK, logging in to Road.cc now takes me to the WP-Admin dashboard!)
I hope nobody tells plod about BMW M3s…..
Can’t wait for the police to oppose every A road due to “country lines drug running”
Opposing this sort of route fits with the “Secure by Design” ethos. Local police teams are frequently consulted on larger planning/transport schemes (as a lot of colloquially dubbed “statutory consultees” are). Secure by Design has a lockdown feel to it.
Some of it is good security-conscious design; but some of it is somewhat unsubstantiated but nevertheless prescriptive stuff that needs to be weighed with other considerations using open eyes.
They like interwoven cul-de-sacs which limit rat-running escape routes; they don’t like interconnecting paths that allow illegal PTWs to escape the feds. You can see why that makes sense to them, but they don’t apply their community policing head which should include community cohesion, connectivity and wellbeing.
Secure by Design needs binning or overhauling. It is not fit for purpose.
If the police think riders are going to escape, they need to equip and train themselves to deal with spaces as they are, not try to dictate a fortress mentality.
@GMBasix indeed – there are conflicts between “good transport design” and both institional motivations (police making it easier for themselves) but also the overall “criminal safety” brief.
In a (much) smaller fashion as there’s a fundamental conflict between “freedom to get around by driving” (even in accordance with the licence conditions) and public health and safety (including from “real crime”), to say nothing of costs, ability of non-motorists to get around etc.
I would hope that much of “how designing for active travel changes crime patterns” could be resolved by reference to “how it works elsewhere” *. But it’s another case of “change *does* mean things do not stay exactly as they are now”.
* eg the “social safety” design features of non-motor infra elsewhere and how police do police those spaces.
@GMBasix What drugs are being run? Are they more dangerous to people’s health than tobacco or alcohol? If not, why are the police interfering?