Forum Topic

Most of the sites I've seen are too far away from homes where there is a need and not very secure. You would not risk leaving a decent bike there and having it more than a few mins away from home nullifies it's purpose.Adam has a  point..In Greenwich, the council are insisting on residential developments having more than adequate parking not just for residents but guests and a secure parking cage for bikes.I went to one yesterday, Vertex Tower. Whilst not a place I would want to live in, it was very impressive in the vast parking and facilities for residents.The difference is that there are no additional costs to park your vehicle if you are a resident and no charges for visitors. It's all in the initial price a buyer pays.The prices were a little lower than comparable developments here in Brentford but the service charges were much lower and no parking tariffs.My client told me that the local council have a very hard line with specification parameters and that not a single car is added to the small surrounding streets and that space for leisure interests of residents are incorporated to allow a good quality of life. They are also tough on ensuring that the flats should be sold to people who are going to live there. No Buy to Lets or investment groups.It's early days but it seems to be working.So if they can do it in Greenwich/Deptford, why not here?  What's the difference?I've digressed a bit but can there not be local authority cycle lockers or secure storage not be incorporated into new builds as part of an S106 proviso?

Anthony Waller ● 4432d

Clearly Ian, you do not live in a street of terraced houses where there is simply no space to keep a bike and clearly, you do not have an issue with where to park a car.I cycle and have to climb past the bike which blocks the hall up completely.Leave it outside and it will be messed about with.I had the brakes tampered with once. Had that been my daughter borrowing the bike and rolling non stop into the main road. It's not worth the risk.On top of that, a densely packed area is losing, one by one, the few sites designated post-war to allow infrastructure upgrades and to facilitate areas that do not have the space for modern things to be integral to a more modern development.Hence why the two sites often mentioned locally are so contentious. They contain flood alleviation drainage and sub stations to alleviate long term problems and provide a utility no-one had here just 65 years ago.The relocation costs are huge and will be coming out of the taxpayers wallet.That could have provided thousands of lockers.Garages were an apt  solution as to what to do with the sites. Gardens etc.another.These are ideal sites for an update of that theme and an ideal point for residential bike lockers and car club bases. Things that provide a service that residents lose out on event thought that pay the same rate of council tax for areas with off street parking and plenty of space.And we are not talking about all this for free. These are leased or rented in just the same way as one rents a garage or an allotment.It brings in a long term income albeit modest but a decent benefit for a district being choked by overdevelopment.

Raymond Havelock ● 4432d

Kieran,If you read the previous posts you will note that our very own Hounslow council is removing suitable amenity sites in very cramped neighbourhoods where this would a be perfect and hugely beneficial solution.We have a very small space at the front of the house and no rear access. A standard Victorian terraced doorway is 2' 10'' and hallways are 3'. You might just get 1 bike inside but it will be in the way.The front space is now loaded up with recycling bags and bins which need access as well as gas meter access. It leaves very little space for one bike and kids ones just vanish if left outside even when locked securely.Lock the bike up outside and it might get stolen but will almost certainly get bits removed from it and tampered with. ON top of that it gets badly weathered compromising it's longevity and safety.Ironically the Councillor who is also ( or was) holding the remit to promote cycling in this borough was among those who voted to build on these sites even though that may well make a loss to taxpayers and will do little to alleviate the huge lack of genuine affordable housing in an area that does still have a larger than average stock of social housing.It has been suggest several times but somehow providing an amenity for residents who are not council tenants is verboten. To the point that any possible site for such a use be taken away as well.I would speak to the councillors who refuse to listen to their residents and see why they are so uninterested in doing something that might be a great solution that currently prevents so many of us using a bike on a daily basis.

Michael Brandt ● 4504d

Raymond, It's a great idea which I have seen in Holland too.The GLA and Lottery would fund such projects for community benefit so it would cost the council very little indeed and would generate a small income.But contempt for the community is all that seems to radiate from this Borough's attitude to Brentford. I know this was suggested to the councillors but they are obsessed with their own policies and could not give a hoot about the actual existing residents.They decided to build on sites which were left unbuilt on for a myriad of reasons, designated for amenity use in 1953 primarily to accommodate future demands on a very dense and compact neighbourhood. Power sub-stations, drainage relief, off street parking etc etc. Many things that were not incorporated into the infra-structure of a pre-electric era victorian town.Both the planning officers and councillors chose to ignore and even distort those facts.They were unwilling or unable to think long term & outside the box at what the future requirements for a such a cramped district might be.Whilst they are happily voting and approving more and more residential developments, big and small, they cannot even think long term. A quality that local politicians of a bygone age were very capable of.Hence the rapidly emerging situation of no adequate school provision or additional GP and health facility provision for already stretched local services. and a complete inability to solve the problems.So mindful of that why are they voting through more and more dwellings?It's such a shame, even though residents are pretty cheesed off at the ham handed way things are done here, I can't see it changing.

Michael Brandt ● 4533d