Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Councils criticised for sending out mixed messages over bike sheds

People are being encouraged to cycle – but building somewhere to store bikes may lead to planning problems

Councils in England are being accused of sending mixed messages over bike sheds, encouraging people to switch to active travel including cycling while retaining planning rules that in many cases prevent people from building somewhere to store their bicycles securely.

As we reported earlier this month, a family from Leicester were told by council officers that they could face enforcement action over a cycle shed they had put up in their front garden, partly because they live in a conservation area and it was deemed not to be in keeping with the street’s Victorian character – even though several neighbours had paved over their front gardens to provide parking spaces for their cars.

Pictures posted to Facebook (above) also showed parked cars outside houses in the street, again hardly reinforcing its Victorian credentials.

The council’s planning committee eventually granted the householder, Kavi Pujara, planning permission for the shed, made of sustainable timber and with a green roof, after the city’s mayor Sir Peter Soulsby said on Twitter that planning officers had “got it wrong.”

> Shedgate: Victory for family as bike shed application approved

Speaking to BBC News, Mr Pujara said, “We didn't set out to set a precedent on this issue but I hope other cyclists can soon apply for planning for convenient, secure cycle storage” – however, the report goes on to say that cyclists elsewhere are facing similar difficulties.

It cited the case of James Whittingham, who lives in the London Borough of Haringey which says it “very much encourages cycling,” but sent him an enforcement letter over a bike shed he had installed in his front garden.

He had applied for a space in one of the borough’s on-street bike hangars, but he said: “They told us we are not a priority as we have a front garden and therefore have the option for our own storage, yet we are now being asked to take it down. It's totally mixed messaging that makes no sense.”

He pointed out to the council that in the area he lives in, there are more than 100 bike sheds, most of which have not had planning permission, and sent through photos in support, “highlighting that they should be encouraging cycling. Not discouraging it.”

The council told the BBC that after receiving a complaint regarding a bike shed in a conservation are, it had “a duty to send our enforcement officers to investigate.”

Since April, households in Scotland have been able to erect bike sheds up to 1.5 metres in height without needing planning permission, but some councils in England are classifying them as outbuildings, which under national rules cannot be erected in front of a dwelling.

People receiving enforcement letters regarding bike sheds built without planning permission are required to remove them within 21 days or face a fine which could run to £20,000.

But Duncan Dollimore, campaigns manager at the charity Cycling UK, said that councils have powers to authorise bike sheds without householders having to apply for planning permission.

“It lies within their gift to use what are called local development orders, which grant planning permission for specific types of development, and they could do that for cycle sheds,” he explained.

A spokesperson for the Local Government Association, which represents councils in England, acknowledged that efforts were being made to promote active travel and get more people cycling, but added that the planning system aimed to ensure that “all developments are suitable and appropriate for their environment.”

However, Dollimore pointed out that strict interpretation of planning rules was often in conflict with a local authority’s own encouragement of walking and cycling.

“We have active travel teams saying we need more people cycling. Then in the planning department we have a situation that restricts active travel,” he said.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

7 comments

Avatar
Dave Dave | 3 years ago
0 likes

I still think the lesson here is not to trigger a complaint to planning by pissing off your neighbours with an eyesore. People get away with things that definitely (unlike here) breach planning regs because no-one reports them.

Simple reality is that ugly pressure-treated carcassing timber is not fit to be left on view. No proper builder or carpenter would have done that. It's a dreadful DIY bodge to try and save a very few quid. Appropriate weatherboarding would have added very little to the cost, greatly increased the lifespan, and satisfied the neighbours.

If it's an eyesore now, can you imagine how it'll look in a year or so once it starts to rot and fall apart?

This one's as much a no-brainer as not putting in pvc windows in a conservation area. It was obviously never going to fly.

Avatar
Sriracha | 3 years ago
7 likes

So the Leicester decision could mark a watershed?

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Sriracha | 3 years ago
3 likes

Sriracha wrote:

So the Leicester decision could mark a watershed?

I felt there might be a joke coming on. It hasp to be you, doesn't it....

Avatar
Sriracha replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
1 like
Captain Badger wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

So the Leicester decision could mark a watershed?

I felt there might be a joke coming on. It hasp to be you, doesn't it....

Lock of the draw really.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Sriracha | 3 years ago
0 likes

Sriracha wrote:
Captain Badger wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

So the Leicester decision could mark a watershed?

I felt there might be a joke coming on. It hasp to be you, doesn't it....

Lock of the draw really.

really S, I think we've reached a fork in the road and can shed all pretensions to haute comedy here. It will pay off in spades....

Avatar
TheBillder replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
1 like
Captain Badger wrote:

Sriracha wrote:
Captain Badger wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

So the Leicester decision could mark a watershed?

I felt there might be a joke coming on. It hasp to be you, doesn't it....

Lock of the draw really.

really S, I think we've reached a fork in the road and can shed all pretensions to hut comedy here. It will pay off in spades....

FTFY

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to TheBillder | 3 years ago
0 likes

TheBillder wrote:
Captain Badger wrote:

 

really S, I think we've reached a fork in the road and can shed all pretensions to hut comedy here. It will pay off in spades....

FTFY

Oh very good sir, Chapeau!laugh

Latest Comments