A church in York has made a renewed appeal with the council to allow them to modify spikes on railings at the front of the building that sit right next to a shared-use path, prompting safety concerns that a cyclist could be injured.
Planning documents available on City of York Council's website note that the Grade II listed Church of England parish church, originally constructed in 1866, has railings "in very poor condition" above a boundary wall with spikes "which potentially pose a risk to people on the adjoining cycleway which runs alongside the A19".
The shared-use path is popular with local primary and secondary schools and a member of the public originally reported the potential danger the spikes, at a height of 40 and 72cm, could pose in the case of an accident.
The church previously sought safety advice from health and safety service EurosafeUK and having heard recommendations decided to apply for planning permission to address the spikes' risk to cyclists that could see people "fall off their bikes onto the railings and impale themselves".
This initial planning application was made in October 2018, but the council rejected the proposal to remove "the top spikes and truncating and rounding-off the lower spikes" on the grounds that the work would harm the "aesthetic value" of the railings and their "historic value".
The council stated at the time: "It is considered that the proposed works to the railings, by altering the original design element, would result in harm to the aesthetic value of the railings and the loss of their historic value. As such, it is considered that the proposed works harm the significance of the designated heritage asset and there is no evidence of additional public benefit that has been brought forward in order to balance and justify the degree of harm that has been identified."
> Bike shed planning appeal lost as inspector rules wooden structure "harmful" to Grade II listed building
However, significantly, the council's planning officers came to a decision without consulting colleagues from the highways department, that despite public safety on cycleways being the "responsibility of the Highway Authority".
Now, five years on, City of York Council's Head of Highway Access and Development, Helene Vergereau, has argued that "the safety of highway users is relevant here" as the path in front of the railings is a shared-use cycling and walking route.
The latest application is ongoing, documents on the council's website showing that the church has now proposed to remove and repair the railings, with 30mm iron balls to be welded to the tips of the upper spikes and 20mm balls to the lower spikes.
"This will allow the railings to retain their existing form whilst ensuring public safety," the proposal suggests.
Questioning the council's previous assertion that the railings have "historic and aesthetic value" as part of a Grade II listed building, the report also states that the "listing description makes clear that the main interest of the Grade II structure is the interior and exterior of the church building which would be wholly unaffected by the proposed works".
"There is no mention in the listing of the front wall or railings," it adds.
"The proposed works would have major public benefits by removing the risk of catastrophic injury to passing cyclists. The risk may be small but the consequences would be very serious.
"The works overall would improve the appearance of the listed Victorian church and the conservation area. Even if a different view is taken, the harm would be very minor and outweighed by the significant public benefits."
Earlier this month we reported that the vicar of a church in Altrincham, Greater Manchester had claimed the very existence of the 170-year-old institution had been put in doubt by the construction of a new walking and cycling lane outside its car park.
Reverend Murray said that many of his congregation had already been put off attending services since the cycle lane was installed, which now requires parishioners and churchgoers driving to services to drive down a slightly longer one-way system, and he concluded that he fears his historic church could close unless the local council reconsiders the plans.
Add new comment
11 comments
A girl in my class at primary school got impaled on railings of a similar design and height, through her jaw. St Charles Borromeo, Hadfield. I don't remember the outcome for those railings, but I agree with the church in the story, the potential for harm is high.
Surely the safety aspect of the railing would have been considered at the time the pavement was repurposed as a shared use path? As it was approved, I'm guessing there's no safety implications to worry about. Complete non-story in my opinion.
Why does this have me considering options on how cyclists can prevent dangerous drivers getting too close?
Or creating similar infrastructure to prevent drivers encroaching on cycle lanes etc.
If pedestrian refuge islands can be designed like this, without complaints from motorists...
https://youtu.be/BhLJEgq8WW4
There have been times when I've thought a really big gun would be the best suitable solution. They wouldn't get very far if you put a few holes in their engine block. It might be bit heavy to carry around with you though.
How about take a page out of Tyre Extinguisher's book and sabotage their killing machines when they are parked and unattended? If they want to claim that there's a war against the motorist, then maybe it's time we started a counter defence and at least disable a few of their weapons.
Nope. Messing around with someone else's property without a very good reason is an extremely scummy thing to do.
Maybe like this guy...
https://www.triathlete.com/culture/news/should-you-carry-a-gun-while-tra...
https://road.cc/content/news/florida-man-armed-cyclist-jersey-sparks-deb...
They shouldn't have asked for Planning on that imo.
Boundary walls are covered under the CofE's Faculty system, and repairs do not require a Faculty.
I would have just got an email acknowledgement from the Archdeacon who is responsible for overseeing buildings, for backside-cover, and done it as a repair since the cast iron railings are not mentioned in the Listing entry:
https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/101301095-church-of-saint-oswald-fu...
A wet-behind-the-ears conservation officer in the Council may have had a kitten or two, but imo the safety question is more important and it is good to see a Parish Church addressing it.
Those short, square-section wooden blocks by the side of the road in Richmond Park are as dangerous, I reckon.
I suppose they (or someone passing by) could informally, without planning permission, pop a wine cork on top of each spike?
Maybe after communion services?
IIRC anything to do with making changes to churches can be a nightmare. However if some volunteers are willing to be martyrs for the cause I think a few health and safety cases might assist. I note that things have changed in cemetaries RE: monuments (IIRC following a relatively few tragic cases - indeed you could even say a slight overreaction but of course it isn't to the relatives of those injured / killed).