Introduction, consultation links and how to respond

The government are consulting on changes to permitted development in England until 9^th April 2024. Two of the changes are of particular interest to Wheels for Wellbeing, as they specifically connect to Disabled people’s access to the public realm. Our responses are on the following pages, or can be downloaded as Word or pdf documents. Please ask if you need an alternative format or different formatting.

We have not responded to any other sections of the consultation.

We encourage everyone who is able to do so, to access the full government consultation documents and respond to any sections of interest. We are happy for our responses to be used or referenced to inform your response if you so wish – and would love to hear feedback via X/Twitter, Facebook or by email to info@wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk

If you are a Disabled cyclist or ally, please join our Disabled Cycling Activists Network (DCAN) for peer support, information and discussions on all aspects of Disabled active travel access.

The main government consultation document is here

And the online response form is here

Responses can be emailed to: PDRconsultation2024@levellingup.gov.uk

Or sent by post to:

Planning Development Management
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
Planning Directorate
3rd Floor, North East
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

The consultation organisers ask that you include:

• your name
• your position (if applicable)
• the name of organisation (if applicable)
• an address (including postcode)
• an email address
• a contact telephone number

Section 2 points 29-33, “bike and bin store” dimensions

Requested measures

We note that the current proposed size of this “bike and bin” store is far smaller than is required for cycle storage (see LTN 1/20 Cycle Design Vehicle, 1.2m wide x 2.8m long), far smaller than commercially available cycle stores, and is far smaller than comparable motor vehicles which are routinely stored in front gardens (see details below).

To provide for the needs of Disabled people as well as older people and families, and to meet the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Duty of the Equality Act (2010):

1. We ask that this store should be renamed a “cycle and mobility aid store” to reflect the diversity of cycles, mobility scooters and other aids which residents can reasonably be expected to need to store in them.
2. We ask that the maximum dimensions of this proposed store should be increased to reflect:
   1. The likely number of residents of a dwelling;
   2. The movement and manoeuvring requirements for Disabled and otherwise encumbered people (for example, a pregnant woman with a toddler, an older person with heavy shopping) to use the store with larger cycle and mobility aid models, including standing height requirements;
   3. The capacity required for the diverse range of cycles and mobility aids that residents of any dwelling are likely to need or want to store.
3. We ask that electrical supplies should explicitly be permitted within these stores, to enable safe charging of e-cycles and other powered mobility aids including mobility scooters.

In detail:

1. The proposed permitted development for “bin or bike stores” is for a container no larger than 2m wide by 1m deep by 1.5m high.
2. The Cycle Design Vehicle in LTN 1/20 is 2.8m long by 1.2m wide. This vehicle reflects the width of a side-by-side tandem or other double-width cycle, such as are commonly used by Disabled people. The length is that of a single bicycle with child trailer, a cargo cycle, a tandem, or a wheelchair-carrying cycle, all commonly used by Disabled people. For example, visually impaired riders often ride tandems with a sighted pilot. Requiring permitted developments to be smaller than this inevitably discriminates against those Disabled cyclists whose cycles cannot fit in a container 2m wide by 1m deep (presumably these are, in addition, external, rather than internal, measurements).
3. To avoid being discriminatory, any cycle store permitted dimensions must enable internal dimensions suitable to fit the Cycle Design Vehicle and additional cycles and mobility aids such as may be used by other members of the household – including where multiple members of a household are Disabled: There would be discrimination by association if family members of a Disabled person, including Disabled family members, could not store their cycle or other mobility aid securely because one person needs the full width of the cycle store for their adapted cycle or other mobility aid (such as mobility scooter).
4. Many Disabled or encumbered people will need to stand upright to manoeuvre a cycle out of a store. This means the permitted height of a store should be high enough to allow an adult to stand inside it.
5. To enable household or family cycling, cycle stores must have capacity to hold suitable cycles for all members of a household – and sufficient additional space or design flexibility such that any cycle can be easily removed from the store.
6. Cycle stores suitable for larger cycle types such as those manufactured by Cyclehoop and Falco are over 3m wide and nearly 2m deep. Other secure cycle sheds available to store multiple cycles can be considerably larger than this.
7. Family cars frequently stored on front gardens, such as a Ford Focus, are around 4.7m long, 1.9m wide and 1.5m high. A Range Rover is around 5m long, 2.2m wide (inc mirrors) and 1.9m high. Transit vans are up to 6.7m long, 2.5m wide and 2.8m high (rounded to 1dp)(these arguably should not be stored on gardens or streets at all, yet frequently are, including for long periods not moving with SORN – as are even larger caravans and motorhomes).
   It is unreasonable to permit multiple vehicles far larger than the proposed cycle store to be stored on front gardens indefinitely, while people who are trying to use low-carbon active travel modes or store essential mobility aids are prevented from installing adequate secure and accessible storage.

Section 5 point 58, EV chargers within 2m of and facing the highway

We oppose the proposal to permit EV charging outlets and upstands within 2m of the highway and facing the highway:

1. It is to be expected that chargers within 2m of the highway and facing the highway will be used to charge vehicles on the highway: That would be the precise reason for wanting to install them within 2m of the highway and facing the highway. This proposed measure will, then, facilitate trailing cables across footways and encourage pavement parking. Both these causes of pavement obstruction create disproportionate hazard and difficulty for Disabled people, and are therefore discriminatory under the Equality Act (2010).
2. Further, even if pavement channels for EV charger cables were required for on-street charging from these points, we still object to this alteration to permitted development regulations and any other regulations which allow private infrastructure to encroach on public space:
   1. Pavement channels cause a trip and wheel hazard for Disabled people.
   2. Permitting private charging infrastructure on public space, such as running cables from private property to charge vehicles on the highway, will transform publicly accessible space to space which is prioritized for the benefit private householders. Moreover, were this permitted it could create conflicts of priority with residents who require a designated Blue Badge/Disabled parking bay outside their home and their access to it.
   3. Following from the above, permitting private charging infrastructure to encroach on public space is also likely to reduce the provision of active travel infrastructure such as widened footways, seating, protected cycle lanes and public realm improvement and climate mitigation measures such as sustainable drainage and street trees which are accessible to and benefit all of the public rather than a private householder.