If cycle lane bollards don't belong in Architectural Conservation Areas, why do cars?

There are places where there's enough space to park cars on the verge. Certainly don't know G.Ave enough to cherry pick a narrow section.

But across the city that frequently choose on road cycle lanes rather than segregated infrastructure. Where is plenty of space for them. I accept it's a compromise done for expediency and may be revisited later.

"...Integrated Cycling is cycling with the general traffic, with or without marked cycle lanes.

Segregated Cycling is cycling on dedicated cycle tracks or cycle ways that are separated from the general traffic by a physical barrier...."

I'm not entirely sure that floppy bollards on the road with general traffic is segregated.

Bit of digging reveals they are considered "light segregation "

https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/light-protection-cycle-lanes_2.pdf

Suggestion: of the various uses to which roadway can be put, parking should probably have the lowest priority. Pedestrians, cyclists, motorists who are actually travelling and vehicle that are making deliveries or collections should all be facilitated before the provision of storage space for private property that is not currently being used.

There's no logical fallacy at all. Architecture doesn't just concern itself with permanent fixtures or static objects. A house is a "machine for living", and the activities that go on in a space, and the use that is made of it, are a central concern of architecture. In many ways, they're the whole point of architecture — especially so when we are talking about the architecture of public spaces, like streets.

Parking might impact on architectural concerns in a different way to bollards, but it certainly impacts on them, and quite possibly more profoundly than bollards do.

There's a street near me in Eindhoven that is one of the main streets into the city.

They are redoing it now after a large consultation period.

Car parking is being reduced from 190 spaces to 120. Trees are being doubled. Flood defences being improved.

Eindhoven is putting a lot of focus into greening the streets. Mainly to reduce the temperature in the city during the hotter summers but also to improve water retention during the winter to reduce flooding.

When the people in the street we're surveyed they didn't require as much parking as was there. A lot of parking was used for staff of businesses elsewhere. The city decided this wasn't a priority and it is up those business to sort.

Of course temporary and permanent are different; that's why we have two different words for them. I'm not sure why you are banging on about a point on which no-one has disagreed with you.

Your claim is not merely that temporary and permanent are different, but that one of them matters to architecture while the other does not. And while you have repeated the claim in various forms a couple of times, you've never bothered to explain or justify it, or offer any argument in support of it. When the claim is questioned your response is just to sneer.

If you want to continue the conversation, you need to move on from sneering and actually offer an argument in support of your belief. Its the only way you are ever going to win acceptance for it.