Findings of a Public Consultation March 2018 · Primary School Area 56-62 Appendices Contents...

No

Findings of a Public Consultation

March 2018

2

3-5

Introducing Streets for

People

6-8

The Consultation Findings

9

Executive Summary

10

Heaton

in Focus

11-17

Heaton Park Road

18-24

Heaton Park View

25-31

Warwick Street/Newington

Road Junction

32-38

Springbank Road Bridge &

Ouseburn Road

39-46

Heaton Road

47-55

Ravenswood Primary School

Area

56-62

Appendices

Contents

Contents

3

Introducing Streets for People

Streets for People is a £3m collaborative project between Newcastle City Council and

stakeholders in three neighbourhoods of Newcastle upon Tyne. These areas focus on

the inner-city suburbs to the north, east and west of the city centre and are:

• Arthur’s Hill and Fenham

• Heaton and Ouseburn

• Jesmond.

The project - funded by a grant obtained from the Department for Transport’s Cycle

City Ambition Fund - seeks to identify and deliver improvements to promote walking,

cycling and sustainable travel.

The process has been organised and supported by transport engagement staff at

Newcastle City Council, drawing on the local and technical knowledge of a wide

variety of stakeholders – including elected members, grass roots community groups,

cycling organisations, local businesses and service providers, together with City Council

engineers, planners, urban designers and the Healthy Streets Board.

The Reference Group

The first stage in each neighbourhood’s process was to identify and recruit interested

parties to be part of a Reference Group. The role of this group was to:

• Advise on and guide the design of engagement materials and products

• Help shape and deliver the engagement plan to involve local people and other

stakeholders in gathering information

• Be part of the analysis of that information

• Contribute to the design of proposals addressing the issues raised.

Reference Group members were a fundamental part of the first stage of the process

by helping to raise awareness and build anticipation locally about Streets for People,

and by encouraging their contacts to take part in the Needs Analysis.

https://www.newcastle.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-transport/cycling/newcastle-fit-cycling-cycle-city-ambition-fund-bid#Phase

https://www.newcastle.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-transport/cycling/newcastle-fit-cycling-cycle-city-ambition-fund-bid#Phase

4

Needs Analysis

Over a period of several weeks in 2016, the Reference Group and supporters worked

hard to encourage as many people as possible to take part in the consultation about

what it’s like getting around the area. The information was gathered transparently using

a tool known as ‘Commonplace’ – a web based interactive map, allowing users to pin

places on a map and add comments about their experiences of getting around in that

place.

A number of key messages were obtained from this engagement period, with requests

for new green spaces, improved pavements, safer junctions and renovated streets that

work better for everyone. A copy of the key findings for Heaton & Ouseburn is attached

as Appendix 2 to this report. The findings contributed significantly to the evidence base

for prioritising and developing the design interventions in each of the three

neighbourhoods.

Turning Identified Needs into Proposals

A national procurement competition was undertaken to identify an independent urban

design resource that could work with; the findings from the needs analysis; the technical

information (speed, collisions, traffic flows, pedestrian and cycle counts and parking

surveys); and the local knowledge and insights of the Reference Group themselves.

Design workshops and site visits helped to draft and refine the ideas into a broad

‘neighbourhood plan’ for each area, with each containing a number of constituent

scheme proposals.

The neighbourhood plans were discussed and challenged by both local elected

members and technical officers from the Council before the urban designers put

forward their final draft neighbourhood plan for consultation.

From October to November 2017, the general public were invited to make comments

- again using the Commonplace engagement tool - on the draft proposals for each

neighbourhood. The findings from this consultation are included in this report.

A timeline is presented overleaf in fig.1. It maps the different stages of the Streets for

People project to date.

5

The Streets for People Process and Timeline

Fig.1

5

December 2015

- April 2016

Feb - May 2016

Apr - Jul 2016

May - Sep 2016

December 2016

September -

November 2016

January - July

2017

September 2017

October -

November 2017

December 2017

- March 2018

March 2018

onwards

6

The Consultation Findings

The findings included in this report are drawn from the public

consultation exercise which ran from the 16th October to the 30th

November 2017.

The consultation was hosted via the Commonplace online platform,

inviting interested people to view and comment on the draft proposals within the three

neighbourhoods.

Proposals were presented in words and images, explaining the problems and potential

solutions, as well as the advantages the changes might deliver.

7

Participants were given the option of completing a survey online, or completing a paper

survey, about their reaction to the proposed improvement, available at a range of

neighbourhood-based locations such as libraries and cafes, or via a telephone request

for a questionnaire to be sent through the post.

Survey questions were designed to be balanced and non-leading, focusing on the

collection of a clear BAND of information collecting information about participants’:

• Behaviour (modes of transport used to travel around the neighbourhood).

• Attitudes (likes/dislikes about each of the proposals).

• Needs (perceptions of additional needs in terms of the strengthening or

adapting of proposals).

• Demographics (gender, age, mobility-impairing disabilities, home/work

postcodes).

Contributors could choose to complete the survey by responding to

the questions asked, leaving comments as necessary. They could

alternatively, or additionally, ‘agree’ with comments already

submitted and publicly visible. This was done by simply liking a

comment by clicking a ‘thumbs up’ icon. All such agreements have

been included in the analysis within this report.

As an alternative or additional feedback channel, 27 people also emailed with their

views about the Heaton and Ouseburn proposals. Emails included both support and

constructive criticism for proposals, with themes largely reflected in the main survey

findings.

Notes

• Grateful acknowledgements are extended to all research participants for their

valuable contribution to this consultation.

• As this was a self-selecting, non-geographically bounded consultation, with

the potential for multiple contributions by participants, the accuracy and

representativeness of the sample cannot be definitively determined.

• Respondents have been quoted verbatim, but anonymously, to preserve

confidentiality.

• The baseline number from which percentages have been calculated is shown

as ‘n=x’. This varies due to some respondents choosing not to respond to

certain questions.

• Percentages have been rounded and may therefore not total exactly 100.

• Percentages have also been calculated excluding missing data.

8

Key Engagement Statistics from Heaton & Ouseburn

A total of 2,644 contributions were received about the Heaton & Ouseburn proposals

– the highest number across all three Streets for People neighbourhoods.

These included online comments, agreements with comments, paper questionnaires

completed and emails received. (See fig.2).

Fig.2

The demographics of respondents who provided their details are summarised in

Appendix 1.

2,644contributions

Over 2,000agreements with online

comments were made

A further 257people viewed online, but did not comment

on, the proposals

Almost 200 people signed up for project

news & updates

9

Executive Summary

• In October/November 2017, Newcastle City Council ran an online public

consultation as part of the Streets for People project – a collaboration between the

City Council and three neighbourhoods of Newcastle – Arthur’s Hill & Fenham,

Heaton & Ouseburn, and Jesmond.

• Streets for People seeks to identify and deliver a range of improvements to promote

walking, cycling and sustainable travel.

• To date, initial engagement and consultation has led to a series of proposals being

developed to this effect in each neighbourhood. This current phase of consultation

was designed to gauge public opinion on these proposals, assessing perceptions of

their suitability, strengths and potential shortcomings.

• Over 2,600 responses were obtained in relation to the proposals for Heaton &

Ouseburn – with a wide range of respondents in terms of their demographic

characteristics.

• However, due to the self-selecting nature of participation in the consultation,

together with the lack of a distinct ‘population’ base, the partially available

demographics of the sample, and the possibility for duplicated participation, the

degree of accuracy of the captured data cannot be stated.

• The findings of the consultation in this area suggest a majority of respondents are

supportive of the proposals in overall terms – as evidenced by the many positive

comments received.

• The proposals for Heaton Park Road, Heaton Park View and Warwick

Street/Newington Road Junction attract applause for their potential to enhance

safety and allow pedestrians and cyclists to traverse these locations with greater

ease. However, each proposal is accompanied by a number of specific design

challenges/considerations – as suggested by respondents – to further enhance their

effectiveness in, and suitability for, the area.

• The proposals for Ravenswood Primary School Road Safety, Heaton Road and

Springbank Road Bridge and Ouseburn Road are often felt to negatively impact upon

convenient pedestrian and motor vehicle access. Thus, despite some recognition

and acknowledgment of their potential safety merits, these proposals are often felt

to require a greater degree of modification prior to their advancement.

Heaton in Focus

10

11

The Heaton Park Road Proposal

The location

• Heaton Park Road.

The idea

• Currently, walking down Heaton Park Road involves crossing lots of side streets.

The suggested plans for blended footways (where the pavement continues

across the side roads) give priority back to people using the street while not

blocking any access to people in vehicles.

• Preventing cars from parking right up to the junctions (which contravenes the

Highway Code) will increase visibility, so pedestrians will find it easier to check it

is safe to cross.

• The addition of a second zebra crossing will make it easier for people, particularly

children, to cross Heaton Park Road on the way to and from the nearby Hotspur

Primary School. Over 6,400 vehicles travel along Heaton Park Road in a 24-hour

period, which makes crossing the road difficult and dangerous during the walk

to school. An additional formal crossing will make this a lot safer. Along with other

changes like removing the centre line from the road (but not changing the

available width), this should help reduce traffic speed, further increasing safety.

As the highest level of footfall is likely to be at school start and end times, with far

less over the rest of the day, there is likely to be little negative effect on people

driving along the road. Speeds recorded

during surveys showed the average speed

of traffic on the road as it is to be under

25mph.

The potential benefits

• By introducing pedestrian priority along

Heaton Park Road, accessibility is

improved for people on foot and traffic is

slowed and discouraged from using these

streets as a thorough route, securing a

‘quiet block of streets’.

11

112 contributions

12

How Respondents Travel in and Around the Proposal Area

Walking and cycling both dominate as the most typical methods of travelling in and around the proposal area. Car driving is often

additionally specified. Just under 80% of respondents used more than one mode of transport to traverse the area. (See fig.3).

Fig.3

68% 65%

53%

19%13%

8% 5% 5% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

How Respondents Usually Travel in and Around the Proposal Area

n=55

12

13

What Appeals About the Heaton Park Road Proposal

Many respondents commented on, or agreed with an aspect of the Heaton Park Road proposal which they liked. Appeal clearly focused

on the potentially safer pedestrian experience in and around this location – as anticipated by over 40% of respondents. The introduction of

a second zebra crossing was also applauded. (See fig.4). (More than one response/agreement was sometimes given).

Fig.4

43%

24%

12%10%

7%

23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Safer pedestrian

experience

Crossing facilities General praise Blended footpaths Improved safety

overall

Other

The Appeal of the Heaton Park Road Proposal

13

n=112

14

What Respondents Said They Liked About the Proposal for Heaton Park Road…

“hopefully the 2nd zebra

crossing will make cars

go more slowly overall”

“if it's true that this is

a safe way to share

the crossing area then I

think it's a very good

move”

“this promotes pedestrian

safety. Heaton is a residential

area…it should be easy to

walk or cycle around,

especially if you’re older,

disabled, or pushing a buggy”

“I like the extra

zebra crossing

to help kids

cross the road”

for school”

“I think it’s

important to create

safer access to the

park”

“these are all good ideas

which will make it much

easier to use and cross

Heaton Park Road”

14

15

What Respondents Dislike About the Heaton Park Road Proposal

Despite a high level of praise for this proposal, many respondents commented on, or agreed with what they felt were its less appealing

aspects. These were diverse in nature, but often focused on the view that the proposals were insufficient in their scope (it is debatable

whether this is actually a “dislike”), or that safety would be compromised.

A myriad of other dislikes - each specified by just one or two respondents - included perceptions of increased congestion, rat-running,

restricted access and parking, a poorly located crossing and unnecessary expenditure on a non-priority need in the area. (See fig.5).

(More than one response/agreement was sometimes given).

Fig.5

13%

10%

6% 5%

29%

0%

20%

40%

Proposal scope

insufficient

Safety compromised Relocation of crossing Insufficient cycle

lanes/ways

Other

What Respondents Dislike About the Heaton Park Road Proposal

n=112

15

16

Suggested Improvements to the Heaton Park Road Proposal

Despite its broad appeal, many respondents suggested improvements to the Heaton Park Road proposal. In improving this proposal,

respondents most often focused on suggestions for additional crossing facilities, with suggestions for more crossing points and consideration of

a raised crossing to act as a speed hump. A variety of additional improvements, each specified by a comparatively small percentage of

respondents, are also shown. (More than one response/agreement was sometimes given). (See fig.6).

Fig.6

21%

9%8% 8%

7%

30%

0%

20%

40%

More crossing

facilities

Restrict through

traffic/access

Increased

enforcement

Environmental

improvements

Increase cycling

fac./lanes

Other

Suggested Improvements to the Heaton Park Road Proposal

n=112

16

17

Conclusions and Challenges for the Heaton Park Road Proposed

Design Package

Considering all of the feedback on this proposal, there are some aspects of the

proposal that stand out and deserve to be explored further – this may ultimately lead

to some changes to the design of this scheme.

Specifically:

Potential for decorative treatments on the carriageway, bikes, footprints,

etc. printed across Heaton Park Road and at the intersections with side roads.

Raise the zebra crossing on a speed table and decrease speed limit to 20mph.

Is there an argument to make the zebra a light-controlled crossing to make is

easier and safer to get out of Wandsworth Road and Mowbray Street and

make the crossing safer?

Is the crossing in the correct location on Heaton Park Road? Would the crossing be

more effective at the Heaton Grove end of Heaton Park Road?

Consider closing Wandsworth Road and Mowbray Street at their junctions

with Heaton Park Road.

Create stronger links between the Heaton Park Road scheme and the Strategic

Cycle Route which crosses it (coloured tarmac, signage, carriageway marking).

Is it possible to tackle forecourt parking and parking too close to the junctions

which obstructs the view of motorists exiting the side streets and joining Heaton Park

Road?

Generally making Heaton Park Road more comfortable for cycling towards

Byker.

Is it possible to change the priority between Wandsworth Road and

Stannington Avenue to favour east – west traffic and benefit cycles?

These design challenges will be worked through as and when this

package of measures progresses onto detailed design.2

17

18

The Heaton Park View Proposal

The location

• Heaton Park View, Shaftesbury Grove, Tintern Crescent, Warwick Street.

The idea

• Heaton Park View is a busy route for people walking towards the city centre from

Heaton but crossing the side streets can be awkward, particularly for people with

pushchairs or in wheelchairs. The junction of Shaftesbury Grove and Heaton Park

View is very wide. This makes it difficult to cross safely, there are no dropped kerbs

and a railing which partially blocks the pavement. Introducing a blended

footway (all one level) here would make crossing the road a lot safer and

wouldn’t affect the traffic.

• Installing a zebra crossing here will make access to the park safer, as well as

allowing people to cross easily before the pavement stops on the north side of

Heaton Park View. This is an improvement over the current traffic island as it

allows people to cross the road in one go.

• The end of Tintern Crescent has had some improvement work in the past and the

proposed changes would bring this up to modern standards. The addition of

trees should improve the appearance of the street and make it less obvious as a

through route.

• Heaton Park access from the top of Warwick Street is currently a problematic

area for people trying to get into and out of the Park. It is often difficult to cross,

and it is currently impossible to cycle

along Heaton Park Road and into the

Park.


The proposals don’t solve the problem entirely,

as there are several restrictions on what can

change due to limited space and because this

is a bus route. However, through minor tweaks

(such as putting in a dropped kerb at the lights,

so that cyclists can access the park from Heaton

Park Road, and a new crossing directly into the

park) some useful changes have been

suggested. As the sequence of the traffic signals

will not change, the suggested designs will have

very little, if any, negative impact on road users.

18

96 contributions

19


Whilst walking emerged as the most typical method of travelling in and around the proposal area, this was frequently accompanied

by additional transport modes, including cycling (54%) and car driving (46%). (See fig.7). Around 85% of respondents used more than

one mode of transport to traverse the area.

Fig.7

61%54%

46%

16% 14% 11%5% 2% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


n=43

20

What Appeals About the Heaton Park View Proposal

Around 90% of respondents commented on, or agreed with a comment on, an aspect of the Heaton Park View proposal which they

liked. Comments focused clearly on three main elements of improved access to Heaton Park, together with improved safety for both

pedestrians and cyclists - often due to the introduction of potential crossing facilities. (See fig.8).


Fig.8

39%

36% 35%

11% 11%

8%

20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Improved park

access

Improved safety

overall

Crossing facilities General praise Removal of

railings

Junction

improvement

Other

The Appeal of the Heaton Park View Proposal

20

n=96

21

What Respondents Said They Liked About the Proposal for Heaton Park View…

“I like the improved

access to the park for

people on foot or riding

bikes”

“I like the safer

crossing for

pedestrians, and the

forward cycle areas in

front of the traffic”

“This helps to unlock the

Heaton Park/Armstrong Park

cycleway which is very

popular and family-friendly”

“This makes the

appalling

junction safe”

“In general, the

proposals improve

the entrances to

Heaton Park which is

to be encouraged”

“The new zebra crossing is

fantastic at the east park

entrance. I cross here with

two small kids several times

a week and it's quite

hazardous so this is great

news”

21

22

What Respondents Dislike About the Heaton Park View Proposal

Despite a high level of praise for this proposal, many respondents commented on what they felt were its less appealing aspects. These

were diverse in nature, but often focused on the view that the proposals were insufficient in their scope or that safety would be

compromised. (See fig.9). A myriad of other dislikes included perceptions of restricted access and parking, removal of crossing

facilities, unnecessary expenditure on a non-priority need in the area, which would subsequently be unenforceable, reduced

visibility/sightlines, cyclists potentially using footpaths, insufficient cycle lanes and increased congestion. (More than one

response/agreement was sometimes given).

Fig.9

9%6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

43%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Proposal

scope

insufficient

Safety

compromised

Restricted

access

Pavement not

sufficiently

extended

Generally poor

idea

Waste of

money

Unenforceable Other

What Respondents Dislike About the Heaton Park View Proposal

n=96

22

23

Suggested Improvements to the Heaton Park View Proposal

Many respondents suggested potential improvements to the Heaton Park View proposal. In improving this proposal, respondents most

often focused on suggestions to restrict through traffic/access (often related to introducing a modal filter on Tintern Crescent to reduce

rat-running) and adding a cyclist phase/modified traffic flow arrangement to traffic signals. A variety of additional improvements, each

specified by a very small percentage of respondents, are also shown. (More than one response/agreement was often given). (See fig.10).

Fig.10

14%

9% 8%

5% 5% 5%

27%

0%

20%

40%

Restrict through

traffic/access

Traffic signals

modification

Strategically

address increased

traffic

Increase cycle

lanes/fac.

Tackle speeding

traffic

Add./better

footpaths

Other

Suggested Improvements to the Heaton Park View Proposal

n=96

23

24

Conclusions and Challenges to the Heaton Park View Proposed

Design Package




Specifically:

Look at the potential of blocking off one end of Tintern Crescent to vehicles.

Consider the benefits of making Heaton Park View one-way.

Would it be possible to extend the continuous pavements idea down both

sides of Heaton Park View but review the idea on Shaftsbury Grove because of

the gradient of the street?

Tackle parking issues on Heaton Park View.

Is it possible to add a cycle phase at the Heaton Park View/Warwick Street Traffic

Lights?


package of measures progresses onto detailed design.

24

25

The Warwick Street and Newington Road Junction

Proposal

The location

• Warwick Street and Newington Road Junction.

The idea

• At present this junction is an obstacle between the residents of Sandyford and

the City Stadium and Hotspur Primary School. Also, people walking from Heaton

towards town have to stop twice to get across to Newington Road. With over 200

vehicles passing every 15 minutes at peak times, the junction provides a poor

gateway to the area for people travelling by foot or bike.

• Lots of pedestrians and cyclists want to get from City Stadium over Warwick

Street, and at present it is difficult to do this. The plans remove some of the clutter

on the pavement at the bottom of Warwick Street, which makes this much easier.

They also include a larger pavement on the corner where the new Star and

Shadow cinema is. This could be a very pleasant area, with trees, and more

space for pedestrians.


• Updating the pavement and access to Newington Road alongside the park will

help separate people trying to cross Warwick Street by bike and on foot and

allow what is now an unsightly blockage

to be visually improved at the same time.

• The proposed changes will require the

removal of the left turn lane from Warwick

Street on to Newington Road, which may

add a couple of minutes on to some

journeys by car. However, this has to be

offset against the benefits of providing

more space for pedestrians (this area is

widely used by children accessing

Hotspur and St. Catherine’s schools, as

well as local nurseries).

25

83 contributions

26


Whilst walking clearly dominates as the most typical method of travelling in and around the proposal area, this was frequently

accompanied by additional transport modes, including cycling (59%) and car driving (43%). (See fig.11). Almost 90% of respondents

used more than one mode of transport to traverse the area.

Fig.11

68%59%

43%

18%9%

5% 5% 2% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


n=36

26

27

What Appeals About the Warwick Street and Newington Road Junction Proposal

Around two-thirds of respondents commented on/agreed with an aspect of the Warwick Street and Newington Road Junction

proposal which they liked. Comments focused clearly on perceptions of a more attractive environment via reduced clutter, together

with general praise and improved safety for both pedestrians and cyclists. (See fig.12).


Fig.12

33%

23%

18%

13%

28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

More attractive

environment

General praise Improved safety overall Junction improvement Other

The Appeal of the Warwick Street and Newington Road Junction Proposal

27

n=83

28

What Respondents Said They Liked About the Proposal for Warwick Street and Newington Road Junction…

“It's a messy junction at the

moment and tidying up the

cycle access from Ouseburn up

towards Sandyford would be

very welcome”

“it's very dangerous to

cycle on Warwick Street at

the moment …some have

no lights/hi-vis or can't

manage the slope”

“about time the cycle

crossing and pedestrian use

was resolved…it’s currently

dangerous and confusing for

cyclists and pedestrians alike”

“This is a massive

improvement for both

cyclists and

pedestrians”

“This will improve an

unlovely part of the

area”

“I like the safety

improvements for people on

foot and on bikes”

29

What Respondents Dislike About the Warwick Street and Newington Road Junction Proposal

Despite a high level of praise for this proposal, many respondents commented on/agreed with what they felt were its less appealing

aspects. These were diverse in nature, but most frequently focused on the removal of the left turn lane from Warwick Street onto

Newington Road. Increased congestion was felt by some to be a natural consequence of such a measure (receiving a number of

‘agreements’), whilst others queried whether the proposals were insufficient in their scope. (See fig.13). A myriad of other dislikes

included perceptions of increased rat-running, increased journey times and air pollution, restricted access and reduced traffic speed,

unnecessary expenditure on a non-priority need in the area, reduced road width and the view that this is pandering to cyclists.


Fig.13

25%

10%8% 8% 8%

47%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Proposed left turn

removal

Proposals insufficient

in their scope

Increased

congestion

Pandering to cyclists Rat-running

increased

Other

What Respondents Dislike About the

Warwick Street and Newington Road Junction Proposal

n=83

30

Suggested Improvements to the Warwick Street and Newington Road Junction Proposal

Suggested improvements to the Warwick Street/Newington Road Junction proposal most often focused on suggestions for scrapping the

proposal, adding more crossing facilities, widening cycle lanes, and considering signal/signage modifications. (See fig.14).


Fig.14

12%

7% 6% 6%

47%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Scrap proposal/redraft More crossing facilities Widen cycle lanes Signal/signage

modifications

Other

Suggested Improvements to the

Warwick Street and Newington Road Junction Proposal

n=83

30

31

Conclusions and Challenges for the Junction of Warwick Street and

Newington Road Proposed Design Package




Specifically:

Make sure that the design communicates clearer proposals to keep the left turn

from Warwick Street into Newington Road and only remove the filter lane.

Ensure that the right turn for cycles from Warwick Street into Newington Road

is adequately catered for.

Tackle the excessive parking on Newington Road south to make access

from Warwick Street more comfortable for pedestrians and cyclists.

Resurface the closed end of Newington Road South (rough path

between Ouseburn Centre and Elizabeth Street) to make an accessible

route for pedestrians and cyclists.



31

32

The Springbank Road Bridge and Ouseburn Road

Proposal

The location

• Ouseburn Road; Spring Bank Road.

The idea

• To create a new footway on one side of the Springbank Road Bridge, helping to

connect to the entrance to Armstrong Park, making it easier and safer to get in

and out of the Park. To create the space for the new footway, the width of the

road on the bridge will need to be reduced to 3.5m, making it passable in only

one direction at a time. Priority would be given to vehicles travelling west. The

aim is to calm traffic speeds and create the extra space for the new footway.

• The mini roundabout on Ouseburn Road, north of Spring Bank Road, is the

proposed location of a set of bollards to prevent through traffic but maintain

access to houses. Removing through traffic from Ouseburn Road will make it safer

and more comfortable to walk and cycle along to Jesmond Dene.


• Calmed and reduced traffic and a safer pedestrian/cyclist experience.

32

101 contributions

33


Whilst walking clearly emerges as the most typical method of travelling in and around the proposal area, this was frequently

accompanied by additional transport modes, including car driving (49%) and cycling (39%). (See fig.15). 75% of respondents used

more than one mode of transport to traverse the area.

Fig.15

76%

49%

39%

20%14% 12%

6%2% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


n=45

34

What Appeals About the Springbank Road Bridge and Ouseburn Road Proposal

Many respondents commented on an aspect of the Springbank Road Bridge and Ouseburn Road proposal which they liked.

Comments focused clearly on perceptions of improved safety for both pedestrians and cyclists (39%), often as a result of reduced

through traffic. (See fig.16). (More than one response/agreement was sometimes given).

Fig.16

39%

17%

7%

30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Improved safety Reduced through traffic Reduced congestion Other

The Appeal of the Springbank Road Bridge and Ouseburn Road Proposal

34

n=101

35

What Respondents Said They Liked About the Proposal for Springbank Road Bridge and Ouseburn Road…

“It’s an excellent idea

to have a pavement as

it increases safety for

pedestrians”

“Although an

inconvenience for me at

times, I agree with

making Ouseburn Road

closed to through

traffic”

“This stretch of road is not

suitable for motor vehicles. It

will create a very attractive

country lane for pedestrians

and cyclists”

“It's much safer like this

- it's very dangerous as

it is. I use it with two

children and a dog to get

into the park”

“This will be much

safer for vulnerable

road users”

“I'm all for anything that will

encourage more people to

cycle and walk and

discourage cars”

36

What Respondents Dislike About the Springbank Road Bridge and Ouseburn Road Proposal

Respondents additionally commented on what they felt were the less appealing aspects of this proposal, with a focus on potential

problems caused by restricted bus and car access. Increased congestion followed these concerns. A number of ‘agreements’ to a

comment that that the proposal had been constructed with a lack of local knowledge were also made.

A myriad of other dislikes included perceptions of compromised safety, a lack of proposal clarity, an increase in air pollution,

pedestrian inconvenience, reduced visibility/sightlines and a compromise in safety. (See fig.17).


Fig.17

44%

28%

15%

11%

46%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Restricted bus access Restricted car access Increased congestion Safety compromised Other


Springbank Road Bridge and Ouseburn Road Proposal

n=101

37

Suggested Improvements to the Springbank Road Bridge and Ouseburn Road Proposal

In improving this proposal, respondents most often focused on suggestions for additional and improved footpaths (dedicated and

resurfaced), public transport considerations (routes/access/modified, smaller buses, etc.), extended parking restrictions and a removal

of access restrictions altogether. Many other suggestions (e.g. a one-way system and tackling speeding traffic) – each given by just one

or two respondents – were made. (See fig.18). (More than one response/agreement was sometimes given).

Fig.18

16%

10%7% 6% 6%

34%

0%

20%

40%

Add./improved

footpaths

Public transport

considerations

Extend parking

restrictions

Remove access

restrictions

Tackle speeding

traffic

Other

Suggested Improvements to the

Springbank Road Bridge and Ouseburn Road Proposal

n=101

37

38

Conclusions and Challenges for the Ouseburn Road & Springbank

Road Bridge Proposed Design Package (Combined feedback from

both the Heaton & Ouseburn & Jesmond Commonplaces)




Specifically:

The proposals for the priority movements over the bridge seem to be acceptable but

there needs to be more clarity about how the priority would work and

the suitability for buses – better management of parking on Stratford Grove,

improved visibility for right turners from the bridge into Stratford Grove perhaps including

a convex mirror or better management of the vegetation could be addressed through

the proposals?

Proposed restrictions to motor vehicles on Ouseburn Road have been vehemently

opposed by some people – for example, there are fears that residents won’t be able to

get out of the valley in their cars in bad weather because Springbank Road and

Stratford Grove are too steep. Is it possible to restrict access to include

residents and exclude through traffic?

Is there any design solution to improving the safety of Ouseburn Road and

retaining vehicular access?

Managing parking along the park wall at the turning onto the bridge would

improve manoeuvrability, particularly for buses.

Is there an opportunity to also fix the drainage issues around the chicane

build-out at the entrance of the park?

Clarify if there a need for footpaths on both sides of the bridge or would it be

better to stick to one footpath but on the other side of the bridge?



38

39

The Heaton Road Proposal

The location

• Heaton Road to the Coast Road.

The idea

• To extend the recently installed cycle lanes on Heaton Road up to the junction

with the Coast Road by the Corner House. The extension would be segregated

from the carriageway using light segregation techniques.

• These are usually low poles, orcas, or similar and they are used to create a lane

for cycles, separate from the footpath and the carriageway. Cycle lanes will be

provided on both sides of the road.

• Parking spaces will be provided outside the cycle lane and the entrances to

driveways and side roads will be retained with appropriate gaps in the

segregation.


• Builds on recently installed cycling infrastructure to create a strong north – south

route through the area connecting up schools, shops and other services.

39

2012 contributions

40



accompanied by additional transport modes, including car driving (71%) and cycling (56%). (See fig.19). Almost 90% of respondents

used more than one mode of transport to traverse the area.

Fig.19

82%

71%

56%

31%

14% 13%8% 5% 3% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


n=278

41

What Appeals About the Heaton Road Proposal

Many respondents commented on an aspect of the Heaton Road proposal which they liked. Appeal clearly focused on the potential

extension of cycle lanes on Heaton Road (21%), which a number of respondents felt would improve safety for both cyclists and in overall

terms. (See fig.20). (More than one response/agreement was sometimes given).

Fig.20

21% 20%

8% 7% 6% 6%

24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Extended cycle

lanes

Safer cycling

experience

Encouraging

cycling

General praise Safer pedestrian

experience

Area/cycling

connectivity

Other

The Appeal of the Heaton Road Proposal

41

n=2012

42

What Respondents Said They Liked About the Proposal for Heaton Road…

“The cycle lanes will make

cycling to work and school

much less stressful”

“There are good cycling and

walking routes around Heaton

but these are disjointed, so

action to link them up is very

welcome”

“Providing protected cycle

lanes on both sides of Heaton

Road is a great idea and will

definitely encourage more

people to cycle. This will make

access to St. Theresa’s

School much safer for children

and parents to cycle there”

“This will encourage

more people to travel

by bike”

“Improving active travel in

Heaton is very important

regarding Newcastle's air

pollution”

“The principle of extending the

existing cycle path provision is the

right one – we must start

changing the attitude that motor

traffic is king”

43

What Respondents Dislike About the Heaton Road Proposal

A sizeable proportion of respondents commented on/agreed with what they felt were the less appealing aspects of this proposal, with a

focus on potential problems caused by restricted car access and parking, feelings of compromised safety, increased congestion and rat-

running and the removal of traffic lights. (See fig.21). ‘Agreements’ to critical comments that the scheme was ill-thought out, with the

intention of unnecessarily closing main routes and removing parking availability, to the detriment of safety, were evident. A myriad of other

dislikes included perceptions of increased journey times and consequent air pollution, a pandering to cyclists, insufficient

cycle/traffic/pedestrian segregation and a reduced road width. (More than one response/agreement was often given).

Fig.21

38%

30%27% 26%

22%

17%

6%

48%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Restricted

access

Safety

compromised

Increased

congestion

Restricted

parking

Removal of St.

Gabriel's traffic

lights*

Increased rat-

running

Journey times

increased

Other

What Respondents Dislike About the Heaton Road Proposal

n=2012

*now withdrawn from the proposal.

43

44

What Respondents Said They Disliked About the Proposal for Heaton Road…

“I’m concerned about the

removal of parking on

Heaton Road resulting in

parking on the other side of

the road”

“Making Heaton Road

much narrower will also

add to congestion in

the area”

“Roads are for cars and need

to remain so. Heaton Road is

wide enough for cycles as it

is. It doesn't need to change”

“I won't be able to

access my own

property without

running someone over!”

“It is dangerous to all

road users. It will also

reduce the space for

residents' parking on

the road”

“People do still need to use

cars - local residents need

to park and to get in and

out”

44

45

Suggested Improvements to the Heaton Road Proposal

The most frequent suggestions for improvement to this proposal focused on removing access restrictions (often relating to Alexandra Road and

Cartington Terrace), retaining the traffic lights at St. Gabriel’s (already decided) and tackling speeding traffic. A wide and diverse variety of

additional improvements are also shown. (See fig.22). (More than one response/agreement was sometimes given).

Fig.22

25%

16%12% 12% 11% 11%

8% 7%

39%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Suggested Improvements to the Heaton Road Proposal

n=2012

45

46

Conclusions and Challenges for the Heaton Road Proposed Design

Package




Specifically:

Retaining the traffic signals at the St. Gabriel’s Avenue/Cartington Terrace

junction with Heaton Road.

Addressing the raft of parking issues in the area – coach parking for the

Heaton Medicals Rugby Ground, car parking for visitors to the numerous local

destinations (People’s Theatre, Heaton Medicals, St. Gabriel’s Church, Heaton Mosque),

encroachment of visitor parking into residential streets. For example, looking again at

the design of the cycle lanes to explore whether it is possible to retain more parking on

Heaton Road.

Is it possible to make the junctions of side roads on Heaton Road safer for

cyclists – for example consider continuous footways over Jesmond Vale Lane and

Burlington Gardens

Use design to address the perceived conflict between pedestrians, cyclists

and motorists in shared spaces.

Consider the benefits of a one-way system on the East - West Streets

(Simonside/Rothbury/Alexandra/Cartington) which includes cycle provision and traffic

calming.

Consider the benefits of blocking off one or more of the north/south streets

– Lesbury, Sefton, or Couquet, for example.

Consider interventions on the wider network to discourage commuter traffic

cutting through Heaton.

Consider Holderness and Beatrice Roads being one-way, out only, to Jesmond

Road.

Introducing more speed reduction measures.

Explore opportunities to introduce tree planting into the scheme proposals,

especially birch trees, which are effective against pollution.



46

47

The Road Safety Around Ravenswood Primary School

Proposal

The location

• Ravenswood Road, Coast Road, end of Chillingham Road, middle of Alexandra

Road and Cartington Terrace.

The idea

• To improve road safety in the vicinity of Ravenswood Primary School by installing

new crossings on Chillingham Road and reducing through traffic on side roads in

the area by installing a bollard or other kind of traffic filter on Alexandra Road

and Cartington Terrace.

• Turning Ravenswood Road into a one-way street (in from Chillingham Road)

would reduce the volume of traffic whilst creating the space to increase the

width of the footway to make riding a bike, scooting, or walking to school more

comfortable.


• Less traffic on some residential streets and approaches to Ravenswood Primary

School. Improved road safety and safer crossings. Perceptions of safety generally

increased so that parents and carers feel more confident about choosing to

walk or cycle their children to school.

Quieter residential streets generally

become more comfortable for walking,

riding a bike and playing out.

47

213 contributions

48



accompanied by car driving (67%) and cycling (47%) (See fig.23). Over 90% of respondents used more than one mode of transport to

traverse the area.

Fig.23

85%

67%

47%

28%

15% 13%9%

5% 5% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


n=83

49

What Appeals About the Ravenswood Primary School Road Safety Proposal

Many respondents commented on an aspect of the Ravenswood Primary School Road Safety proposal which they liked. Appeal

clearly focused on the promotion of increased walking and reduced driving, together with the potentially safer experience in and

around this location. The addition of crossing facilities and a more attractive, less polluted environment were also applauded.

(See fig.24). (More than one response/agreement was sometimes given).

Fig.24

27%

22%

8% 8% 7% 7%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Less driving/more

walking

Improved safety

overall

Crossing facilities More attractive

environment

Reduced

pollution

General praise Other

The Appeal of the Ravenswood Primary School Road Safety Proposal

49

n=213

50

What Respondents Said They Liked About the Proposal for Ravenswood Primary School Road Safety

“Anything that makes it safer

for pedestrians, cyclists, the

elderly (who are not protected

inside a car) needs to be done”

“This is brilliant and will

keep children safe. The

increased pavement will

encourage more walking

to school and less cars”

“I like the idea of widening

the footpath next to the

school and hope that this

would be wide enough and

designed in a way which

enables pedestrians,

cyclists and children using

scooters to use it

together safely”

“I like the idea of making

Ravenswood Road one-way and

trying to make cycling and

walking a more pleasant and less

polluted experience”

“Reducing traffic volume

and ideally speed too is a

good idea around the

school approaches”

“this will mean that traffic is

calmed and pollution is reduced.

I also like the idea of planters

rather than railings”

50

51

What Respondents Dislike About the Ravenswood Primary School Road Safety Proposal

The less appealing aspects of this proposal focused on potential problems caused by restricted car access and pedestrian

inconvenience, followed by restricted parking, increased congestion, compromised safety and increased rat-running. (See fig.25).

A myriad of other dislikes included perceptions of increased journey times, a less attractive environment, a poorly located crossing,

and the view that the proposals are insufficient in their scope. (More than one response/agreement was sometimes given).

Fig.25

30

25%23%

20% 19%16%

10%

46%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Pedestrian

inconvenience

Restricted car

access

Restricted

parking

Increased

congestion

Safety

compromised

Increased rat-

running

Other


Ravensood Primary School Road Safety Proposal

n=213

51

52

What Respondents Said They Disliked About the Proposal for Ravenswood Primary School Road Safety

“Traffic may seek

alternative routes along

other residential

streets at increased

volume and speed”

approaches

“Road blocks will produce

congestion in Sefton

Avenue, Coquet Terrace,

Lesbury Road and

Wharton Terrace”

“Congestion in the area is

already bad and also the

parking around school pick

up is problematic for

residents”

“There are too many

restrictions, thus increasing

traffic through fewer

unrestricted streets”

“I think this is going

to cause a lot of

problems for

residents”

“I do not think removing

parking is the solution

here”

52

53

Suggested Improvements to the Ravenswood Primary School Road Safety Proposal

The most frequent suggestions for improvement to this proposal were to scrap/redraft it, introduce a one-way system and consider a more

attractive environment. A wide and diverse variety of additional improvements are also shown. (See fig.26).

(More than one response/agreement was often given).

Fig.26

17%

8% 8% 8% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5%

35%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Suggested Improvements to the Ravenswood Primary School Road Safety Proposal

n=213

53

54

Conclusions and Challenges for the Ravenswood Primary School

Road Safety Proposed Design Package




Specifically:

The impact of reversing the proposed one-way on Ravenswood Road

making it east bound.

The impact of closing Ravenswood Road at Chillingham Road end for through

traffic and making it access only for residents.

Establish whether additional measures might be helpful for the short section of

Clarendon Road between Ravenswood Road and Farnley Road, possibly a modal

filter at the Clarendon Road/Ravenswood Road junction?

Look at the possibility of making Stanmore Road and the back lanes leading to Farnely

Road and Sackville Road one-way away from the school.

Including road safety improvements for traffic joining Chillingham Road

from all the side streets, right turns particularly treacherous, potentially signalising the

junctions of Alexandra Road and Sackville Road?

Providing cycling facilities for the whole length of Chillingham Road.

Tackling the complex parking and access issues including separate and

adequate facilities for parking and access for residents and visitors (school, nursery,

clinics, vets and other services) whilst including safe walking and cycling facilities.

Creating safe and convenient school bus/coach parking on

Ravenswood Road for school pickups and drop offs.

Looking at the possibility of creating an alternative cycle entrance to the school

grounds, in the top corner of the playing fields, closest to Chillingham Road roundabout;

improve and widen the existing path.

Establish whether the proposal to relocate the pedestrian crossing on

Chillingham Road represents value for money.

The proposed pavement widening on Ravenswood Road should focus on

the section from Addycombe Terrace to Stanmore Road east because it is the most

heavily used by families.

55

Could cycling facilities be provided on Alexandra Road to make it the main cycle

route to Heaton Road?

Is there potential for creating a school exclusion zone on Ravenswood Road

at the school drop off and pick up times?



55

56

Appendix 1 – Overall Respondent Demographics

The Gender of Respondents

The Age of Respondents

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Under

18

18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+

4% 4%

18%

35%

15%18%

5%2%


26% 50% 25%


Under 40 40-59 60+ n=501

n=493

46% Male: 54% Female

n=501

56

57

Ward of Residence

* including Byker, Dene, South Jesmond, West Gosforth, Valley, Benton and Whickham

South/Sunniside wards.

Ward of Employment Location

* including Byker, Castle, Dene, East Gosforth, Elswick, Fawdon, Lemington, Parklands,

South Heaton, South Jesmond, Wingrove and 10 wards outside of Newcastle.

Mobility Impairing Disability

6% of respondents had a disability which impaired their mobility.

55%

21%

13%

11%

The Ward of Residence of Respondents

North Heaton

Ouseburn

South Heaton

Other wards*

24%

22%

14%

40%

The Ward of Employment of Respondents

Westgate

Ouseburn

North Heaton

Other wards*

n=488

n=299

57

58

The Residence of Respondents

58

59

Demographics Split by Proposal

Proposal Gender Age Mobility Home Ward Employment Ward

Heaton Park Road

Male: 40%

Female: 60%

Under 40: 27%

40-59: 60%

60 plus: 13%

2% with an

impairment to their

mobility

Ouseburn: 42%

North Heaton: 34%

South Heaton: 11%

Others: 13%

Ouseburn: 31%

Westgate: 23%

Others: 46%

Heaton Park View

Male: 50%

Female: 50%

Under 40: 33%

40-59: 48%

60 plus: 19%

2% with an

impairment to their

mobility

Ouseburn: 46%

North Heaton: 33%

South Heaton: 8%

Others: 13%

Ouseburn: 39%

Westgate: 16%

South Jesmond: 10%

Others: 35%

Warwick

Street/Newington

Road Junction

Male: 45%

Female: 55%

Under 40: 39%

40-59: 45%

60 plus: 16%

3% with an

impairment to their

mobility

Ouseburn: 50%

North Heaton: 28%

South Heaton: 13%

Others: 9%

Ouseburn: 33%

Westgate: 25%

South Jesmond: 13%

Others: 29%

Springbank Road

Bridge & Ouseburn

Road

Male: 40%

Female: 60%

Under 40: 27%

40-59: 42%

60 plus: 32%

5% with an

impairment to their

mobility

Ouseburn: 32%

South Jesmond: 32%

North Heaton: 24%

Others: 12%

Ouseburn: 40%

Westgate: 20%

South Jesmond: 16%

Others: 24%

Heaton Road

Male: 46%

Female: 54%

Under 40: 22%

40-59: 49%

60 plus: 27%

7% with an

impairment to their

mobility

North Heaton: 71%

Ouseburn: 9%

South Heaton: 6%

Others: 14%

Westgate: 28%

North Heaton: 23%

Ouseburn: 14%

Others: 35%

Ravenswood Primary

School Area

Male: 50%

Female: 50%

Under 40: 24%

40-59: 50%

60 plus: 28%

5% with an

impairment to their

mobility

North Heaton: 56%

South Heaton: 34%

Others: 10%

North Heaton: 21%

Westgate: 19%

South Heaton: 19%

Others: 41%

60

Appendix 2 – Previous Consultation Findings

61

61

62

62

Findings of a Public Consultation March 2018 · Primary School Area 56-62 Appendices Contents...

Documents

Transcript of Findings of a Public Consultation March 2018 · Primary School Area 56-62 Appendices Contents...