MIDDLESBROUGH COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE REPORT
Southfield Road – Consultation Findings
Elected Mayor: Ray Mallon
Executive Director for Neighbourhood and Communities: Kevin Parkes
Date: 23 April 2013
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
1. This report presents the outcomes of the public consultation gathered on potential improvements to the Southfield Road, as part of the future development aspirations for Teesside University. The report also seeks direction on the next steps.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
2. It is recommended that the Executive:
a) considers the consultations findings presented for the vehicular access arrangements / improvements for Southfield Road and advises on the next steps.
IF THIS IS A KEY DECISION WHICH KEY DECISION TEST APPLIES?
3. / It is over the financial threshold (£150,000)It has a significant impact on 2 or more wards
Non Key / X
DECISION IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINE
4. For the purposes of the scrutiny call in procedure this report is
Non-urgent / XUrgent report
If urgent please give full reasons
BACKGROUND AND EXTERNAL CONSULTATION
5. The Mayor approved the consultation on five options for the treatment of Southfield Road within the campus of Teesside University. The public considered their preference of:
a. Option 1 – No Closure;
b. Option 2 – Daytime Closure of Southfield Road (8.30am – 5.30pm);
c. Option 3 – Daytime Closure (8.30am – 5.30pm) and One Way Traffic;
d. Option 4 – Full Traffic Closure of Southfield Road; and,
e. Option 5 – Weekday Traffic Closure of Southfield Road and weekend vehicle access.
6. A comprehensive consultation has now been undertaken with public and private stakeholders across the town. Participation in the consultation process was significant, with 1,295 representations from members of the public, businesses and organisational stakeholders.
7. The consultation formally ran for a period of four weeks, between 11 February 2013 and 11 March 2013, although information on the proposals was publically available following Executive consideration on 18 January. Also, comments received after 11 March have been included in the considerations.
Purpose of Consultation
8. Teesside University’s estates strategy sets out the vision and benefits of an integrated campus heart. This strategy was endorsed by the Council’s Executive in July 2011. Discussions have been held over a number of years with the University and local stakeholders to investigate the feasibility of a potential closure.
9. To remain competitive, Teesside University has to adapt its business model to attract more full-time students in an increasingly challenging higher-education market. To attract new students, the University needs to complement their academic offer with an improved environment and lifestyle experiences. The closure of Southfield Road and the creation of a central square at the heart of the campus is considered a pivotal factor in achieving this. This would allow for a pedestrian-friendly campus and the completion of an important north-south campus pedestrian/cycle route.
10. Currently, the traffic flows, and general condition of Southfield Road create a barrier, which carves through the spatial and administrative heart of the University campus. The streetscene is currently fragmented and unwelcoming. This presents a poor image to prospective students. The quality of a University’s campus is a material factor for students, when choosing their University.
11. Given the range of public and private stakeholders who use the road, it was necessary to conduct a broad consultation to identify public opinion and identify a way forward for the issue.
12. Five provisional options were prepared as a basis for consultation. These outline options offer different solution for traffic management options ranging from keeping the existing arrangements to full traffic closure (see paragraph 5, above).
13. The consultation exercise aims to distil public opinion and identify those issues which need to be addressed in determining an outcome which maximises opportunities and minimises negative impacts.
Consultation Methodology
14. Public engagement and transparency was a key driver of this consultation. Care was taken to ensure that there was ample opportunity for all stakeholders across the town to submit their views for consideration.
15. Whilst the potential treatment area is localised, the future of Southfield Road and Teesside University have borough-wide significance and, as such, the consultation adopted a town-wide approach. Engagement opportunities provided included:
a. 3 x Half day drop-in sessions were arranged, advertised, and held in accessible locations near to Southfield Road: Civic Centre, 21st February; Breckon Hill Community Centre, 28th February; and, Civic Centre, 5th March;
b. 3 x Gazette notices and press releases on the consultation process and dates (as well as an editorial before the consultation began);
c. letters were hand delivered to local businesses on Linthorpe, Borough, Southfield, Waterloo and Victoria Roads;
d. the engagement of University stakeholders;
e. information being made available on the council website and consultation portal;
f. consultation with the Quality Taxi Partnership (covering all taxi trades) took place in a special meeting held on 26 February;
g. consultation with the local emergency service stakeholders took place in a special meeting held on 6 March;
h. a number of key institutional stakeholders such as the Chamber of Commerce, Middlesbrough College and Digital City;
i. all 10 of Middlesbrough’s libraries were provided with information, posters, documents and consultation forms;
j. all 25 x Community Councils were provided with hardcopies of the consultation report and associated information;
k. members of the University, Middlehaven and Gresham wards were briefed on the consultation process on Monday 14 January 2013, in advance of the consultation commencing;
l. all Council Ward Members were issued the reports and associated information on the consultation, in advance of commencement, on 5 February 2013; and,
m. hardcopy consultation questionnaires have been provided, on request, 1,100 copies of which were supplied.
16. The consultation questionnaire asked stakeholders to consider four questions: -
1. Would the Southfield Road area benefit from a package of highway and public realm improvements?
2. Please rank each of the consultation options in order of YOUR preference.
3. Please comment on your preferred option and why you would like to see this option implemented?
4. Do you have any alternative options which have not been considered in the consultation options?
Consultation Findings
17. 1,295 submissions were tendered to Middlesbrough Council in response to the consultation. Figure 1, details the response as to whether respondents think that any proposed improvements would be beneficial.
Figure 1 - Would the Southfield Road area benefit from a package of highway and public realm improvements? / Number / PercentageAgree / 414 / 32%
Disagree / 807 / 62%
Failed to Declare / 74 / 6%
Total / 1295
18. Consultees were asked to rank their preferences of the five proposed options. Figure 2 details the first preference of each of the responses.
Figure 2 - First Preference / Number / PercentageOption 1 – No Closure / 890 / 69%
Option 2 – Daytime Closure of Southfield Road (8.30am – 5.30pm) / 34 / 3%
Option 3 – Daytime Closure (8.30am – 5.30pm) and One Way Traffic / 13 / 1%
Option 4 – Full Traffic Closure of Southfield Road / 317 / 24%
Option 5 – Weekday Traffic Closure of Southfield Road and weekend vehicle access. / 21 / 2%
Failed to Declare / 20 / 2%
Total / 1295
Preferred Options – Underlying Issues
19. In asking the consultees for the reasoning behind their preferred option, trends have emerged with common themes rising to the surface. Given the volume of responses, the comments of respondents have been condensed into the opinions set out at Appendix A. Similarly, some organisation responses have been summarised in Appendix B.
20. Ostensibly, the consultation has divided opinion with 69% preferring the status quo and 30% of respondents advocating some form of closure option. However, these opinions need to be considered in the context of the detailed issues which underpin these views, and whether the risks can be managed or mitigated whilst maximising the benefits.
21. By far the most common concern was that of increased traffic congestion resulting from the potential closure of Southfield Road. By restricting the traffic in this area, it was thought that the resultant traffic flows on Borough Road and Linthorpe Road would be intolerable to businesses, visitors and residents.
22. Similarly, a frequent concern was that of traffic decanting into nearby residential areas, as motorists sought out alternative routes. It was thought that this could pose a heightened road safety risk in nearby residential areas; especially for the elderly, disabled and families with young children playing in the area.
23. A number of respondents have asserted that the status quo arrangements are adequate in the area. This allows access across a town-centre arterial route, the traffic in the area is declining so there is less of a road safety issue and local businesses and residents are satisfied with the existing arrangements.
24. Some businesses in the local area are concerned that they may suffer a loss of business as a result of the closure of Southfield Road. They are anxious that their customers will struggle with congestion and parking; and will no longer benefit from passing trade.
25. Some businesses and residents have expressed concern over a perception of their community becoming isolated by any proposed closure. Specifically, people from the Victoria Road and Waterloo Road areas (and adjacent streets) are concerned that they will be inconvenienced and effectively cut-off from the wider town centre community, with friends, customers, colleagues and relatives along Linthorpe Road and in Gresham.
26. In contrast, there have been many positive observations regarding the potential benefits of pedestrianisation of the area. Both advocates and some opponents of closing Southfield Road have commented that the proposals would need to be more bold and extensive to make it a meaningful development; citing the closure of the crossing area alone, as barely as worthwhile; and would not sufficient to achieve the campus heart which the university requires.
27. Many respondents have identified the closure of Southfield Road as a critical catalyst in the next stages of the growth and prosperity of both the University and surrounding area. Southfield Road is said to be looking tired and is functionally cumbersome. Compounding this is the fact that the road divides the campus aesthetically and functionally, and is considered to be a key deterrent to prospective students. Conversely, improvements are anticipated to attract a new crop of University applicants.
28. Some have identified a road closure, complemented by a high quality public realm as a major factor with which to attract additional local investment from both the University and private sector.
29. Many consider a campus heart as being able to offer a new public asset. It is thought that amenity would be greatly enhanced with a ‘greening’ of the open space; and that this would provide opportunities for the area to host University and community events.
30. Enhanced campus safety was a commonly recognised factor. With enhanced lighting and integration with the university’s CCTV / security arrangements, some respondents thought that they would feel much more secure in the area.
31. Some respondents argued that a proposed closure and development of a campus heart would be pivotal in attracting additional students to the area. Additionally, they considered it an important factor in retaining graduates (post qualification) within Middlesbrough, and the opportunities that this would create in terms of employment and wealth generation.
32. Teesside University’s formal response is set out in appendix C.
33. The University Community Council raised concerns with the consultation process, questioning the duration of the consultation, public engagement methods and the locations of the drop-in sessions.
34. Cllrs Rehman and Hanif asked that a petition submitted by University Community Council in November 2011, be acknowledged as part of this process. This petition had 756 signatories, related to a number of issues in the University Ward and was against closure. Following the closure of the consultation a further petition was submitted by the Islamic Society of Cleveland, Jamia Mosque Al-Madina. This petition included 296 signatories and was against closure.
Alternative Suggestions
35. Consultees were invited to suggest alternative measures which could deliver a consolidated campus and / or traffic solution; some of the suggestions are set out below.
36. A number of respondents cited the reopening of Victoria Road as a possible mechanism to compensate for the closure of Southfield Road and to cope with the displaced traffic. It is thought that this suggestion would undermine the desire for a campus feel, by moving the division elsewhere in the campus.
37. Some respondents suggested building over Southfield Road as a method of joining the campus. Similarly, pedestrian underpasses, footbridges and a tunnel for the traffic, were all suggested. These options are often bulky, create obstructive elevations and are cost prohibitive.
38. As a second preference, the Quality Taxi Partnership proposed an option which involved restricting access along Southfield Road to all vehicles with the exception of hackney carriages, private hire vehicles, buses and emergency vehicles. In addition it was proposed that permits should also be issued to businesses in Southfield Road allowing them to have vehicular access. Any model which restricts or prioritises use is often difficult to enforce, requiring expensive staffing or technology to manage. As a priority, any closure option would accommodate hackney carriages and private hire vehicles with turning areas, ranks and drop-off/collection points.
39. Some suggested that, given the academic year, closures should be restricted to term time only. In developing a campus heart, the University hope to create a year-round, active campus, which is a focal point for community and University events.
Comment
40. The consultation generated a significant response with 1,295 submissions. The consultation results demonstrate divided opinion, with the most common preferences being No Closure (69%) and Full Traffic Closure (24%).
41. For some, the closure of Southfield Road represents a challenging and concerning change to the context of the local area. These anxieties largely relate to road safety, local trading conditions, traffic congestion and navigating the local area.