Summary
The West Halifax Improved Streets for People scheme aims to deliver improvements to walking provision in West Halifax to benefit residents, businesses and visitors. This scheme is part of a wider programme across West Yorkshire, focused on connecting people in the communities of greatest economic need with job and training opportunities through accessible, attractive and cleaner transport. This will, in turn, help boost productivity, living standards and air quality, helping to create happier healthier communities for the future.
Providing an accessible, attractive and cleaner alternative to car journeys is at the heart of the Leeds City Region Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) – a major new programme of transport infrastructure investment secured as part of the West Yorkshire devolution deal.
The £457 million programme, which is being delivered by the Combined Authority in partnership with local authorities, is being paid for with money from the Department for Transport (DfT) and local match funding.
Making trips on foot, bicycle, or bus, rather than by car, also helps improve health and the environment. When we travel in these ways, we improve air quality by lowering pollution which has benefits for our health, and helps tackle climate change.
The scheme has previously been through three rounds of public and stakeholder consultation in 2020, 2021 and 2022. In early 2023, the scheme went through a period of public engagement, to update stakeholders on the current scheme plans. This period was not a formal public consultation, as the aim was to share the updated proposals based on the feedback received in previous rounds of consultation. This was conducted as a targeted engagement activity, to ensure the plans were made available to the stakeholders directly impacted by this scheme. This report details the engagement activity undertaken by Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (CMBC) between March and May 2023, to inform the final detailed designs of the West Halifax Improved Streets for People scheme.
Scheme background
In September 2020 Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (CMBC) undertook a survey with those who lived, worked and travelled through North and West Halifax to understand their barriers to walking and cycling, and the perceptions of traffic and movement in the two areas. The scheme was referred to as Calderdale Streets for People. This was undertaken to inform the early development of schemes that aim to improve the street environment making it more walking friendly. Following this, the scheme was split and taken forward separately as “West Halifax Improved Streets for People” and “North Halifax Improved Streets for People”. The Council team also carried out stakeholder engagement activity with local Councillors, community groups and businesses across the schemes.
CMBC developed concept designs and consulted on these between March and April 2021.
This consultation, which took place during the Outline Business Case (OBC) stage of the project, focused on the principles and locations of proposals. The feedback received was considered and used to refine the concept designs to preliminary designs and submitted with the OBC.
The results of the engagement survey and the first stage of consultation indicated strong support for the schemes.
- For West Halifax, positive and very positive responses to the proposals ranged from 37% to 79.1%, with an average across the scheme of 53.9%.
- Where key issues were raised by respondents, these were considered and, where appropriate, incorporated as part of the development of the concept designs prior to submission of the OBC.
A consultation on the designs submitted with the OBC took place between November 2021 and January 2022.
2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
---|---|---|---|
Public survey completed in September Proposals developed based on survey feedback | Proposals shared at first public consultation between March and April, and feedback incorporated into proposals Outline Business Case submitted in September Second public consultation launched in November | Second public consultation closed January Proposals updated in response to consultation feedback | Presented updated proposals to stakeholders and public between March and May Updated proposals, considering feedback to recent engagement Plan to submit Full Business Case later in 2023 |
This report focuses on how feedback from the most recent engagement has been considered and, where practicable, used to inform the development of the next stage of detailed designs before progressing to scheme approvals and delivery.
Responding to the 2021/22 consultation
In response to the 2021/22 public consultation, CMBC made changes to the proposals. Many of these changes were in response to feedback received as a result of the consultation, and aimed to address concerns raised at this stage, as well as taking forward opportunities highlighted by feedback around how this scheme can better meet the needs of stakeholders. In addition to the feedback from consultation and engagement, design changes were necessary following completion of additional onsite technical surveys, as well as reviewing the designs against national guidance for cycling and walking infrastructure that the scheme needs to follow. Details of the changes made in response to these factors can be found on the West Halifax Improved Streets for People project page.
Scheme area | You said | We did |
---|---|---|
Scheme wide | Do not support speed humps because when having to be mounted by buses off centre can damage buses and make for particular bumpy passenger experience. | Traffic calming features will be designed to meet latest design standards that reduce the "bumpy passenger experience”. Buses travelling over traffic calming features at appropriate speeds do not suffer damage. |
Beech Hill | Do not support double yellow lines outside first block of homes | We have removed the double yellow lines outside the first block of homes. |
Queens Road | Concern that Queens Road could see speeding issues if the parking is put into bays, giving drivers a clearer run. | To address this, we will be reducing carriageway widths and removing centreline road markings to reduce speeds. Other features such as trees will help to provide a psychological impact on driver speed perception to combat the issue. We will also provide a 20mph speed limit in the area. |
Queens Road | Queens Road at Gibbet is notoriously bad driving. Suggests 20mph for whole area. | 20mph speed limit to be provided in the area. |
Queens Road | Concerns about the number of crossings as it will reduce parking. | A balance between parking need and walking and cycling provision has been reviewed and amended where appropriate. |
Queens Road | Suggest removing barriers at junctions like Queens Road / Gibbet Street because they are damaged so often, they may as well not be there. | Guardrails are routinely being removed in other areas and will only be installed in higher risk areas. |
Queens Road | Suggest changes at the lights to avoid tailbacks when customers are trying to turn right into the Pellon Tyre and Auto Centre - by the Queens Road / Pellon junction. | We are proposing to include bus priority technology in the signals to address this problem. |
Gibbet Street | Suggest that the carriageway be narrowed to a single lane, at Gibbet Street near the mosque, and footways should be inaccessible to either park or drive on to improve safety and discourage anti-social driving. | This is proposed as part of the updated design. Parking on footways is aimed to be prevented by use of street furniture. |
Gibbet Street | Suggest that the carriageway be narrowed to a single lane, at Gibbet Street near the mosque, and footways should be inaccessible to either park or drive on to improve safety and discourage anti-social driving. | This is proposed as part of the updated design. Parking on footways is aimed to be prevented by use of street furniture. |
Gibbet Street | Footways should be inaccessible to either park or drive on. Buses travelling down here and slowing traffic would be useful. | The updated footway design includes street furniture, which will be used to prevent footway parking and driving. This is an existing bus route, so buses will be present on occasions. |
Gibbet Street | Suggestion made by Parking Services to incorporate Grape Street into the car park to increase the parking provision in this car park and to make the car park a nicer / smoother area. | Suggestion has been incorporated into design. |
Gibbet Street | Suggest a Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) ban on Gibbet/Hanson as an alternative to a one-way system. | The design has been adjusted to minimise the likelihood of HGV’s driving into the Model Village area. |
Gibbet Street | Suggests double yellow lines on the west side of the Lightowler Road. | Partial daytime parking restrictions are proposed. |
Gibbet Street | At Grape Street Car Park a request was made to create a larger car park by closing Grape Street to through traffic. | This has been included in the latest design. |
Gibbet Street | Concern that it is very busy at the children’s centre and health clinic. A crossing would be helpful at this position especially if it becomes busier due to the one-way routing. | A new raised pedestrian crossing point is proposed across Gibbet Street and across Lightowler Road. These two proposals will make the Children's Centre and Health Clinic easier for pedestrians to access. |
Model Village | Concerned that pocket parks on Gladstone will create anti-social behaviour (ASB) and littering. | We will look into bin provision across the scheme. It is expected that the higher quality design of the scheme may reduce the likelihood of ASB taking place here. |
Model Village | Suggested double yellow lines at the junctions in and out of the Model Village so it may aid in this area having and maintaining a regular refuse and recycling collection (currently this can be impacted by parked cars). | Proposals look to provide parking on one side only to improve access for emergency and service vehicles, with a clear route through. Project team is in dialogue with waste collection provider for this area. |
Model Village | Concern that proposals will mean children can no longer play safely in the street. | Gladstone Road at present contains a large number of vehicles parked illegally. Opening up of the area will encourage space. In addition, an informal space for play is proposed at the northern end of Gladstone Road, and another children’s play space is proposed in the north-east corner of the Model Village, thus increasing play space for children of all ages, away from the roads in the area. |
Model Village | Buses sometimes don’t stop at the stop right outside Stansfield Close due to the stop and people waiting hidden behind parked cars. Need to ensure bus stops are clear. | Bus borders are proposed, such that waiting facilities are visible to buses. Pavement parking measures are also to be installed. This location will also be bought into the carriageway from its existing lay-by arrangement. |
Model Village | Suggest Albert Street become one- way from Gibbet Street to Hanson Lane creating a circular one-way system (allowing parking to be retained). | Option included in latest proposals. |
Model Village | Suggest raised kerbs to protect access. | Alternative options have been considered in the revised design to protect the space. |
Model Village | Suggest providing more benches and seating in the area. | Additional seating is provided as part of the updated urban design. |
Model Village | HGVs and kerb parking make walking difficult in the area. | Pavement parking restrictions are being proposed where this is considered to be a problem, and over wide parking bays are being provided to accommodate wider cars, where space permits. |
Model Village | Needs to be accessible for the gully wagon as currently it is inaccessible and the gullies are blocked. | Improved parking provision to ensure all vehicles are parked on one side will enable improved access for larger vehicles (refuse, emergency, maintenance). |
Lister Court | Suggest need for a proper ramp from the back steps for people using wheelchairs and pushing buggies. | A compliant 1:20 route has been provided in the latest design in accordance with inclusive design principles. |
Parkinson Lane | Concerns that Parkinson Lane needs to be wide enough for 2 flow traffic. | Our latest designs will deliver the width of the carriageway at 6m, an increase from the original proposals of 5.5m. 6m is sufficient to permit vehicles to pass adequately where HGV’s and buses use the route, which will ensure better traffic flow. |
Parkinson Lane | Concern about speeding, lack of safety and noise pollution as key issues in the area. | The lower proposed speed limits in the area will help to reduce average speeds, which will help to reduce noise levels. |
Parkinson Lane | Concern about speeding outside of the school and don't think that speed cushions are the right solution. | To improve safety, we are proposing footway widening outside of the school. To address speeding, we are proposing a raised table as an alternative to the speed cushions. |
Parkinson Lane | Some concern was raised about the way that the road narrowing on Parkinson (nearest Queens Road) causes buses to get stuck in traffic often. They want the road to be wide enough to facilitate two- way vehicular flow. | The existing layout and previous design maintained road narrowing, the latest design provides a 6m wide carriageway to facilitate larger vehicle movement through the corridor. |
Parkinson Lane | The build out on Parkinson near the mouth of Lemington Avenue needs addressing because it is particularly dangerous as people race to drive through it at the same time. | Narrowings have been removed and replaced with other features to achieve the same outcome. |
Parkinson Lane | Suggest wider pavement heading south from the school. | We are proposing to widen the footway in both directions coming out of the school. |
Parkinson Lane | Chicanes would need to be replaced with other traffic calming infrastructure, specifically referencing a 20mph area. | A combination of raised tables is proposed in Parkinson Lane, to provide speed calming facilities and additional informal at-grade crossing points. The 20mph speed limit continues to be included in the proposals for Parkinson Lane. |
In addition to updating proposals, and responding to comments made in the 2021/22 consultation, the 2023 engagement period also sought feedback related to outstanding issues, where stakeholder input was useful in helping to finalise the designs. In West Halifax, there were options around whether Albert Street should be made one-way, and what preferred access arrangements to the Model Village might look like. The feedback to the options received during this engagement helped inform the final designs.
Stakeholder engagement in 2023
Engagement aims
The aim of the 2023 engagement period was to support a successful Full Business Case (FBC) submission, which requires the designs for the scheme to be completed to a detailed state and the approvals for necessary changes to the highways layouts and operations to be progressing. To achieve this, the following objectives shaped the engagement activities;
The aim of the 2023 engagement period was to support a successful Full Business Case (FBC) submission, which requires the designs for the scheme to be completed to a detailed state and the approvals for necessary changes to the highways layouts and operations to be progressing. To achieve this, the following objectives shaped the engagement activities;
- Updating stakeholders on scheme progress, including how the third public consultation (November 2021 to January 2022) has been considered, and where possible, has shaped the proposals. The engagement activity aimed to address the key issues identified during the second public consultation, and understand any residual concerns impacted stakeholders may have. These were included in a ‘you said, we did’ format in public facing materials, to show where the consultation has impacted the scheme.
- Delivering targeted engagement to impacted residents and businesses, giving them the opportunity to inform the development of proposals and understanding concerns to ensure that, where reasonable, these are addressed.
- Inform the development of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and maintain and gain support for the scheme by responding to consultation feedback and communicating the benefits. To achieve this, the engagement activity focused on discussion and encouraging feedback, promoting the benefits of the scheme and addressing the impacts.
Engagement approach
As this engagement period was aimed at sharing information with a more targeted pool of stakeholders, part of the engagement activity included meetings held with certain selected groups, as well as some public events, and some targeted community events for those who CMBC felt would benefit from seeing the updated proposals. Engagement at this stage allowed stakeholders time to understand the new proposals and give them the opportunity to provide feedback to the project team.
Activity | Stakeholder | Date | Description of activity |
---|---|---|---|
Active travel groups meeting | WYCA active travel lead | 12 January 2023 | A meeting with WYCA’s active travel lead to discuss the updated proposals and how they will help to promote active travel methods. |
Councillor meetings | Cllr J Lynn Cllr M Shazad Fazal Cllr F Shoukat | 19 January 2023 | A meeting delivered to local councillors to show them the updated proposals and encourage them to support the promotion of the public engagement events. |
Community Representatives meeting | Representatives from local schools | 31 January 2023 | Meeting with the headteacher and other representatives of a local school to show them the updated proposals of the scheme. |
Bus Operation meeting | WYCA public transport | 6 February 2023 | A meeting with the wider WYCA team to understand the implications of the scheme to the bus services running in Halifax. |
Landowner meetings | Together Housing | 6 February 2023 | A meeting to discuss how the proposals may impact on properties on this land and to understand what collaborative approach would be needed going forward. |
CMBC internal meeting | CMBC Asset Management | 8 February 2023 | A meeting with CMBC Assets Manager to explain the proposals and what support might be needed from them in the future. |
Councillor meetings | Cllr J Thompson | 14 February 2023 | A meeting the councillor to show them the updated proposals and encourage them to support the promotion of the public engagement events. |
Community Representatives meeting | Beech Hill community reps | 24 February 2023 | A meeting with community reps, giving an overview of the scheme and asking for their support to promote the public information event. |
Councillor meetings | Cllr T Swift | 2 February 2023 | A meeting the councillor to show them the updated proposals and encourage them to support the promotion of the public engagement events. |
Accessibility meeting | The Accessible Calderdale Disability Access Forum (ACDAF) | 6 March 2023 | A meeting to discuss the updated proposals and gather feedback on the scheme’s accessibility. |
Lister Court drop in | Residents of Lister Court | 14 March 2023 | Members of the project team utilised a communal space, the Lister Court day room, to create a ‘drop in’ event. The aims of this were to answer resident questions, share the designs, as well as to understand feedback on the ‘gateway’ feature of the proposals. |
Key stakeholder Meeting | CMBC Inclusive Economy Lead Community Wardens Halifax Opportunities Trust Halifax Opportunities Trust, Active Calderdale Himmat Islam Halifax Jamia Mosque Madni Jubilee & Little Stars Children's Centres at Beech Hill and Parkinson Lane Neighbourhoods and Cohesion Manager Parkinson Lane School Queen's Road Neighbourhood Centre St Augustine's CE School St Augustine's Centre St Augustine's Nursery St Mary's Church Unique Community Hub Women's Activity Centre | 16 March 2023 | A meeting delivered to key stakeholders to introduce them to the updated proposals and encourage them to support the promotion of the public engagement events. Not everyone on this list was able to attend the meeting, but they received information following the meeting updating them on the scheme. |
Community Information Event | Members of the public | 20 March 2023 | A public event that allowed the community the opportunity to review the updated proposals, share updates to the designs made in response to feedback and encourage feedback on updated proposals. At this event there were leaflets available to take away, with scheme details of the individual corridors of the scheme. Further details of this event can be found below this table. |
Active travel groups meeting | Members of the local cycle forum | 30 March 2023 | A meeting to discuss the plans in the area and ask for feedback as to how cyclists feel the proposals will impact on their cycling journeys. |
Councillor meetings | Cllr J Lynn Cllr M Shazad Fazal Cllr F Shoukat | 6 April 2023 | A follow-up meeting to discuss more detail about the updated proposals. |
CMBC internal meeting | CMBC Highways | 10 April 2023 | A meeting with CMBC Highways team to explain the proposals, discuss the implications on the roads around Halifax, and what support might be needed from them in the future. |
Accessibility meeting | Visually impaired independent travellers who utilise public transport in the area | 26 April 2023 | A meeting to discuss the updated proposals and gather feedback on the scheme’s accessibility for visually impaired individuals. |
CMBC internal meeting | CMBC Key decision makers | 2 May 2023 | A meeting to discuss design decisions, particularly the 6.0m carriageway and the Gibbet Street area. |
Waste Management services meeting | Waste Management services meeting | 12 May 2023 | Meeting to discuss refuse collection access into the Model Village area. |
Local Greening Volunteers meeting | 13 May 2023 | A meeting to discuss preferences for how green and public spaces in the Model Village area could be best improved. | |
Model Village access roads discussion | Local model village resident stakeholders | 13 May 2023 23 May 2023 | Two discussions with local stakeholders to discuss access arrangements from Hanson Lane to Heywood Place |
The community information event was held at;
The Elsie Whitely Innovation Centre on 20 March 2023, from 3pm - 7pm.
- The event materials included the drawings of the scheme, drawings detailing parking loss and gain around the area, as well as the options available for Model Village access and the options for Albert Street.
- Project team members were in attendance to talk attendees through the scheme drawings and answer any questions, and feedback forms were available for people to leave their comments. Leaflets were provided to be taken away, with details about each area of the scheme proposals.
- This event kept an attendance record and recorded 42 attendees across the four-hour period. The location split of the attendees is shown by postcode below:
Postcode | Number of attendees |
---|---|
HX1 | 36 |
HX2 | 2 |
HX3 | 1 |
Prefer not to answer | 2 |
Engagement promotion
While this engagement was targeted at the people affected by the proposed designs, such as those who live and work close to the scheme area or those who had previously expressed interest in the scheme, there were opportunities for the wider public to understand the proposals. The table below details the different methods involved in contacting various stakeholders:
Channel | Description |
---|---|
Calderdale Next Chapter webpage | CMBC published updated scheme details on the West Halifax Improved Streets for People page the Calderdale Next Chapter website, and promotional materials directed people to this site to find out further details. |
WYCA Your Voice webpage | CMBC posted an overview of the scheme so far on the Your Voice webpage West Halifax Improved Streets for People | Your Voice (westyorks-ca.gov.uk), which directed people towards the Calderdale Next Chapter page where the latest updates could be found. |
Letter drops | In areas of targeted engagement, CMBC conducted letter drops with details about the specific scheme areas and how they could ask questions or provide feedback. Letters were sent to residents of the Model Village area near the mosque, and Lister Court residents, detailing the proposals in their areas and detailing the drop in event at the Elsie Whitely innovation centre. Letters were also sent to local business owners in the area, with details of the plans. |
Emails | CMBC sent emails to local community stakeholders, businesses and residents, including those who had previously registered an interest in the scheme. |
Social media | Details of the public information event were promoted by CMBC on their twitter feed, with details of the event and links to scheme information. |
Press releases | A press release went out on the 20 March 2023, which included an overview of the scheme details as well as information about the public events. |
Leaflets and Posters | Leaflets and posters were produced to promote the in-person events. Hard copies of these materials were shared at various public buildings in the area. Digital copies were also shared with local community stakeholders. |
Calderdale Next Chapter newsletter | The Calderdale Next Chapter newsletter was also utilised to promote the public information events, which is received by around 3,000 people. |
Feedback
Feedback was received through a variety of channels:
- Stakeholders were encouraged to provide feedback via email or when attending the briefing meetings about the update proposals.
- All interested residents were encouraged to email thenextchapter@calderdale.gov.uk or provide feedback via a Microsoft Forms link.
- People who attended the in-person community information event were able to provide both written and verbal feedback to the project team, to ensure views were captured.
Summary of feedback
Stakeholder | Engagement topic | Summary of outcomes |
Parkinson Lane School | Scheme update | Overall, supportive of the scheme proposals. Noted that it’s important that we ensure the scheme is developed to emphasise the fact that there is a school at Parkinson Lane & drivers feel they are entering an area where there is a school, to ensure student safety. |
Together Housing | Proposals for Lister Court and Beech Hill | Together Housing accepted the plans, particularly supportive of the green area behind the bus stop. |
Ward Councillors | Park Ward Councillors | Generally supported the scheme, particularly the engagement approach as they were keen for the scheme to be seen by residents. |
Ward Councillors | Town Ward Councillor Update | Supported the scheme’s approach to safety, for example the slowing of vehicles and better lighting. |
Visually Impaired Independent Travellers | West Halifax Scheme overview | Generally supportive and pleased their suggestions were being considered in the designs. Noted a couple of places where extra dropped kerbs or signage would make the designs more accessible. Lighting was highlighted as key to accessibility for many, and wanted to ensure this was incorporated into the designs. |
Beech Hill Community Reps | Beech Hill Proposals | Supported the path/footway upgrades & the proposed lighting - said it was needed to ‘finish off’ the other works in the area, contributing to making the estate a nicer environment. |
Accessible Calderdale Disability Access Forum | Scheme accessibility | Overall supportive of scheme. Mentioned the need for enforcement of plans, such as yellow lines near crossings to prevent parking. |
Lister Court Residents | Lister Court Scheme designs | Supportive of safety aspects, as there is concern over driver behaviour, especially on Gibbet Street. |
Feedback was also collected at the public information events. Below are details of the area- specific concerns raised at the public information events;
- There was a significant amount of concern around the one-way proposals for Gibbet Street. Whilst a small number of participants supported this aspect of the scheme, concerns were raised around the impacts this would have on other streets in the area. Residents had a particular focus on Hampden Place, but other areas raised included Rhodes Street, Gerrard Street, Lister Lane and Milton Place. It was felt by local residents that these streets would struggle in terms of their capacity to take the additional volumes of traffic, and that safety issues and increased road traffic incidents from higher volumes and rat-running would follow. It was felt that as a main road, Gibbet Street was more equipped to handle the traffic impact than the other minor roads nearby and it would be detrimental to the objectives of the scheme to push traffic elsewhere.
- Along Albert Street there was some pushback against the removal of parking. There was not a strong preference for either option presented for this area, as the general mood was that parking loss was a concern. Some residents posed further questions about the impacts of the plans on large vehicle access to businesses.
- The feedback to the Hanson Lane proposals were more positive, with people in favour suggesting that this will make navigation around the area easier. Some concern was expressed by attendees, however this was a minority view at the event.
- Potential changes to West Hill Street access from Gibbet Street on Grosvenor, Cavendish, Cromwell and Milton Terraces elicited strong negative reactions.
Some more general comments were raised about the scheme, details of which are below;
- Residents were concerned that people would not adhere to newly imposed one-way systems as it is perceived that there is evidence of this happening already on nearby roads.
- The bus rerouting proposals were generally well received. Questions were raised over plans for bus stop consolidation, with concerns around potential congestion, but was generally well received with plans for parking in the area.
- Some feedback expressed dislike for the bus stop build-outs, but the plans were generally accepted when the importance of these for those with mobility limitations and young children was explained.
- Some concerns were raised over how the plans impact on access, specifically for emergency vehicles and the safety implication around the ‘Model Village’ area.
- There has been some concern that the proposals will increase congestion by increasing traffic volumes on certain streets.
Our response to feedback
All issues raised were considered by the design team and have been responded to in the table below. The comments below have come from feedback received both from the in-person engagement activities, and from emails and other online communications we have received.
Scheme area | Issues | Comment received | Project team response |
---|---|---|---|
Albert Street | One-way | Albert Street being one-way as Travis Perkins has an entrance along Albert Street and large wagons come in and out of here from Pellon Lane. Concern was how would they access this business from the Gibbet Street end if it became one-way. | Albert Street will be made one way northbound, however the top section will be two way to allow access to businesses. |
Albert Street | Parking - loss | Attendees expressed concerns with relation to the removal of parking from Albert Street. | The road is of insufficient width for parking on both sides of the carriageway, without parking on the footway. Parking on the footway is illegal if it blocks access to pedestrians, including those with pushchair and disabled users, i.e., if it obstructs use of the footway as a footway. Double yellow lines on one side would thus enable pedestrian movements to be improved and provides for better parking. |
Gibbet Street | Crossings | The narrowing of the existing Gibbet Street zebra crossings and the smaller pinch points were a hindrance to free traffic flow and a cause of conflict and should be removed. | The proposals look to remove pinch points on Gibbet Street. |
Gibbet Street | One-way | Committee members also stated a concern that the changes would push some of their congregation to use other mosques in Halifax and Park Ward, indirectly leading to traffic issues growing in those other areas. | The one-way is being reviewed, from a technical perspective the delivery of a one-way scheme is still a viable solution for this location. There are benefits in relation to managing traffic and reduction in conflict along Gibbet Street as a result of the narrowings and pinch points in this corridor, in addition to the parking on footways, resulting in difficulties for vehicles to travel along this corridor in two-way. The level of traffic on the corridor impacted by the scheme is small in any particular hour. There are small peaks in traffic around Friday Prayer times that can clearly be linked to the times. If this option is seen to have a negative impact on the surrounding streets, we will consider further monitoring and traffic calming works as necessary. |
Gibbet Street | One-way - congestion | Concerns were expressed about the impact that the one-way would have in impacting other local streets with higher volumes of traffic. The impact of traffic associated with Friday prayer as well as major religious festivals, weddings, funerals as well as other smaller but regular and still significant traffic generating activities such as Madrasa classes was a cause of concern for most of those in attendance. | |
Gibbet Street | One-way - impact on surrounding streets | Onward impact on other streets in the area. Hampden Place was probably the most regularly cited such location, but others included Rhodes Street, Gerrard Street, Lister Lane and Milton Place. Concerns raised were that these streets would struggle more in terms of their capacity to take the additional volumes of traffic and that safety issues and RTIs from higher volumes and rat- running would follow. A view was also expressed that, compared to these other streets, Gibbet Street was a main road and that it was better that the traffic impact should be here rather than on other minor roads. | |
Gibbet Street | One-way - vehicular journey time | Concerns stated by a number in attendance that their car journeys would be longer and of less convenience. | |
Gibbet Street | One-way - misuse | One attendee raised the concern that there are other examples of one-way streets in the area being ignored and this would likely be the case on Gibbet Street. | Illegal driving issues should be reported to the Police. The one-way is under review, as described above. |
Gladstone Road | Access | Attendee made the point that the point at which one-way directional information should be put onto the entry and exit points for Gladstone Road should be carefully considered. Directional arrows at the Back Gladstone | Signage will be provided in accordance with Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions 2016. |
Gladstone Road | Road and Heywood Place junction would be required and No Access signage would be needed at the Back Gladstone Road and West Hill Street junction. | ||
Gladstone Road | Alternative suggestion | Suggestion that the orientation from east to west of the pedestrians, parking and ‘carriageway’ strips on Gladstone could be potentially ‘flipped’ where, again from east to west it would instead be ‘carriageway’, parking, pedestrian strips. This suggestion was made because, with the front yards on that side being at grade with the ‘carriageway’ of Gladstone Road then these residents would be free to be able to amend their own yards into driveways. | The Gladstone Road layout offers the best solution in relation to vehicle access, whilst meeting the design objective to improve the space for pedestrians around quality of design. |
Gladstone Road | EV charging | Attendees had a concern that this wasn’t the same futureproofing that they had been hoping for, whereby front yards could be converted – as part of the scheme - to driveways used to park and charge EVs. Instead, they feared that people from outside the area would come to know of and use the EV charging station. | EV provision is not being progressed as part of the scheme any longer. |
Gladstone Road | General | Attendees from the other streets of the Model Village had the view that the programme was too heavily focused upon Gladstone Road and that improvements would only really be for the benefit of the Gladstone Road households as the improvements would be used by Gladstone residents in a territorial way. | The increase in informal spaces and greening of the area as a whole provide a good balance on the scheme. There is limited space on other roads to create similar layouts, due to the overall requirement for parking space in the area, access for bin lorries and emergency service access. |
Gladstone Road | Public space – Anti-social behaviour | Attendees were concerned about the proposals for public space due to anti-social behaviour concerns. | The design approach follows Secure by Design and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles. Provision of more spaces for play for all ages can assist in reducing levels of boredom in the area, which is a factor in driving instances on ASB. |
Hanson Lane | One-way | The business owner had reservations with relation to a perceived loss of / impact upon trade. | The Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) programme is focused on connecting people in the communities of greatest economic need with job and training opportunities through accessible, attractive and cleaner transport. By encouraging people to use public transport and active travel, it is expected that levels of trade will increase as more people are encouraged through the area. This will, in turn, help boost productivity, living standards and air quality, helping to create happier healthier communities for the future. During this engagement period we did receive positive feedback from residents and business owners supporting this proposal. |
Memorial Garden | Public space – Antisocial behaviour | Attendees were concerned about the use of benches as being attractors for antisocial behaviour in these locations. | The design approach follows Secure by Design and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles. Provision of more spaces for play for all ages can assist in reducing levels of boredom in the area, which is a factor in driving instances on ASB. |
Model Village | Access | Attendees opposed the access arrangement due to the impact on established parking behaviours. | No changes are being made to and from existing access points to Gibbet Street from the model village. |
Model Village | Access | Some attendees highlighted the safety risks around access to the Model Village area. They stated that a solution needs to be found to ensure that emergency service vehicles can access the houses (including fire engines). | The design can only deliver a proportion of these improvements by design. A change to parking mentality will be required to address the issues associated with anti-social parking. |
Model Village | Public space | Attendees raised concerns about a perceived increase in the possibility of rat running, particularly in relation to Back Grosvenor and Back Milton Terraces into West Hill Street, where there is informal play by the children of the immediately nearby houses. This point was also raised in relation to the proposed public spaces on Gladstone Road and at the Memorial Garden which were not necessarily seen as being ‘for’ the households on the southern and / or extreme western and eastern sides of the Model Village area. | Due to design changes this comment is no longer valid. The public spaces are designed for all people of the local area. Should the local community choose to use this space in a different manner then this is up to the local community to decide how best to use the provided spaces. |
Model Village | Speeding | Attendee suggested that, after witnessing four high speed police chase incidents within the past year, that speed reduction measures could be considered for the internal streets. | Speed Reduction measures do not impact on "High Speed Police Chases" and are the wrong tool to instigate. Design principles are such that you design for the 85% of users not the case in which illegal drivers are entering an area. |
Model Village | Engagement and consultation | Attendees also expressed a concern that the Village door knocking exercise is due to take place during Ramadan when many may be asleep through certain daytime hours. | Plans for this engagement activity were updated as a result of concerns raised and postponed until after Eid. |
Additional feedback
Some comments received during the community information event were recorded and reviewed for consideration as part of the development of proposals, however no suggestions were made and the comments did not require a design team response. These are included in the table below:
Scheme area | Issues | Comment received |
---|---|---|
Gibbet Street | Crossings | Attendee showed strong support for the Gibbet Street continuous crossings and walking provision. He walks to and from Halifax regularly with his family and these interventions would prompt him to use Gibbet Street as this walking corridor would make his journey to Halifax much more pleasurable, safer and easier. |
Gibbet Street | One-way | Attendees expressed support for the Gibbet Street one-way proposals. |
Gibbet Street | One-way - general opposition | A group of representatives from the governing committee at Jamia Mosque Madni attended the public event and expressed a negative view towards this aspect of the scheme. They advised that they were echoing the consensus from the wider body of opposition. |
Gibbet Street | One-way - quality of proposals | One attendee made the point that they were concerned that the measures on Gibbet Street had the potential to be ‘another Parkinson Lane’, this being reference to the generally regarded as unsuccessful anti-speeding chicane measures historically implemented on Parkinson Lane and due to be removed by this programme. The concern here was that these measures took years of being poorly regarded to be marked for removal and that a similar situation may emerge on Gibbet Street. |
Gladstone Road | General | Gladstone Road residents were more accepting of the proposals than during previous stages of engagement. |
Hanson Lane | One way | The views presented with regards to Hanson Lane were mixed but on the whole, the larger body of opinion stated some level of support with some enthusiastic, others seemingly more willing to tolerate the changes. |
One way | Both a resident and a business owner on Hanson Lane stated their views. The resident was a supporter of the one-way. | |
One way | A resident expressed support for the Hanson Lane one-way as now people will use Albert Street and Gibbet Street heading North rather than Hanson Lane as it can be hard to navigate, and conflicts happen regularly. | |
Memorial Garden | Public space - recreation | The potential idea of older children’s play being the purpose for the Memorial Garden space and a smaller younger children focused space for the Hanson Lane end of Gladstone Road were well received. |
Queens Road | Bus services | Officers delivered an explanation of the potential rerouting of buses onto Queens Road thanks to the Hanson Lane one-way to some but by no means all attendees. This was well received. |
Queens Road | Bus services | Attendee (from Queens Road) expressed how pleased he was to see a bus service along Queens Road and is really positive about this. He currently walks along Queens Road to King Cross Street to catch a bus. |
Conclusion
A significant amount of feedback was received during the March to May 2023 engagement stage. This was considered by the design team and has been responded to in the ‘feedback’ section above. Although many aspects of the scheme were accepted by stakeholders, it was evident that changes need to be considered for specific areas of the scheme.
Some of the feedback received during this engagement has been addressed and has had the following impact:
Area | Impact |
---|---|
Albert Street | Will be one way Northbound, although the top section will remain two way to allow access to businesses. |
Beech Hill | Changes to green spaces are included in the design. |
Gladstone Road | Will be accessed via the Western side, making it easier for pedestrians to move around this area. |
Hanson Lane | Updated design retains Bus stop by Memorial Garden. |
Lister Court | Designs include retention of the existing middle pathway. |
Lister Court | Consideration of the potential for a ramp to Gibbet Street parking area from the main entrance has been discounted. |
Lister Court | Consideration of an ambulance parking bay has been discounted. |
Model Village | Access roads to Gibbet Street retained as per existing ins and outs. |
Model Village | The proposed internal one-way system reverted to existing two-way layout. |
Parkinson Lane | Looking to design in school coach parking provision. |
Queens Road | Amending the design to account for access to new development, so as not to provide raised table over access point. |
Queens Road | Consideration of the potential for additional parking at certain locations or changes to parking restrictions. |
Gibbet Street | The one way scheme is being retained in this area. Two way options were considered further to feedback received. All options were assessed by local councillors and senior Calderdale officers, and it was found that the one way option is the best to meet scheme objectives for enhancing the pedestrian environment. |
Scheme wide | Parking provision is being reviewed as part of the detailed design works for overnight parking for residents. |
The changes made have helped to ensure that the scheme is shaped by the people directly impacted. The Full Business Case will incorporate these updated proposals.
Next steps
Any further updates to the scheme will be communicated on the West Halifax Improved Streets for People page and via Calderdale Council’s social media channels.
Some further engagement activities will take place with some stakeholder groups, such as those affected by decisions made on Gibbet Street, around the model village area, and with some local businesses, as well as an accessibility audit that will be completed across the scheme.
A Full Business Case will be submitted to WYCA for the scheme in late 2023. If the business case is approved, construction is expected in 2024/25.