Last week Durham County Council’s cabinet formally adopted a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan for Durham City. The aim of an LCWIP is to identify the core walking and cycling networks to be developed or improved. Having an LCWIP in place makes it easier to bid for central government funding.
Two trustees were among those invited to a stakeholder session in January 2020, when the plan was under development, and is good to see that the consultants took some of our comments on board in the final plan. It is also welcome that County Council has secured Department for Transport (DfT) funding for preparing LCWIPs for a further nine towns.
The Trust has concerns about some of the details of the plan, but also, more generally, about how the plan will be applied and whether the various Council departments will be able to work together to make the most of the opportunities to invest in walking and cycling. We intend to submit a formal response to the Council, but would be very glad to consider comments from members before the final response is prepared.
The broader concerns fall under the following headings
Within the confines of the identified area, the proposed network is reasonably comprehensive, but there are some changes that the Trust hopes can be incorporated.
The alignment of the Northern Relief Road, which was rejected by the Inspector at the Examination in Public of the County Plan should be deleted from the network map, and replaced with a route crossing the Belmont Viaduct.
There are no connections shown to the west of the A167 at Stonebridge, despite this falling within the LCWIP area. Neville’s Cross Bank and Lowes Barn Bank are both important connecting routes which should be added.
The rationale behind the walking network map is less clear. It seems to be very much focussed on the city centre, so walking routes to the shops and employment areas in Framwellgate Moor and Newton Hall are absent, as are any routes east of the A1(M), for example to the Belmont Industrial Estate. A secondary route through Flass Vale, emerging on the A167 close to Durham Johnston School has been identified, but Redhills Lane and the A167 itself, both of which are heavily used by pupils at that school, do not feature on the map. The access road on the north side of Aykley Heads is another surprising omission.
While the purpose of an LCWIP is primarily concerned with everyday journeys, in the context of the city’s heritage the significant former pilgrim routes make an important contribution to the physical structure of the city. Local people and those visiting the city use them for access from within and beyond the LCWIP area. As well as identifying more of these routes on the walking network map, the relationship between the LCWIP and the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) could be better articulated.
The overview of priority walking interventions in Table 5-1 seems to largely repeat Table 4-1 which covers priority cycling interventions. Some of the proposals in Table 5-1 are even on routes which are not shown on the pedestrian network map. A “shared use path on Broomside Lane” could arguably worsen the walking environment.
The Trust would urge the Council to avoid wherever possible further designation of urban footways as shared use paths. These are strongly discouraged by the LTN 1/20 guidance. It is likely that e-scooters will be legalised, and that e-bikes will become more prevalent, matching take-up in other European countries. Safe space separate from motor traffic which does not conflict with pedestrians will be crucial to the successful take-up of these new options.
Shared use may be appropriate on routes with low pedestrian footfall, but the routes in Table 5-1, identified as the priority for investment, are surely not in this category. Short stretches of shared use provision may be necessary if there is no other way provide safe cycling access, but reallocation of carriageway space and reduction in motor traffic volumes should be resorted to in preference.
Many current issues for pedestrians around the city are in the details of provision, such as narrow pavements and poor crossing facilities. A more balanced priority list might have included remedial work at a number of such locations rather than concentrating on a single route. The Durham City Neighbourhood Plan Working Group produced a paper on walking and cycling issues which included such details. While this previous work only covers part of the LCWIP area, it might serve as a starting point for the creation of a database of pedestrian issues throughout the LCWIP area. Such a database would have a number of uses:
DfT guidance suggests that cycling can replace car journeys of up to 10km. It is unfortunate that the LCWIP area was so tightly defined, as it omits significant residential and employment areas which are well within this radius, such as
One of the key journey generators, Durham Johnston School, is on the very boundary of the LCWIP area. Part of the County Plan housing allocation at Sniperley lies outside the LCWIP boundary.
Can a light-touch revision of the LCWIP be carried out within a couple of years, to expand the scope formally to include these areas? If these areas are not included, will it make it harder to obtain funding from developers and the DfT?
Walking and cycling routes from South Road via Church Street and New Elvet to Gilesgate and Broomside Lane have been prioritised for investment in the plan, partly because of the high student flows on this axis. The ideas for Church Street include a 20mph limit, pavement widening, and removal of some car parking. The removal of parking spaces could be very contentious. The Trust is also sceptical that a 20mph zone will have any effect without active enforcement and a reduction in traffic volumes. Cycling participation is unlikely to be increased without protected space.
It is clear from the concerns about removing parking spaces that the current situation is unsatisfactory, and that better management of spaces is needed. Perhaps short-stay car parking spaces could help to serve the businesses on Church Street, as well as helping social care providers visiting residents. The longer-stay parking needs to be examined. It is likely that a proportion is being used by students travelling relatively short distances to the university. Working with the university to reinforce the university’s travel plan and reduce the use of cars by students would be beneficial. The DfT’s statutory guidance to highway authorities published in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic continues to recommend reallocation of road space to walking and cycling, including “school streets”, restricting motor traffic at pick-up and drop-off times during term.
Given all the competing demands, the Trust would like the future of Church Street, Hallgarth Street and Whinney Hill to be considered together holistically. Bringing in urban design expertise and proper engagement with stakeholders would help achieve a better balance.
While the LCWIP is vital for bidding for central government funding, it also has a role in obtaining contributions from developers, being referenced in County Durham Plan Policy 21. The Trust is concerned that the needs for sustainable transport improvements are not currently given sufficient weight by officers when assessing planning applications. The conditions on approval of the housing development at Bent House Lane, for example, involved contributions towards work on five road junctions. Cycling and walking improvements were not the impetus behind the proposals: the emphasis was entirely on accommodating additional motor traffic from the development. The developer had, in fact, offered Section 106 money towards bus, walking and cycling schemes mentioned in the Durham City Sustainable Transport Delivery Plan, but this was not taken up by the planning officer.
Highway authority comments on planning applications are often concerned solely with accommodating motor traffic. The council has a statutory duty to secure “the expeditious movement of traffic on the authority’s road network”, but the Act specifically states that “traffic” includes pedestrians. The duty is qualified by a requirement that the authority also have regard to their other obligations, policies and objectives. Relevant here are the council’s Strategic Cycling and Walking Delivery Plan, the Durham City Sustainable Transport Delivery Plan, and the need to improve air quality and enable the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
The Trust would therefore like to see far greater weight given by planning officers to the delivery of sustainable transport.
The LCWIP seems to be relatively pessimistic about how long it will take to deliver the walking and cycling networks to the appropriate standard. Where funding is scarce the Council needs to make sure that every opportunity is taken to make improvements in the course of carrying out other work. The LCWIP proposes stepped cycle paths on New Elvet and changes to arrangements at the traffic lights both at the top and bottom of that street. This street has recently been resurfaced, with new road markings, traffic islands and lights being installed matching exactly what was there before. Why were the cycle lanes not constructed at the same time?
There have also been resurfacing works on Church Street, the A690 near Sutton Street, and the A690 at the top of Crossgate Peth in the last two years. In each of these locations widening the pavements, realigning kerbs, or better crossing facilities could have been carried out.
We would like to see the Council consult with local groups and parish councils well ahead of any programmed resurfacing work, to ensure that walking and cycling improvements are identified and can be delivered more cost-effectively.
There is also scope for cheaper interventions, such as modal filtering or partial road closures, in some parts of the city. The Trust would like to see the LCWIP developed to cover such ideas. There is a need for a much greater pace of change in order to support the levels of modal shift which are now required in the face of the climate emergency.
There seems to be a large gap in the cycle network between a hub of cycle routes around Broompark and the city centre. Current requirement is to use busy arterial routes with high flows and congested lanes, particularly at peak periods. Severe gradients (exaggerating the speed differentials) and extremely busy junctions increase delays to all users and the safety risk to the point that they are not valid routes.
I completely agree. The lack of any network connection to the west of the A167 is one of the most inexplicable features of the LCWIP. As I mentioned in the article, Neville’s Cross Bank and Lowes Barn Bank need to be added to the proposed cycle network. I think the Stonebridge roundabout and the connection to Broompark fall outside the LCWIP area. At the stakeholder event I had argued that the Durham City LCWIP area should include Langley Moor, Meadowfield and Brandon: they are just as much a part of the city’s cycling catchment area as Newton Hall, Carrville and Belmont.