The Consultation outcome has been published online including a summary of responses. The SPACE for Gosforth submission is set out below.

Following this consultation the Government set out its ‘Air quality plan for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in UK (2017)‘ including the requirement for local authorities to produce local plans. We have written about the plan for Newcastle here. Official air quality figures for Newcastle’s two air quality management areas in 2016 are here.

Following the publication of this plan, the Parliamentary Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Environmental Audit, Health, and Transport Committees re-launched their joint inquiry into improving air quality and SPACE for Gosforth also submitted evidence to that enquiry.

The SPACE for Gosforth Response to DEFRA/DFT consultation May 2017: Tackling Nitrogen Dioxide in our towns and cities

[Qus 1-6 are admin questions]

Q7. How satisfied are you that the proposed measures set out in this consultation will address the problem of nitrogen dioxide as quickly as possible?

Very dissatisfied

Please provide comments to explain your answer

This response if from Space for Gosforth (SPACE) which is a group to promote and campaign for a Safe Pedestrian And Cycling Environment for Gosforth in Newcastle upon Tyne. We are residents of Gosforth, most of us with families and we walk, cycle, use public transport and drive. We are not affiliated to any other campaign group or political party.

The aim of the organisation is to promote healthy, liveable, accessible and safe neighbourhoods where

• Walking and cycling are safe, practical and attractive travel options for residents of all ages and abilities.
• Streets are easier and safer to navigate for residents or visitors with limited mobility and for residents or visitors with disabilities or conditions for whom travel is a challenge.
• There is good walking and cycling access to local community destinations including schools, shops, medical centres, work-places and transport hubs.
• Streets are valued as places where people live, meet and socialise, and not just for travelling through.
• The negative consequences of excessive vehicle traffic including injury and illness from road traffic collisions, air pollution, community severance, noise pollution and delays are minimised.

We are pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this consultation on air quality which is a real issue for our community as evidenced by the designation of Air Quality Management Areas in Newcastle, including in Gosforth. Our response follows.

• The High Court has recognised air pollution to be a public health crisis that kills tens of thousands of people each year in the UK and has required that legal limits, which should have been met by 2010, must now be achieved “as soon as possible”
• We therefore expected the government to produce a plan to achieve compliance as soon as practicable to safeguard the health of our communities, with compliance to be achieved no later than the end of 2018 consistent with the High Court’s judgment. The proposed measures do not include any new concrete actions to achieve NO2 levels within the shortest possible period. We are therefore not satisfied with the measures.
• Within the plan, where we expected firm proposals, there were merely proposals to consider what should be done. The government is dithering while expecting local authorities to take prompt action. Examples of actions that are proposed for consideration but which should already have been concluded and resulted in firm proposals include
• “Engaging with car manufacturers to see what role they could play”
• “Pressing car manufacturers to develop options for recalling existing vehicles to improve their real world emissions performance”
• “Exploring tax treatment for diesel vehicles”
• This is not an executable plan that has been put forward for consultation: it is a plan to develop a plan. With the UK already 7 years late in achieving compliance and with hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths during that time, this further delay is not acceptable. The government has been breaking the law on air pollution for 7 years and we need effective actions to be implemented quickly, without further delay.
• The plan is also misleading and confusing. The accompanying technical report makes it clear that a Charging Clean Air Zone (CAZ) is the most effective way to reduce emissions in a locality, but the plan says that they should only be considered as a last resort, despite the evidence showing that they are the most effective measure to achieve compliance and protect people’s health. The government should have been much clearer in explaining that Charging CAZs are the quickest way to clean up our air and that there is no evidence that CAZs without charging could make the rapid reductions in NO2 that are needed. Any plan that does not mandate the application of the most effective measures would clearly be in violation of the High Court judgment to achieve compliance as soon as possible.
• Conversely, the plan includes measures which the government knows are not effective. It suggests ‘Improving road layouts and junctions to ‘optimize’ traffic flow, for example by considering removal of road humps’ despite this not being included in the shortlist of most effective measures in the Technical Report. If such measures induce additional vehicle traffic, or cause more people to drive because they don’t feel safe walking or cycling, then there is a high risk they will lead to more pollution in other nearby locations.
• The plan also defers the responsibility that the government has for controlling to poor air quality (e.g. through its policy on vehicle tax regime), instead pushing responsibility onto local councils. It’s not clear whether new funding will be available to implement the plan or how the proposals would be funded in any case. There is very little detail and it pushes responsibility to deliver clean air to local councils without giving them any resources to do so.   The plan does not put any onus onto manufacturers who helped get us into this situation in the first place and whose cheating on emissions has resulted in NO2 emissions from diesel cars being several times higher than expected.
• The plan needs to include a clear governance framework that sets out the responsibilities of Central Government and of Local Authorities including who is responsible for ensuring air quality targets are met for a given location, when those targets should be met, how they should be measured, and a set of mandatory emergency measures that must be applied if targets are not met in the mandated timescales.
• Section 6 of the plan defines ‘the solution’, rightly noting that it is road transport that is the largest contributor to poor air quality in our urban areas but goes on to focus on high technology, high cost, long term solutions based on the unconstrained use of road transport when the only quick way to reduce air pollution and protect public health is to have fewer vehicle movements of the most polluting vehicles in our most polluted areas.
• The measures do not address the transport market failures that lead people to choose high cost personal vehicle transport with large negative externalities, such as air pollution, rather than choosing very low cost alternatives such as walking and cycling which have no negative external costs. These inefficiencies in the use of capital, materials and road-space, if resolved, could provide a significant economic boost to the UK as a whole in addition to resolving air quality and other related public health issues.
• It is therefore our conclusion that this plan is not fit for purpose.

Q8. What do you consider to be the most appropriate way for local authorities in England to determine the arrangements for a Clean Air Zone, and the measures that should apply within it? What factors should local authorities consider when assessing impacts on businesses?

• The technical report is clear that Charging CAZs are the most effective measure, being more effective than Non-Charging CAZs. As local authorities have had over 10 years to achieve compliance using other means, and this must be met as soon as practicably possible, we believe that the Charging CAZs should be mandatory where the limits are exceeded.  The arrangements need to be designed to achieve compliance as soon as practicably possible whilst supporting people and businesses to use less polluting forms of transport, including cycling, walking and public transport to mitigate the impact.
• The High Court was clear that the economic impact is not a reason to defer actions which would reduce NO2. Instead, the government should seek to address this impact through mitigating actions in a separate plan to run alongside the introduction of Charging CAZs. Additional measures can be used alongside the Charging CAZs to lessen the impact on those least able to adapt to the change.
• The plan is not clear on how these measures will be funded.

Q9

• How can government best target any funding to support local communities to cut air pollution?
• What options should the Government consider further, and what criteria should it use to assess them?
• Are there other measures which could be implemented at a local level, represent value for money, and that could have a direct and rapid impact on air quality? Examples could include targeted investment in local infrastructure projects.
• How can government best target any funding to mitigate the impact of certain measures to improve air quality, on local businesses, residents and those travelling into towns and cities to work? Examples could include targeted scrappage schemes, for both cars and vans, as well as support for retrofitting initiatives.
• How could mitigation schemes be designed in order to maximise value for money, target support where it is most needed, reduce complexity and minimise scope for fraud?

• In the short term, the only ways to achieve legal limits for air pollution are to have fewer vehicle miles driven and cleaner motor vehicles.
• While the primary purpose of the plan is to reduce ambient NO2 levels, there are still other pressing transport related concerns that need to be addressed. While the most effective change is to restrict car use, at the same time alternatives are needed and we need a holistic response to all the transport related health challenges. The 2009 Cabinet Office report “The wider costs of transport in English urban areas” identified and quantified six types of societal costs of transport: excess delays, accidents, poor air quality (particulates as well as NO2), physical inactivity, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and noise. This report estimates each of these six types of societal cost as being of a similar order of magnitude.
• The focus in the draft plan is on high technology, high cost solutions based on the use of private road transport. It is weak on considering investing in public transport and active travel and includes no reference to any new actions for this for England going forwards. However these are effective methods of reducing NO2 emissions while also delivering multiple other positive outcomes (such as health and economic benefits, CO2 emission reduction, improved local accessibility).
• Specifically, the plan aims, in the medium to long term, to make the diesel fleet less polluting (through retrofit or scrappage) and in the longer term to switch to electric vehicles or other new technologies. Of the six wider societal costs of transport, the plan would deliver in the medium term some improvement in the NO2 element of poor air quality, and in the longer term reductions in noise and GHG emissions. It would fail to deliver any improvement in excess delays, accidents, the particulate element of poor air quality and physical inactivity.
• In contrast, local measures can reduce the need for private road transport, such as increasing active travel (walking and cycling) and the number of journeys made by public transport, and through planning, development and transport decisions that focus on reducing the need for private car journeys.
• Measures to reduce traffic levels including reducing road capacity (‘road diets’), congestion charging zones or increased parking charges should all be considered as part of the plan. Simple measures like preventing through traffic using residential streets would be cheap, improve the livability of local neighbourhoods and make roads safer and more attractive for non-polluting modes such as walking and cycling.   Similarly, parking charges can be implemented quickly and set in a phased manner to manage traffic levels. Plans based on these two interventions could be both extremely effective and quick to meet air quality targets.
• Actions which enable (not just encourage) people to use active travel and public transport would make urban areas less dependent on private car transport and could also result in significant air quality improvements whilst having other economic, social, environmental and health benefits, including reduced GHG emissions.
• In terms of the potential for active travel to improve health, current estimates suggest 40,000 per year die early because of poor air quality, and another 85,000 due to sedentary lifestyles. These are on top of 200,000 deaths due to cancer and heart disease. Studies have shown that those that walk or cycle have a significantly lower risk of death of both cancer and heart disease compared to those that do not. If cycling and walking continues to be funded at only 1.3% of the total transport budget then millions will die earlier than they need to and millions more will suffer poorer health and quality of life. Walking and cycling need to be safe on major routes to link up residential areas, provide fast through routes and make these modes viable transport choices for everyone, while also addressing air quality and the wider health issues (inactivity, cancer, heart & lung disease etc.) which result from how we travel.
• In order to deliver the best value for money, the government should seize the need to reduce NO2 as an opportunity to also address other transport-related societal costs. When the government comes to assess the value for money of CAZ plans that deploy improvements in public transport and infrastructure for active travel (walking and cycling), it should give due consideration to these other benefits which are in addition to the legally required NO2 reductions.
• However, without action to make public transport and active travel more attractive, seeking to increase these is relying on behavior change without changing the framework within which people make decisions about how to make their journeys. This will not be effective since it relies on expecting people to make changes and/or to choose higher personal cost or inconvenience now in return for wider public benefits in the future. Shockingly, over the last 30 years in real terms the cost of motoring has fallen by 20% and the cost of public transport increased by 67%.
• The cost and non-cost barriers to these travel choices need to be understood and addressed as a public policy priority so that the balance of cost, convenience, ease and comfort between private car travel and other options needs can be rebalanced so that public transport or active travel are more attractive options for more people for more of their journeys. This will require significant increase in investment in active travel infrastructure and in public transport, plus a far reaching review of how public transport is planned, operated and paid for, and the powers that local government have to improve public transport so it can be planned to meet local needs for mobility, for improved air quality and to play its part in achieving wider environmental benefits i.e. GHG reduction.
• At present there are multiple barriers to public transport in our region of Newcastle upon Tyne and surrounding areas: fragmentation, uncoordinated routes, cost, complexity, and no single ticketing scheme. It will therefore take more than warm words of encouragement to achieve a modal shift towards public transport. We need an overhaul of the approach to how public transport is organized and funded. The deregulation of buses outside London has not delivered an attractive cost effective alternative to private transport. This needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. The Buses Bill does not go far enough in this respect and makes it difficult for local authorities to make use of franchising. Both a re-think of central government funding for public transport and an overhaul of the transport appraisal methodology is needed to ensure the social and environmental benefits of public transport are weighted highly when assessing any scheme. Additional benefits from improving the public transport service are increased mobility and access to employment and educational opportunities for disadvantaged groups- young people who can’t afford a car. It is important to note that approximately half of households in Newcastle upon Tyne do not have a car.
• Newcastle upon Tyne is a compact city so there is a lot of scope to reduce short car journeys, and we would expect this to be the case in many other urban areas too. As with public transport, it will take more than warm words of encouragement to achieve a modal shift to active travel. Poor infrastructure for cycling is specific barrier that needs to be addressed, in particular to provide safe and direct routes separate from motor traffic.
• The national British Social Attitudes Survey 2013 identified a significant potential to increase the number of journeys being cycled instead of driven, but that the fear of traffic is a major barrier to people taking up cycling.
• When asked about the journeys of less than two miles that they now travelled by car

1. • 33% said that they could just as easily catch the bus
   • 37% said they could just as easily cycle (if they had a bike)
   • 40% of people agreed that they could just as easily walk.
   • 61% of all respondents felt it is too dangerous for them to cycle on the roads, rising to 69% for women and 76% for those aged 65 and over.

• Research in our home city of Newcastle upon Tyne in 2015 tells a similar story: 54% of people in the city said they could begin to ride a bike or ride their bike more often. When non-cyclists were asked about what kind of bike routes would help them to start cycling, 90% said traffic-free routes and 85% said bike lanes protected by a kerb.
• This evidence shows that the lack of quality of cycling infrastructure, in particular routes that are convenient and feel safe for cycling, is a key barrier to people taking up cycling. The plan should therefore include a significant increase in annual investment on cycling infrastructure to overcome this barrier to cycling. This should be ongoing and at a level equivalent to that which has delivered quality infrastructure and high rates of cycling in other climatically similar northern European countries such as Denmark (19% of trips are cycled) and the Netherlands (27%): these countries spend £24/person per year.
• Seville is a great example of what can be done very quickly and gives a benchmark for ‘the shortest possible timescales’ as required by the court. Seville built enough connected, safe lanes to lead to the number of bike trips multiplying 11-fold in a just few years.
• In comparison, the government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy commits to investing £1.2bn over 5 years, equivalent to £3 per person per year for walking and cycling together. However, there is widespread public support for a significant increase in public expenditure on cycling infrastructure to levels that match those in the Netherlands and Denmark; a survey showed that 75% support more investment in cycling, with £26/person per year the average amount people want governments to be investing. Newcastle’s twin town of Groningen invests 85 Euros per person per year in cycling alone.
• The Department for Transport’s assessment of a sample of cycle schemes found a benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 5.5:1 i.e. for every £1 of public money spent, the schemes provide £5.50 worth of benefit, meaning these “deliver very high value for money”. In comparison, the BCR for HS2 is between 1.4:1 and 2.5:1. We are therefore confident that investment in quality cycling infrastructure will be a very good investment of public money in itself, as well as a way of achieving NO2 reductions.
• To ensure that this investment delivers the quality of infrastructure that will provide people with a safe, easy to use and comfortable cycling experience, we recommend adoption of best practice in design and construction of cycling infrastructure, for example as documented in the London Cycling Design Standards 2014. This documents six core outcomes which ‘together describe what good design for cycling should achieve: Safety, Directness, Comfort, Coherence, Attractiveness and Adaptability. These are based on international best practice and on an emerging consensus in London about aspects of that practice that we should adopt in the UK.
• The additional benefits of achieving higher levels of active travel are increased mobility and access to employment and educational opportunities for disadvantaged groups including young people who can’t afford a car, and the many households without a car. In addition, the increased levels of activity will improve mental and physical health, with direct personal benefit and related wider economic benefits (fitness for work, reduction in costs to the taxpayer of dealing with poor health). A recent study of 250,000 people over 5 years has shown that even limited amounts of cycling and walking can both make a massive difference to life expectancy and, in addition to the benefits to health and wellbeing, the potential financial savings for the NHS and social care will also be massive. Cycling in particular has a large effect in reducing the risk of death from cancer (by 45%) and heart disease (by 46%). These are two of the five key health issues of our time along with obesity, inactivity and air quality – all three of which can also be improved by ensuring that walking and cycling are safe and attractive travel choices.
• We agree with the accompanying Clean Air Zone Framework’s assertion that E-bikes can provide an easy zero emission alternative for some journeys and support its proposal that local authorities should also seek to support an increase in the relative share of E-bikes. We note that this represents good value for money as the cost of an E-bike would be hundreds of pounds compared to the proposed car scrappage fee of £6,000.
• In addition to implementing Charging CAZs, urgent and highly targeted interventions are required and should be targeted at the categories of vehicles that the most polluting: Figure 4 of the consultation document indicates that this means buses & coaches, HGVs and diesel LGVs. These are also the types of vehicles that spend the most time on the road.
• The government should implement robust diesel scrappage and retrofit schemes to get the worst polluting vehicles off our roads (Euro 5 or earlier) or to clean the up to Euro 6 standard. These schemes should be directed to buses & coaches, HGVs and diesel LGVs with priority given to buses in areas where the NO2 limits are exceeded or close to being exceeded. Newcastle upon Tyne has an ageing bus fleet which includes the most polluting vehicles that have been retired from London where they are no longer permitted to operate. Any expansion of bus services should be on the condition that older more polluting vehicles are taken out of service or retrofitted.
• Another option for addressing the levels of pollution from HGVs in urban areas could be freight consolidation: unloading freight at a distribution centre on the periphery with distribution within the urban area by cleaner forms of transport.
• The government should alter the vehicle tax regime so that it does not incentivize diesel vehicles and use it to encourage a move towards cleaner forms of transport. Vehicle tax should be set at a level that covers the full cost externalities including actions required to manage or reduce those external costs. This will ensure that tax-payers who do not use polluting vehicles are not required to subsidize those that do in addition to paying for their own transport costs. Taxes should focus tax on usage rather than ownership to incentivize efficient driving styles.

Q10 How can governments work with local communities to monitor local interventions and evaluate their impact?

The Government and the devolved administrations are committed to an evidence-based approach to policy delivery and will closely monitor the implementation of the plan and evaluate the progress on delivering its objective

• Monitoring air quality should be carried out by a statutory body and the information presented in a way that enables people to understand what it means and how much progress has been made in reducing NO2 and other pollutants and how this compares to legal limits.
• The best approach would be for government to proactively engage with the relevant authorities and the general public to ensure local interventions are being delivered and are having the expected effect. This should be part of a comprehensive national public engagement strategy that proactively raises awareness of the problem and the actions being carried out to tackle it.
• Current information sharing via government and local authority websites are not user-friendly for the general public, lack information and are often out of date. The government should facilitate a national system that ensures transparency and allows local communities to directly access relevant and up to date information at a national and local level.
• The UK government should also ensure that the general public is proactively alerted about high pollution events when they are forecasted and as they happen using a range of channels including on street signage, local radio and TV, and the internet. This will help people protect their health and consider how they can reduce their contribution to the problem. The current system is based on thresholds that are too high and don’t cover all pollutants. It is also a passive system that relies on individuals looking for the information on line. An air pollution alert system could use the similar systems in place for heat waves and cold weather warnings

Q11 Which vehicles should be prioritised for government-funded retrofit schemes?

We welcome views from stakeholders as to how a future scheme could support new technologies and innovative solutions for other vehicle types, and would welcome evidence from stakeholders on emerging technologies. We currently anticipate that this funding could support modifications to buses, coaches, HGVs, vans and black cabs

• The government should prioritise retrofit schemes according to the effectiveness of the available technology to have the greatest impact towards reducing NO2 pollution in the shortest possible time.
• These schemes should be targeted on areas where the NO2 levels are highest (not a national programme) and on the most polluting types of vehicles (i.e. buses & coaches, HGVs and diesel LGVs) and which operate in those areas.
• It is critical that the government ensures that retrofitted vehicles in real world driving achieve the expected level of emissions and that there is no cheating.

Q12 What type of environmental and other information should be made available to help consumers choose which cars to buy

• Consumers should be provided with the information that assures them that the vehicles they purchase are as clean on the road as the legal limits allow in the laboratory tests. The information should help the consumer understand how well the vehicle performs in the real world for both air pollution and GHG emissions compared to other similar vehicles. The information should also help consumers understand whether their vehicles comply with air pollution measures, such as CAZs and any future changes to the vehicle tax regime. A labeling system similar to that used for energy ratings for domestic appliances could be helpful for consumers.

Q13 How could the government further support innovative technological solutions and localised measures to improve air quality

• The UK government could help support innovative technological solutions and localized measures by providing a comprehensive, long term, strategic and funded plan to improve air quality beyond the current legal limits. Nationally coordinated measures, such as a national network of Charging CAZs and changes to the vehicle tax regime will help send a clear signal to businesses, local authorities and the general public of what investments they should be making. The government should accelerate implementation of an industrial strategy that will make the UK a world leader in clean technology, creating the jobs and industries that will help us, and others, clean up our air.

Q14 Do you have any other comments on the draft UK Air Quality Plan for tackling nitrogen dioxide?

• The draft UK Air Quality Plan is weak and illogical. Firstly the government’s plans and consultation do not match what its own evidence says needs to happen. If the evidence shows that taking certain measures will be necessary to tackle the public health crisis of polluted air, then the plan needs to make that clear. Secondly, this is a plan to make more plans later when we need action now. We want to see a national network of Charging CAZs to protect people’s health alongside measures to help people switch to cleaner forms of transport.
• By failing to identify measures to enable a shift from private motoring towards walking, cycling and public transport, the draft plan is a missed opportunity both in respect of improving public health but also to reduce the cost burden of travel for the benefit of families and businesses. It would continue to keep us locked into a high cost, highly car dependent way of life in urban areas but it is within our grasp to create an alternative and in so doing reduce not just NO2 levels but also the many wider societal costs of high rates of private motoring and to achieve a healthier and happier society. In conjunction with a move to ultra-low emission vehicles, such a plan could lay the foundations for achieving the government’s longer term target of zero NO2 transport emissions.
• The draft plan does not acknowledge or address factors limiting a local authority’s capacity to deliver improved air quality and issues of equity. Although Newcastle is the business driver for the North East in many ways, it’s also a poor city. As a regional centre, it has air quality problems imposed on it by residents and businesses in other local authorities and by poor public transport, but the air quality health burden falls on Newcastle residents. The cost burden should not fall on its residents too.
• Traffic from outside the city is a key factor in our pollution, but people may not have an alternative, or if they do have one, they are not incentivised to use it. For example, there is a lack of commuter rail routes into the city, but that isn’t an issue that the Council has any control over. These residents of neighbouring authorities don’t have the pollution where they live nor will they face any penalties if Newcastle City Council is fined for breaching air quality. Local authorities need to have some comeback when their neighboring authorities behave irresponsibly, and wider area action on planning and public transport is needed to ensure that actions of other local authorities don’t create air quality problems for Newcastle residents. The suggestion in the plan that local authorities should “work with neighbouring authorities to ensure a consistent approach” is inadequate to address these challenges and will not deliver the consistent approach that the government is seeking.
• The draft plan refers to local authorities encouraging local transport operators to buy ultra-low emission vehicles but at present this is unrealistic as local authorities do not have the necessary powers over public transport.
• As well as setting the framework for local action and monitoring progress, the government should help local authorities to develop, implement, monitor and adjust their plans by facilitating sharing of experience how what works well and what doesn’t.
• While it may be appropriate for drivers of dirty vehicles to pay to pollute in a Charging CAZ, it is not fair that residents in those local authorities with CAZs (and which bear heaviest burden of poor air quality) pick up the remaining costs of reducing NO2 and which are not covered by drivers paying to enter a Charging CAZ. This is particularly true in Newcastle with high levels of deprivation and where half of all households do not have a car. Any other funding needed to implement local measures should be socialized on a national basis through support from national government, not from local taxes.
• The draft plan largely addresses the various measures that might be most effective in quickly reducing NO2 pollution. There is another critical question of where this cost burden should fall: driver, taxpayer, vehicle manufacturer. We need an equitable approach.
• Any tax or incentivisation scheme should be based on the principle that the polluter pays and not require that non-drivers subsidise Where real-world emissions are markedly worse than those advertised then vehicle manufacturers should be responsible for making up the difference.

The post DEFRA / DFT Air Quality Consultation – May 2017 appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

In March 2017, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Committee launched an inquiry into Electric Vehicles.  The inquiry was to examine the barriers to the development of the electric vehicle market and what support this emerging market might need.

The committee invited submissions of written evidence.  SPACE for Gosforth decided to submit written evidence as we wanted to ensure that the inquiry considered electric bicycles (“E-bikes”) as well as electric cars and other vehicles (“electric vehicles”).

We also wanted to make sure that the effect that electric vehicles will have on pollution was examined.  In general terms, SPACE for Gosforth welcomes the switch from petrol and diesel engines to electric ones as these will reduce some forms of pollution, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, noise and local oxides of nitrogen (NOx) air pollution.  NOx includes nitrogen dioxide – illegal levels of this pollution in Newcastle upon Tyne led to the creation of both the South Gosforth and the City Centre Air Quality Management Areas.

Electric bike being tested in Gosforth

However, a switch to electric vehicles will not bring about a reduction in particulate air pollution (which our monitoring suggests may also be an issue in Gosforth) nor other problems related to car use such as excess delays, accidents and physical inactivity.

Consequently SPACE for Gosforth considers that while the switch to electric vehicles is welcome, it does not replace the need for a shift in transport from people using cars to active modes of transport (such as walking and cycling) and to public transport.  SPACE for Gosforth therefore wished to submit that initiatives to encourage the use of electric vehicles must not undermine the take-up of these alternative, and more sustainable, forms of transport.

In contrast, an uptake in the use of E-bikes would

• have the same benefits as electric vehicles (reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, noise and NOx air pollution) AND
• reduce particulate air pollution and delays AND
• improve public health through increased activity.

Electric cargo bike in Amsterdam

SPACE for Gosforth particularly wished to draw the committee’s attention to two benefits of E-bikes: firstly they can enable people to stay active in later life as the assistance of battery power means that people who are unable to ride a standard bicycle, for example due to ill health, may be able to ride an electric one.  The second advantage is that E-bikes have considerable potential for increasing the amount of freight delivered by bicycle, which could be particularly useful in areas such as Grainger Town and the rest of the City Centre where there is a need to reduce traffic on major access routes such as the Tyne Bridge.

SPACE for Gosforth therefore recommended that the two barriers to the uptake of E-bikes are addressed in order to encourage their use.  The first barrier is the lack of safe cycling infrastructure and we recommended that this should be provided.  The second barrier is the cost of purchase of an E-bike and we recommended that there should be a subsidy to stimulate sales.  This would be comparable to the way the initial take-up of Electric Vehicles was supported through infrastructure measures (charging points) and through purchase support.

SPACE for Gosforth wanted to particularly make this submission as we were concerned that the Government’s Industrial Strategy did not sufficiently address the opportunities offered by  E-bikes, nor did it recognise the wide range of benefits that result from investment in cycling infrastructure, and that these schemes offer very high value for money.

Wegenwacht – Dutch roadside assistance for cars

We have also been delighted to note Transport Minister Jesse Norman MP has recently confirmed to the Guardian newspaper that a subsidy for the purchase of E-bikes “could happen”.  Norman particularly noted in this interview one of the two advantages of E-bikes that we put forward in our submission: the potential of E-bikes to be used for freight transport.

We also welcome the ambition that Jesse Norman MP stated in this interview – to “make the transition to a world where a 12-year-old can cycle safely”.  However we were disappointed to note that Norman said he could not promise extra funding for cycle routes.  Despite this Jesse Norman MP did say in this interview that Central Government could start pushing councils to build more cycle routes – and with the recent reported rise in air pollution in both the South Gosforth and City Centre Air Quality Management Areas we hope Central Government will take this action soon.

As well as taking written evidence, the inquiry also held oral evidence sessions to explore topics in more depth. One of the questions asked was about the potential conflict of priorities: EVs versus access, broadening pavements, encouraging cycling and walking. However, there was no real discussion in the session of the impact that the placement of on-street EV charging stations could have on pedestrians, so we submitted additional evidence to the inquiry on this topic in May 2018.

Our key point is that as we install infrastructure to encourage EV use over more polluting vehicles, we should ensure that pedestrians in particular are not adversely affected through poor placement of charging stations. EVs will bring some benefits to cities, but it should not come at the expense of people more generally or the quality of the urban realm.  For these reasons, recharging equipment should be placed so that it does not impinge upon safe and convenient movement of pedestrians on the pavement, should avoid placement on the pavement and avoid any trip hazards due to trailing cables when in use. Ideally charging equipment should be placed in the carriageway, not on the pavement. You can see below the evidence we submitted on this topic, including a range of photographs on different placements of EV charging stations.

The output from the Inquiry, delayed by the 2017 General Election, will be published on the Parliament Inquiry Page when complete.

————————–

Written evidence submitted by SPACE for Gosforth to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee inquiry “Electric vehicles: developing the market”

Date 13^th April 2017

SPACE for Gosforth

1. Space for Gosforth (SPACE) is a group to promote and campaign for a Safe Pedestrian And Cycling Environment for Gosforth in Newcastle upon Tyne. We are residents of Gosforth, most of us with families and we walk, cycle, use public transport and drive. We are not affiliated to any other campaign group or political party.

2. The aim of the organisation is to promote healthy, liveable, accessible and safe neighbourhoods where

• Walking and cycling are safe, practical and attractive travel options for residents of all ages and abilities.
• Streets are easier and safer to navigate for residents or visitors with limited mobility and for residents or visitors with disabilities or conditions for whom travel is a challenge.
• There is good walking and cycling access to local community destinations including schools, shops, medical centres, work-places and transport hubs.
• Streets are valued as places where people live, meet and socialise, and not just for travelling through.
• The negative consequences of excessive vehicle traffic including injury and illness from road traffic collisions, air pollution, community severance, noise pollution and delays are minimised.

3. Our reasons for submitting evidence are:

• To ensure that all types of electric vehicles are considered by the inquiry, specifically including e-bikes [For convenience, we use the term ‘EV’ to encompass all types of electric vehicles (including buses, HGVs, cars, motorcycles and vans) except electric bicycles which we refer to as e-bikes.]
• To highlight the need to ensure that any actions to encourage EV use do not act counter to other actions to deliver the modal shift from private to public transport and to active travel (walking and cycling) that is necessary to achieve improvements in congestion and public health.

Executive Summary

1. SPACE welcomes the transition from internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) to electric vehicles (EVs) because of the benefits in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (dependent upon the electricity generation mix), local NO_x air pollution and noise.
2. However, the ICE to EV transition is not a panacea as it does not address other significant adverse economic and health impacts of a high car dependency way of life and high levels of motorised vehicular transport: delays due to congestion, the risk of injury or death from collisions, and the personal and public health consequences of physical inactivity and of particulate air pollution.
3. We therefore support measures to encourage this transition while also recommending against the introduction of ‘on-the-road’ measures that incentivise or privilege EV drivers over ICEV drivers, such as permission to use bus lanes or contraflows that are not open to all vehicles or reduced charges for parking. Such measures would undermine efforts to achieve modal shift towards public transport and walking and cycling and so would impede progress in addressing the economic and health concerns set out in paragraph 5.
4. E-bikes have a significant and complementary role to play in delivering a wider range of improved outcomes than EVs alone can: decarbonising transport, reducing congestion and improving public health through increased activity and reduced air pollution. We therefore recommend measures to address the barriers to uptake: safe cycling infrastructure and subsidy for the cost of purchase. These two measures are complementary and both are necessary to stimulate uptake of e-bikes in the same way that the early take-up of EVs was supported through both infrastructure measures (charging points) and purchase support.

Introduction

1. The 2009 Cabinet Office report “The wider costs of transport in English urban areas” identified six types of societal costs of transport and estimated annual cost:

Fig 1: Comparison of the wider cost of transport in English urban areas (£ billion per annum, 2009 prices and values)

1. Transport, which is predominantly based around ICEVs, has a wide range of impacts, of which some (greenhouse gas emissions, noise and local NOx air pollution) can be improved by switching from ICEVs to EVs, while others (excess delays, accidents, physical inactivity and particulate air pollution) cannot. It is also important to note that the health effects of particulate matter (PM) are more significant than those of other air pollutants and PM emissions from EVs are comparable to ICEVs.
2. The nature and scale of the impact of PM is described in the DEFRA report “Air Pollution: Action in a Changing Climate” ³:

• Chronic exposure to PM contributes to the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases and lung cancer
• Current evidence suggests that there is no “safe” limit for exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
• the gains in life expectancy that could be had from eliminating man-made fine particles (7-8 months) is larger than those possible from eliminating motor vehicle traffic accidents (1-3 months) or second-hand cigarette smoke (2-3 months).

11. Our transport infrastructure should enable a choice of options for personal mobility that allow people to choose the most appropriate means of transport for their trip without necessarily having to use a private car with associated energy burden of transporting a tonne of metal when it’s not needed. We should foster innovation of how we travel, not just how our existing vehicles are powered. E-bikes are existing technologies so could be adopted rapidly and used as a launching point for a wider range of electric transport which might also include segways or any number of other ways of travelling. The key is a legal framework that allows people to innovate and urban environments where these modes can be used without fear of traffic. Having a range of low to high power electric forms of transport would also help to limit the need for new generation capacity and the impact on the power grid of mass uptake of EVs which use more electricity than low power electric forms of transport such as e-bikes.

1. It is clear that while transitioning from ICEVs to EVs is a step in the right direction, it does not in itself address other significant pressing economic and health concerns associated with high car dependency ways of life and high levels of motorised vehicular transport: the excess delays from congestion, the risk of injury or death from collisions, and the personal and public health consequences of inactivity and of particulate air pollution.
2. It is therefore important to take other, complementary, policy actions to improve those economic and health outcomes and to ensure that any measures to encourage the transition to EVs do not act counter to other actions to encourage modal shift in pursuit of those economic and health outcomes.

Fig 2: The transition to EVs won’t solve congestion

Fig 3: How modal shift makes better use of road capacity and parking space

Image: Press-Office City of Müenster, Germany

1. We note and support previous and current national and local government measures to encourage modal shift through reducing the number of journeys undertaken by private vehicular transport and increasing the number of journeys undertaken by walking and cycling and by public transport. We consider that the potential of e-bikes to achieve multiple policy objectives, from greenhouse gas emissions to public health, has not yet been fully recognised. E-bikes are an electric powered form of road-based transport and so fall within the scope of this inquiry. Our response therefore addresses the benefits of and barriers to widespread adoption of e-bikes.
2. E-bikes have a significant role to play decarbonising transport, reducing congestion and improving public health through increased activity and reduced air pollution. The batteries are rechargeable via a normal power socket and, unlike EVs, do not require any special or costly charging infrastructure. The battery can be used to boost the rider’s own pedal power as and when the rider requires which means that, compared to conventional bikes, e-bikes enable more people to cycle more distance and over hillier terrain more easily and to carry more weight, such as children or shopping. The boost effect means that people who are currently inactive or with existing health conditions can start to cycle with confidence, and that people who do cycle can carry on cycling with confidence despite any decline in health or fitness later in life.

1. This potential for e-bikes to help people to become more physically active or to stay physically active later in life is an important consideration in the context of the widespread inactivity and associated poor health that was quantified in the 2017 report from the British Heart Foundation.

• 39% of UK adults (around 20 million people) are failing to meet Government recommendations for physical activity.
• Physical inactivity and low physical activity are the fourth most important risk factor in the UK for premature death
• Keeping physically active can reduce the risk of early death by as much as 30%.
• Physical inactivity has a significant financial burden on the UK healthcare service, with the direct financial cost estimated to be as high as £1.2billion each year.
• Physical inactivity also has a significant wider impact on the UK economy of as much as £1.5billion.

17. The heavier loads that e-bikes can carry opens up new possibilities for freight. Local delivery and courier services could take advantage of the greater carrying capacity of e-bikes to use e-cargo bikes instead of ICEVs to deliver more and heavier items and in hillier areas. Such e-cargo bikes are already available and are starting to be deployed, for example DHL’s electric Cubicyle. 

What are the key barriers to development of the UK’s electric vehicle market?

Electric Vehicles

1. The key barriers to EV uptake are upfront cost and concerns about the range. Range has improved and is likely to improve further with technological advances. Some have suggested that uptake could be stimulated by the introduction of ‘on-road’ measures that make the use of EVs more attractive than the use of ICEVs by privileging EV drivers over ICEV drivers, for example through permission to use bus lanes or contraflows that are not open to all vehicles or through reduced charges for parking. We recommend that the inquiry rejects such measures for several reasons:
2. Firstly, different driving rules for ICEVs and EVs would also create confusion and present an increased safety risk for other road users especially the most vulnerable road users, pedestrians and cyclists.
3. Secondly, ‘on-road’ privileges would undermine national and local government policy of the modal shift towards public transport, walking and cycling that is necessary to reduce the excess delays from congestion, the risk of injury or death from collisions, and the personal and public health consequences of inactivity and of particulate air pollution.
4. Thirdly, whether or not such measures were effective in stimulating EV uptake, the need for them would disappear overtime as EV usage increases, but it would be politically difficult to withdraw these perks once drivers had become used to them and this would mean an ongoing conflict between actions to promote EVs and actions to promote modal shift.

E-bikes

22. For e-bikes, there are two key barriers to the development of the market for e-bikes: the lack of safe infrastructure for cycling which we address here, and the higher cost of an e-bike compared to a standard bike which we address further on in our submission.
23. The national British Social Attitudes Survey 2013 identified a significant potential to increase the number of journeys being cycled instead of driven, but that the fear of traffic is a major barrier to people taking up cycling:

• When asked about the journeys of less than two miles that they now travelled by car
  • 33% said that they could just as easily catch the bus
  • 37% said they could just as easily cycle (if they had a bike)
  • 40% of people agreed that they could just as easily walk.
• 61% of all respondents felt it is too dangerous for them to cycle on the roads, rising to 69% for women and 76% for those aged 65 and over.

24. Research in our home city of Newcastle upon Tyne in 2015 tells a similar story: 54% of people in the city said they could begin to ride a bike or ride their bike more often. When non-cyclists were asked about what kind of bike routes would help them to start cycling, 90% said traffic-free routes and 85% said bike lanes protected by a kerb.
25. This evidence shows that the lack of quality of cycling infrastructure, in particular routes that are convenient and feel safe for cycling, is a key barrier to people taking up cycling. Since the cyclist’s experience of sharing the road with other traffic is the same for e-bikes as for conventional bikes, the lack of quality cycling infrastructure is a key barrier to the uptake of e-bikes.
26. We therefore recommend a significant increase in annual investment on cycling infrastructure to overcome this to barrier to e-bike uptake. This should be ongoing and at a level equivalent to that which has delivered quality infrastructure and high rates of cycling in other climatically similar northern European countries such as Denmark (19% of trips are cycled) and the Netherlands (27%): these countries spend £24/person per year.

27. In comparison, the government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy will invest £316m over the 5 years from 2015 to 2020, which is approximately £1/person per year. However, there is widespread public support for a significant increase in public expenditure on cycling infrastructure to levels that match those in the Netherlands and Denmark: a survey showed that 75% support more investment in cycling, with £26/person per year the average amount people want governments to be investing.

27. The Department for Transport’s assessment of a sample of cycle schemes found a benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 5.5:1 i.e. for every £1 of public money spent, the schemes provide £5.50 worth of benefit and “deliver very high value for money”. In comparison, the BCR for HS2 is between 1.4:1 and 2.5:1. We are therefore confident that investment in quality cycling infrastructure will be a very good investment of public money.

29. To ensure that this investment delivers the quality of infrastructure that will provide people with a safe, easy to use and comfortable cycling experience, we recommend adoption of best practice in design and construction of cycling infrastructure, for example as documented in the London Cycling Design Standards 2014.  This documents six core outcomes which ‘together describe what good design for cycling should achieve: Safety, Directness, Comfort, Coherence, Attractiveness and Adaptability. These are based on international best practice and on an emerging consensus in London about aspects of that practice that we should adopt in the UK.

Does the Government’s Industrial Strategy sufficiently address the challenges and opportunities for electric vehicles?

30. No comment regarding EVs.

31. Regarding e-bikes, we consider that the Industrial Strategy does not sufficiently address the opportunities that e-bikes present to reduce wider transport related costs nor does it recognise that investment in cycling infrastructure can deliver a wide range of benefits to businesses, to individuals and to wider society and the demonstrated very high value for money for these schemes.

What support for purchase costs should the Government provide after 2018, in response to the changing costs of electric vehicles?

32. There is a track record of subsidy for new technologies (such as photo-voltaic cells or EVs) to increase uptake while scale and technological advances reduce unit costs. We will not comment on whether and how fast the support for purchasing an EV should be reduced. However, it seems appropriate that support for purchase costs should be available for e-bikes for the same reasons and in recognition of the benefits to the individual, the wider community and wider environment, and reduction in financial health burden associated with car based travel.

33. While costs of bikes vary, just as costs of cars vary, a typical e-bike costs approximately £500 more than an equivalent standard bike. This figure provides a basis for considering an appropriate level of purchase cost support for e-bikes and is modest in comparison to the subsidies that have been available for EVs: up to £4,500 for cars, up to £8,000 for vans and up to £1,500 for motorbikes.

34. We recommend that this purchase cost support is used in conjunction with measures to improve cycling infrastructure. Improvements in infrastructure are needed for more people to see cycling as a viable option, just as charging infrastructure needed to be put in place for people to consider switching from ICEVs to EVs to be a viable option. In short, cycling infrastructure and purchase support for EVs are complementary measures and both are necessary to stimulate uptake of e-bikes in the same way that the early take-up of EVs was supported through both infrastructure measures (charging points) and purchase support.

How best can the Government ensure that there is consistent provision of charging infrastructure across the country?

35. No comment

Is the Government’s road transport decarbonisation strategy sufficiently flexible to adapt to potentially disruptive market trends such as driverless cars? How might these impact requirements for, and use of, charging infrastructure?

36. No comment

Additional written evidence on the placement of on-street EV charging stations, submitted by SPACE for Gosforth to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee inquiry “Electric vehicles: developing the market and infrastructure”

Date 15^th May 2018

 SPACE for Gosforth

1. Space for Gosforth (SPACE) is a group to promote and campaign for a Safe Pedestrian And Cycling Environment for Gosforth in Newcastle upon Tyne. We are residents of Gosforth, most of us with families and we walk, cycle, use public transport and drive. We are not affiliated to any other campaign group or political party.

2. The aim of the organisation is to promote healthy, liveable, accessible and safe neighbourhoods where

• Walking and cycling are safe, practical and attractive travel options for residents of all ages and abilities.
• Streets are easier and safer to navigate for residents or visitors with limited mobility and for residents or visitors with disabilities or conditions for whom travel is a challenge.
• There is good walking and cycling access to local community destinations including schools, shops, medical centres, work-places and transport hubs.
• Streets are valued as places where people live, meet and socialise, and not just for travelling through.
• The negative consequences of excessive vehicle traffic including injury and illness from road traffic collisions, air pollution, community severance, noise pollution and delays are minimised.

3. We previously submitted evidence in April 2017 to the “Electric vehicles: developing the market” inquiry to:

• ensure that all types of electric vehicles are considered by the inquiry, specifically including electric-bikes
• To highlight the need to ensure that any actions to encourage EV use do not act counter to other actions to deliver the modal shift from private to public transport and to active travel (walking and cycling) that is necessary to achieve improvements in congestion and public health.

Executive Summary

4. We have reviewed the 8th May 2018 oral evidence on charging infrastructure to this follow-on inquiry with an interest in Q260 “We talked earlier about the fact that no local authorities had submitted any evidence to the inquiry.  We also have heard about the potential conflict of priorities: EVs versus access, broadening pavements, encouraging cycling and walking.  All these are conflicting priorities.  Talking about the issue of conflicts and alignment, how well do the priorities of motorists as well as local authorities, charging point operators and energy companies align when it comes to development of new charging infrastructure?”  However the response given did not address potential conflicts in terms of the potential effect on pedestrians. The purpose of this submission is to put forward to the inquiry evidence on this issue.

5. The importance of active travel is recognised in the government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy which aims “to make cycling and walking the natural choices for shorter journeys, or for part of longer ones” and states “If we can increase levels of walking and cycling, the benefits are substantial. For people, it means cheaper travel and better health. For businesses, it means increased productivity and increased footfall in shops. And for society as a whole it means lower congestion, better air quality, and vibrant, attractive places and communities.”

6. As we install infrastructure to encourage EV use over more polluting vehicles, we should ensure that pedestrians in particular are not adversely affected through poor placement of charging. EVs will bring some benefits to cities, but it should not come at the expense of people more generally or the quality of the urban realm.

Detailed evidence

7. While many charging points will be in private premises and in car parks, some will be on-street and this is the subject of our comments as they have the greatest potential to adversely affect people walking or cycling (active travel) if not the needs of these groups are not adequately taken into account.

8. The Department for Transport has an established hierarchy of users, placing pedestrians at the top, followed by cyclists then public transport, with unaccompanied private car-users last. The objective of such a hierarchy is to ensure that the needs of the most vulnerable road users are fully considered. It further notes that disabled people require “level, clearly defined easy access and careful attention in the design and placement of street furniture, including resting points. Satisfying these requirements will also satisfy the needs of all other users, especially older people, people with heavy shopping/young children, and people with temporary impairments or low levels of fitness”.

9. The Department of Communities and Local Government’s Manual for Streets sets out more detailed guidance:

“Street design should be inclusive. Inclusive design means providing for all people regardless of age or ability. There is a general duty for public authorities to promote equality under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. There is also a specific obligation for those who design, manage and maintain buildings and public spaces to ensure that disabled people play a full part in benefiting from, and shaping, an inclusive built environment. Poor design can exacerbate the problems of disabled people – good design can minimise them.”

“Obstructions on the footway should be minimised. Street furniture is typically sited on footways and can be a hazard for blind or partially-sighted people”

 “Streets where people walk in groups or near schools or shops, for example, need wider footways. In areas of high pedestrian flow, the quality of the walking experience can deteriorate unless sufficient width is provided”

 “Although much street furniture is provided for the benefit of motorised users, it is generally located on the footway and can contribute to clutter. In some circumstances, it may be possible to reduce footway clutter by placing some of these items on build-outs”.

10. Equalities policy means streets must be accessible to those with disabilities, who use wheelchairs or otherwise less mobile. For these reasons, recharging equipment should be placed so that it does not impinge upon safe and convenient movement of pedestrians on the pavement, should avoid placement on the pavement and avoid any trip hazards due to trailing cables when in use. Ideally charging equipment should be placed in the carriageway, not on the pavement.

11. Well designed and well positioned charging infrastructure offers opportunities to improve the urban realm:

• by providing additional facilities that benefit all users eg the charging station could include features such as seating, charging for electric bikes, street maps, other displays of local information, wifi etc.
• By consolidation other street features / facilities onto the charging station to minimize pavement clutter eg telephones, or parking restriction notices displayed at the charging station rather than on a separate post on the pavement.

12. We recommend that policy and guidance is developed to address these issues and that regulations relating to EV charging points should include guidance for placement so that they are consistent with other government guidance. This will help to ensure that the take-up of EVs does not disadvantage pedestrians and gives full consideration to pedestrians with additional needs eg wheelchair users, people with buggies, visually impaired. As electric charging points proliferate, it is vital that policy and guidance is quickly developed and disseminated to avoid making things worse for active travel and for vulnerable road users.

13. All the above considerations, applied to town centre recharging, are about making the town centre a more appealing and safer environment for pedestrians (everyone is a pedestrian when they get there, whatever their mode of transport). These considerations are also relevant to the High streets and town centres in 2030 inquiry.

14. Finally, we present below a selection of photographs that show
    • charging infrastructure being provided in ways which disadvantage people walking (1-3)
    • charging infrastructure being provided in the carriageway which does not adversely affect people walking (4-5) and which also accommodates cycle parking (6). This last image also provides an example of how the same charging point could be used to charge electric cars and electric bikes if the design is appropriate.

Example 1: The slalom and narrowing of the available pavement makes this particularly problematic for people walking, especially those with wheelchairs or buggies (photo @k9)

Example 2: placement taking space away from people who walk, affecting families and others who walk in groups (photo @chriscities)

Example 3: placement taking space away from people who walk (photo: @WarrenHatter)

Example 4: placement in the carriageway (photo @mum_on_bike)

Example 5: placement in the carriageway (photo: @WarrenHatter)

Example 6: EV charging point with integrated cycle parking (Photo @PereSoriaAlcaza)

The post BEIS Electric Vehicles Inquiry – March 2017 and May 2018 update appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

2018 is an important anniversary for Newcastle upon Tyne as it marks 10 years since Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) were declared for the city centre (which includes parts of Jesmond and Heaton) and for South Gosforth in 2008.  The city centre AQMA replaced an earlier AQMA in this area.

Newcastle City Centre AQMA

Both Air Quality Management Areas were declared due to levels of the pollutant nitrogen dioxide exceeding legal limits.

Nitrogen dioxide has been linked to a wide range of diseases and other health conditions including cancer, low sperm counts, dementia and cognitive delay in children.

Newcastle City Council recently released figures for nitrogen dioxide levels in 2016, and these showed that a previous trend of nitrogen dioxide levels decreasing in Gosforth has halted and that nitrogen dioxide levels in Gosforth have once again risen to above legal limits.

The South Gosforth AQMA

Members of the public can obtain real time information about levels from pollution from Newcastle University’s Urban Observatory. SPACE for Gosforth has written several previous blogs highlighting high levels of nitrogen dioxide in both AQMAs:

• Black Friday, Smoggy Saturday… (on Gosforth)
• Black Friday Part 2 – Newcastle City Centre
• Pollution Update – February 2017
• The New Newcastle Air Pollution Plan
• Air Quality Update 2016

Air pollution monitoring in 2015

As well as nitrogen dioxide pollution, previous monitoring carried out by SPACE for Gosforth in 2015 suggested that there might also be a problem with particulate pollution on Gosforth High Street.

2018 will also be an important electoral date for the city of Newcastle upon Tyne as residents in all wards will have the opportunity to elect all their three councillors due to the boundary changes. 

Locations where Defra have ordered a reduction in emissions

At SPACE for Gosforth we believe that this election offers residents of Newcastle upon Tyne the opportunity to raise the issue of our filthy air with candidates of all parties and to ask how they would tackle this issue.

Poor air quality affects everyone who lives and works in Newcastle upon Tyne. It is not an issue that our elected representatives can ignore, as they have been ordered to take action by Defra to reduce air pollution on the key city arteries of the Tyne Bridge / Central Motorway, the A1 and the Coast Road. This was following the defeat of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in the High Court by the environmental law firm Client Earth.

Nitrogen dioxide levels on Blackett St last July – only legal when the road was closed to traffic!

Client Earth has launched further legal action against Defra this year, so it is entirely possible that as one consequence of this action Newcastle City Council may be required by the Government to do even more.  It is also worth noting that Newcastle City Council is currently controlled by the Labour Party, and Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party, has recently publicly stated that tackling air pollution is a national priority for his party should they form a government.

Air pollution monitor on Gosforth High St

The seriousness of this issue, both in its impact on public health and due to the legal obligations that are falling on Newcastle City Council, means that it is one which every candidate for public office in our city needs to understand fully.

In 2018 we hope to hear more from both elected councillors and candidates about what they will be doing this year to ensure that councillors, council officers and others in Newcastle take decisive and effective action to reduce levels of nitrogen dioxide in our city.

Ten years is too long for the health of the public to be put at risk in this way – our ambition for 2018 is that this tenth birthday for both AQMAs is also their last.

The post 2018 – 10 years of the Gosforth and City Centre AQMAs appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

Local charity Recyke y’Bike is a well-established part of the North East cycling scene. Their activities include reconditioning donated bikes to sell at their shops in Byker, Durham and The Journey in Newcastle city centre. They also support local schools, youth groups, other charities and asylum seekers by providing reconditioned bikes. We asked their general manager, Karl McCracken, to write a guest blog about the charity and how people can get involved.

Recyke y’Bike Byker.

Recyke y’bike is one of those charities that always seems to have been around. But we’ve only been here for just over a decade. What we do is really simple – people donate bikes to us and we put them to good use. It’s been pretty successful too, with over 2,000 bikes a year coming in. Of those, nearly 600 go to projects in Kenya and the Gambia, enabling people to get to school, or to work, and raising funds for orphanages and schools. A further 200 or so are given away locally, going to schools, youth groups, other charities and asylum seekers.

 

Recyke y’Bike receive a wide variety of bikes as donations

Dealing with thousands of bikes a year takes some doing. We have around 40 volunteers who help out. They come from a range of backgrounds from retired professionals to those who have mental health problems, learning difficulties, or drug and alcohol issues. Helping them find their way in society is one of our charitable objectives – it’s not all about the bikes!

 

The volunteers help get the bikes ready for our professional mechanics to work on them. Broken bits are taken off, the bikes thoroughly cleaned, and then replacement parts fitted. The mechanics then do the final tune-up and end-to-end safety check.

Inside the Byker workshop

We raise our own funds rather than relying on grant funding. We do this by selling bikes, providing low-cost transport to people in the North East. The average price of a bike from our shops is a little over £100, and in terms of the number of bikes, we’re one of the biggest independent bike shops in the region.

Asylum seekers with Recyke y’Bike staff

Giving bikes away to asylum seekers is something we’ve always done.

Prior to being accepted as a refugee, people arriving in this country who are fleeing war, torture, or persecution (for anything from race to sexual orientation) are distributed to local authorities. They’re housed, and given £37 a week to live on, which has to cover all non-housing expenses. They also have to regularly sign in with the Home Office.

Inside the Journey – Recyke y’Bike’s City Centre branch

That last point can be particularly onerous. I met an asylum seeker at Recyke y’bike last autumn who’d been housed in the West End of Newcastle, and had to travel to South Shields once a fortnight to sign in. With his limited budget, he chose to walk the 30 mile round trip rather than lose out on a day’s food by buying a Metro ticket.

A bike can really help in a situation like this, which is why we give away around 50 bikes a year to asylum seekers. We work with a number of agencies, and each month we put on a day for them to come to our workshop, learn a bit about how to look after a bike, and fix things like punctures. That way, we know they’ll get more value from the bike. We also hope that some will go on to be volunteers with us.

Chris Boardman arriving to open the Journey in 2015

 

As a charity, we rely on the generosity of people in the North East. There are lots of ways to help, from donating any unwanted bikes, or volunteering, or even just doing something as simple as telling your friends about us.

The post Guest blog – Recyke y’Bike appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

At SPACE for Gosforth, we have learned that the planning system plays a vital part in our civic life.  At its best the planning process can improve a vibrant, healthy community – but bad planning can leave a legacy of problems for future generations.  

The planning process is also a system that is not always understood and is further complicated by the use of legal terms and jargon.

So SPACE for Gosforth is delighted to have permission to share Blue Kayak‘s Guide to the planning system (1) – as we believe the planning system is something that every citizen needs to understand.

A Busy Citizen’s Guide to the Planning System

As the title implies, this is not a detailed analysis of the planning system. Nor is it a guide for householders or business people wishing to carry out a development, or wanting to find out whether planning permission is needed for a given project – although excellent, bespoke advice and support from project planning to application is available from Blue Kayak at very reasonable prices. It is a brief for those who wish to have an input on matters relating to land use and built development, either with regard to a specific proposal or in more general terms.

What is the planning system, and why should we care?

19th century Gosforth – Gosforth developed rapidly at that time due to mining

For most of human history, if you wanted to build a house (say) and had rights over the intended site, you would simply do so. During the later nineteenth and earlier twentieth centuries, however, as the population expanded and the Industrial Revolution happened, concerns began to be voiced: firstly, about the growth of slums in the new industrial cities; secondly, about the extension of towns and cities into the surrounding countryside.

 

The solution – reached in 1947 with the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act – was simple and radical, and has essentially remained in force since then. Anyone wishing to build anything would have to seek permission from the relevant local authority. For its part, the local authority would have to produce a development plan stating what sort of development would be permitted, and where.

Great Park – a major greenfield development bordering on Gosforth and built by a consortium of developers

What has changed since 1947 is that local authorities in the UK do not, by and large, build very much themselves. Phrases such as “planners will be expected to deliver x houses in the next 10 years” or “planners wish to build a new shopping centre…” are often used but are shorthand for the process that actually exists, in which planners decide that, should a proposal to build the desired houses or shopping centre be made by a third party, it would be approved. They may, of course, discuss the proposals with developers, but have no power to make them carry them out.

Planning has become one of the key elements of local democracy. Local planning decisions are made in public, by elected politicians, throughout the year, in a forum where any citizen may attend and comment. The decisions don’t just affect what towns, cities and the countryside look like. They affect the way in which places function – whether they support social justice and environmental sustainability, whether enterprise can succeed, and whether people have access to accommodation and employment.

Policy: what decisions are based on

Indigo Park is another local development under construction

Theoretically, whether a development is permitted or not should depend upon whether it is in accordance with national and local policy.

National policy is summarised within a terse document called the National Planning Policy Framework, which falls within a web-based resource called Planning Practice Guidance. These can be accessed here.

 

Just about every new government makes changes to the way local planning policy is produced; since the process for producing it is lengthy and involves several stages of public consultation, this means that in terms of its format, it is nearly always out of date. However, a council’s planning policy – currently called, imaginatively, a Local Plan – always consists of a document or documents, accompanied by maps, describing the type, quantity and location of development that the authority would be willing to permit, over a given period of time (normally 20 years).

Newcastle City Council has published a number of documents which make up its Local Plan; the most important one is the Core Strategy, which can be accessed here.

Any factor which may be considered in a planning decision is called a “material consideration”; these may include things that aren’t specifically mentioned within local or national policy. However, certain things are “non-material considerations” which may not be taken into account. By and large, these involve effects upon a neighbour where it is only in his private interest, rather than the public interest, that his objection should be upheld. So a proposal may not be opposed on the grounds that it would devalue a neighbour’s house, or that a new business would compete with existing ones. (Since, however, obstructing light is a material consideration, whereas spoiling a view is non-material, the distinction may not always be obvious!)

The Application Process

Certain types of development – small extensions and garden sheds, for example – can be carried out without planning permission. These are “permitted development”; the easiest guide to what is and what is not permitted development can be found here.

La Sagesse in Jesmond includes both a John Dobson house and new build

Anyone wishing to build anything else must submit an application. The amount of information required will depend upon the scale of development, and its likely impacts – so a large housing development may be accompanied not just by site plans and drawings of the proposed houses but also by flood risk assessments, wildlife surveys, and so on.

The local authority must publicise planning applications – in general, all are publicised online and may be viewed at local authority offices; they may also be publicised via notices placed on the development site, letters to neighbours and other concerned parties, and/or advertisements in the local press.

La Sagesse development in Jesmond

A decision should be made within 8 weeks of a complete application being received – 13 weeks in the case of large or complex proposals. Theoretically, the decision rests with the Planning Committee – a group of councillors chosen for this purpose – but in practice most proposals, particularly less significant ones, are determined by planning officers and are therefore “delegated” decisions.

 

Appeals

If a proposal is rejected, the applicant may appeal against the decision. The proposal will then be re-examined by an independent inspector, who may either approve it or uphold the rejection. There is no third-party right of appeal against an approved proposal.

How you can get involved

New flats in an old street – Hawthorn Rd, Gosforth

There are two main points at which any citizen may get involved in the planning process: when a Local Plan is being put together, and when a specific application is being determined.

A Local Plan should be extensively publicised through online consultations, public meetings, exhibitions, etc. These should culminate in an Examination in Public – a series of meetings, chaired by an outside Planning Inspector, at which interested parties may speak.

Anyone may comment on a planning application for 21 days (often longer) after it is made public. In Newcastle, the easiest way to find out what applications have been received, and to comment on them, is to look online here.

You can also sign up to receive alerts if an application is made in your area.

An old building with a change of use – Woodbine Rd, Gosforth

If a proposal is determined at a meeting of the planning committee, objectors and supporters have a right to speak at the meeting. Generally, only a short amount of time will be allotted for this purpose, to be divided between all those who wish to speak on the same “side”; if there are many, it would be advisable to pick one or two people to speak for everyone.

You may, of course, appoint a planning consultant to object to a proposal in writing, and/ or to speak on your behalf at a planning committee meeting. The advantages of doing so are, firstly, that it saves you the trouble of having to go through the various documents yourself to determine where, and whether, the proposal accords or otherwise with local or national policy; secondly, a consultant will have a better idea of what factors should be emphasised in the submission.

Other consultants besides Blue Kayak are available, but they aren’t writing this article, and in any case would, I’m sure, fail to exhibit the same level of detailed analysis and expressive-yet-factual turn of phrase.

Closing remarks

A new development on Gosforth High Street

The planning system is supposed to serve the public good. It isn’t supposed to serve the narrow interests of those who wish to see no change at all in their area even if it means people are homeless, nor the narrow interests of housebuilders and landowners who wish to make money even if it harms societies and landscapes. Planners, of course, have a difficult job balancing up the competing requirements of different groups of people and of the environment; most of the time they more or less succeed; we tend to hear about it when they don’t.

We do not have a perfect planning system, but we do have a process which provides everyone with a real opportunity to comment on the way our towns and cities develop; and, theoretically at least, the more people do so, the better the places we create will serve us.

A few useful concepts

One of our members had this suggestion for a developer contribution

Developer contributions: these are sums paid by a developer to the local authority where the proposed development is thought to make certain social works necessary – things like highway improvements, schools and affordable (i.e. social) housing. By and large, developers will try to argue that they can’t afford them.

There are two main mechanisms by which developer contributions are paid:

• Section 106 Agreements – agreements made on a case-by-case basis between the local authority and the developer
• Community Infrastructure Levies (CIL) – a blanket fee levied on all applications which meet certain criteria. The advent of CIL was supposed to make things simpler, because setting up two different systems to do the same thing generally does have that effect.

Planning conditions: these are requirements set by the local authority when they permit an application. They may, for example, require a landscaping scheme to be submitted and approved before the development goes ahead.

Green Belt: this is an area around a town or city, specifically designated as a place where new development will not generally be permitted. The main purpose is to stop the outward growth of urban areas. Green Belts should not be confused either with “greenfield sites” – i.e. sites which have not been developed in the past – or the open countryside as a whole.

5-year land supply: local authorities are required to show, on a rolling basis, that there is enough suitable land within their area where they would permit housing if it were proposed, to meet the needs of the population for five years. This is important because, if the 5-year land supply doesn’t exist and a housing proposal is rejected, an inspector may approve it even if it conflicts with other policies.

———————————-

 (1)  We would like to thank Josephine Ellis of Blue Kayak for her kind permission to publish this post, originally published on the  Blue Kayak blog.

The post A Busy Citizen’s Guide to the Planning System appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

We are delighted to announce that Bike4Health will be running a Bike Train for 5 days – Monday 17 to Friday 21 July – from the Bike Garden in Nuns Moor Park Fenham to Quorum Business Park via Spital Tongues, Jesmond and Gosforth.

Killingworth Road Metro Bridge

A Bike Train is a group ride on quiet roads and traffic-free paths. We have been working with Bike4Health to arrange this as Killingworth Road will close on 20 July 2017 for the replacement of the Metro Bridge and the widening of Killingworth Road.

You can see a map of the Bike Train route here.

The Bike Train in action

The Bike Train should help people avoid the likely disruption during the first few weeks of the Killingworth Road closure. Each ride will be led by a Bike4Health Guide so no one gets lost, and will be ideal for commuters travelling from near Fenham and Gosforth who want to try cycling but are maybe not so confident on the road or are not sure of what routes to take.

You can see a Bike Train in action on Bike4Health’s promotional film.

Councillor Robin Ashby of Parklands Ward has tried out our route, and you can read about his experiences here.  Cllr Ashby cycled the route as an “Easy Rider” and found that the entire route took 35 minutes, which compares very favourably with driving through Fenham, Jesmond and Gosforth, especially during the rush hour.

The Bike Train Guide heading for Quorum!

Bike4Health are a community interest company developed to enable local communities, businesses and children to incorporate cycling into their lives. They have received funding to run this Bike Train, so it’s free for anyone wishing to try it out.

Arrival at Quorum!

Some of our members have previously taken part in an earlier Bike4Health Bike Train that ran from Kingston Park to Quorum – you can read about their experience here.

We also know that Bike Trains have been run in London to help commuters deal with the effects of strikes on the London Underground.

To book please click on the links below for the day or days you want, or copy and paste the links into your browser.

• Monday 17th July : https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/free-bike4health-bike-train-beat-the-killingworth-closure-chaos-tickets-35923992629?aff=es2
• Tuesday 18th July : https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/free-bike4health-bike-train-beat-the-killingworth-closure-chaos-tickets-35966896957?aff=es2
• Wednesday 19th July : https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/free-bike4health-bike-train-beat-the-killingworth-closure-chaos-tickets-35966931059?aff=es2
• Thursday 20th July : https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/free-bike4health-bike-train-beat-the-killingworth-closure-chaos-tickets-35966965161?aff=es2
• Friday 21st July : https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/free-bike4health-bike-train-beat-the-killingworth-closure-chaos-tickets-35967009293?aff=es2

Bike park at Quorum

If you do catch the Bike Train, please leave a comment on this blog to tell us about your experiences.  SPACE for Gosforth hopes that the Killi Road Bike Train will encourage local employers to run regular Bike Trains as part of their initiatives to promote sustainable travel to work.

We would like to thank Cllr Ashby for championing and testing our Bike Train.  The closure of Killingworth Road risks increasing air pollution in the South Gosforth Air Quality Management Area if the mitigation measures for the roadworks are not effective.  This is a real threat to the health of our community and we hope other councillors will follow his example in actively encouraging residents to consider alternative means of travel.

The post Choo! Choo! Book your ticket for the Killi Road Bike Train 17-21 July! appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

The first ever UK Clean Air Day will take place on 15 June 2017.  On this day, people will be encouraged to run an event, raise awareness of this issue and to make some simple changes to their lifestyle to begin the process of cleaning up the UK’s filthy air.

The effects of air pollution on children’s health are becoming a matter of increasing concern. Children travelling inside cars are also at risk and Prof Sir David King (the chief scientific adviser to the UK government) recently issued a stark warning to parents.

One SPACE for Gosforth member was so concerned about cars idling by his children’s school that he designed two posters and a colouring picture for the school to use to educate children and parents about this issue.  We are privileged to publish his posters and colouring picture, and we hope that other schools and children’s groups might find it useful to encourage drivers to change their behaviour to protect children’s health.

Click on these links to download the posters and the colouring picture.  Further resources to campaign against car idling can be found on the UK Clean Air Day website.

The South Gosforth AQMA

SPACE for Gosforth regularly shares our members’ concerns on this issue as we campaign to improve Gosforth’s air quality.

We were very concerned to see levels of nitrogen dioxide visibly rose following Black Friday last year.

City Centre AQMA

High levels of nitrogen dioxide in our community led to Newcastle City Council declaring the South Gosforth Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in 2008.  This is one of Newcastle upon Tyne’s 2 AQMAs – the other one is the City Centre AQMA (which includes parts of Jesmond). Nitrogen dioxide levels in the City Centre AQMA are even higher than in Gosforth and also rose following Black Friday.

Levels in both the City Centre and the South Gosforth AQMAs reduced during 2017, but remain at concerning levels.

Nitrogen dioxide is not the only air pollutant that threatens public health. In 2015, SPACE for Gosforth arranged monitoring of particulates on Gosforth High Street and we were concerned to find that during our monitoring session levels were higher that the WHO recommended limit and at times exceeded the lower EU limit for safe levels.

The air pollution bear monitoring particulates on Gosforth High Street

Our concern about air pollution is shared by a number of hospital trusts (including Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital) and councils who are supporters of UK Clean Air Day.  Other supporters include leading medical organisations and charities including Public Health England, King’s College London, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians, the BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal), the Royal College of Anaesthetists, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Royal Society of Medicine, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the British Lung Foundation and the British Heart Foundation.

Clean Air Day is co-ordinated by environmental change charity, Global Action Plan.

Chris Large, partner at Global Action Plan said: “We know that people do want to act on air pollution. But currently, they don’t know how to protect themselves and their children, or how to cut air pollution in their local area. 15th June will be a day of practical action, myth-busting and awareness-raising, so we can all breathe cleaner air.”

Top tips to cut air pollution:

• switch off your car engine whenever you can,
• leave the car at home if you really don’t need to use it,
• walk or cycle with your children to school,
• share information on cutting air pollution with others.

Click here to download the Clean Air Day leaflet.

The post No idling – make every day a cleaner air day appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

A packed Trinity Church at the SPACE for Gosforth Blue House Meeting

In our look back at 2015, the year SPACE for Gosforth was formed, we wrote that this was only the beginning and that in 2016 we had a whole year to make a difference.  What we could not have anticipated at that time was the immense difference that 2016 would bring to our community.

Something old … Gosforth High Street

A better Gosforth High Street was the reason SPACE for Gosforth was founded in 2015, and we continued to focus on the High Street 2016.

A High Street filled with hidden dangers!

We began the year by publishing an account of a walk by one of our members on Gosforth High Street to raise awareness of the challenges faced by those with a visual impairment.  Our member was blindfolded and accompanied by a volunteer guide from Guide Dogs for the Blind, and his walk revealed a High Street filled with hidden – and not so hidden – dangers.  This would be an issue for any community given that the UK has an ageing population, but it is a particular issue for Gosforth as three Gosforth schools house Newcastle City Council’s Visual Impairment Additionally Resourced Centres.

Gosforth High Street

Newcastle City Council also agreed to work with SPACE for Gosforth and local traders to improve plans for Gosforth High Street.  These improvements will take place in stages – the first stage to be agreed was improvements for pedestrians, which has recently been the subject of a consultation.

South Gosforth AQMA

Gosforth High Street is part of the South Gosforth Air Quality Management Area.  The South Gosforth AQMA was declared due to high levels of nitrogen dioxide, and is one of two AQMAs in Newcastle upon Tyne (the other is the City Centre AQMA, which has even higher levels of nitrogen dioxide).  SPACE for Gosforth began investigating this issue in 2015 and we continued to highlight the issue of air pollution during 2016 as well as other costs to the community of the negative impacts of traffic.  By contrast, research confirms that increasing cycling has a positive effect on local business.

Air pollution monitor on Gosforth High St.

During the autumn, we were able to track daily readings from the Gosforth High Street air pollution monitor thanks to Newcastle University’s Urban Observatory project.

We were very worried to note the increase in levels of nitrogen dioxide on Gosforth High Street before Christmas  – and a similar increase in the City Centre Air Quality Management Area.

This is an issue SPACE for Gosforth intends to continue investigating due to the risk to residents’ health from air pollution.

Responses to Brunton to Broadway Consultation

Further north from Gosforth High Street on the Great North Road, we also looked at the responses to the proposed new cycle route between Broadway and Brunton Lane, a proposal that received strong support during the consultation.  The graph on the left shows the reasons why respondents liked the proposals.

Despite this, there have been concerns raised relating to the introduction of a toucan crossing.  We examined the issues relating to this crossing, in particular the need for a fully accessible crossing at this point.

Something new … adding to the local debate

SPACE for Gosforth was founded to add new information to the local debate and to take action on the challenges facing Gosforth, and we did this in a number of ways in 2016.

One important local issue we wished to examine at was the issue of drivers speeding on many of Gosforth’s residential streets, so we obtained and analysed traffic counts from Newcastle City Council to provide residents with accurate data about this issue.

When  Gosforth’s speed cameras made the local news, we analysed speed camera data to show that there has been a reduction of accidents since these cameras have been installed.

East Gosforth crash map

We returned to the issue of speeding at the time of the East Gosforth Ward Survey and Priority Event, when we also examined air pollution levels and road traffic casualties in East Gosforth Ward to provide residents with information on this issues .

Protected cycle lane on the Great North Road

Another issue we examined was children’s experience of cycling in our community.  We began by looking at safe cycling routes for children when we applied the research of Dr Rachel Aldred of Westminster University to our local cycling routes.  We found that while Gosforth does have examples of routes that are safe for children to cycle, these do not link together to form a coherent network and many streets are unsuitable for children.

We were also able to give an insight into how children see their school run in March, when we were privileged to be given permission by Archibald First School to publish a letter written by some of their pupils describing the near misses they have experienced on their way to school and requesting that parents drive safely around their school.

In April several local schools took part in The Big Pedal, a challenge to encourage children to cycle safely to school.  We reported on the results at the end of the first week and at the end of the Big Pedal, when three Gosforth headteachers all commented on how much their pupils enjoyed travelling by bike.

A close pass at the Regent Centre

We also looked at the Safe Overtaking petition, a parliamentary petition for a safe overtaking distance, and published a YouTube video clip showing a close pass near a Gosforth primary school.

The petition closed with 23,834 signatures, however the Government responded that it does not currently have any plans to change the legislation.  This is concerning as many of our members have shared their experience of suffering close passes when cycling in our city.

Electric bike in the park

Also in April we organised a taster session of Electric Parks in Gosforth Central Park.  Despite torrential rain, this session proved popular and one resident even arrived before the session began as he was so keen to try the bikes.  “Just brilliant” was the verdict of our members who collected the bikes from the Cycle Hub!

SPACE for Gosforth would like to see more events like this in Gosforth and we were pleased to see Go Smarter to Work organising an event in December at Trinity Church.  We also created the Bike Bingo Card for Bike Week.

John Dobson Street

2016 also saw the opening of Newcastle’s flagship cycle route on John Dobson Street, and we were impressed to find that the improvements have humanised a street that was previously inhospitable for both pedestrians and cycling.

Newcastle / Amsterdam

During the media debate following the opening of the John Dobson Street route Newcastle was often compared with Amsterdam, so we looked at what the two cities have in common.  We found that while both have iconic bridges, lively nightlife and great architecture, there is much we can learn from Amsterdam as it has higher numbers of cyclists, higher driver satisfaction and a much higher GDP.

Something borrowed … working with others

Crash Map for Station Road

In January SPACE for Gosforth members met East Gosforth Councillor Henry Gallagher on Station Road to investigate residents’ concerns about proposals for parking, which were felt to be a possible danger to cyclists.  The plans were later withdrawn and other plans included as part of the Haddricks’ Mills proposals (more on these proposals below).

We ended January by holding a talk with a guest speaker, Professor Mark Tewdwr-Jones of Newcastle University, about the City Futures project, which looked at what Newcastle might look like in 2065.

Monitor on the High Street

Following our air pollution monitoring on Gosforth High Street in 2015, we held a joint meeting in April with the Tyne and Wear Public Transport Users Group on air pollution with guest speakers Professor Margaret Bell and Dr Anil Namdeo from Newcastle University to explain this threat to our health.

The Netherlands is an inspiration for Almere Consulting

Finally in November, we held a meeting with Tom Bailey of Almere Consulting as our guest speaker to introduce his Garden City Guide to Active Travel.  Tom created his Guide after realising there was a gap in design standards for new large scale developments – and with so many new estates planned for Newcastle and its neighbouring communities, this was a gap that urgently needed filling.

Something Blue … Blue House Roundabout, Jesmond Dene Road and Haddricks Mill

The Blue House roundabout

In April we looked at the North-East Combined Authority’s survey on the future of transport in our region.  NECA’s vision of the future for Gosforth became clear in July when plans for “improvements” to the Blue House roundabout, Jesmond Dene Road and Haddricks’ Mill roundabouts were published.

The proposals for Blue House

All three proposals caused outrage throughout the Gosforth Community and beyond, particularly Blue House, which would have had a devastating effect on Newcastle’s iconic Town Moor.

The iconic Town Moor cows

SPACE for Gosforth objected to these proposals on these grounds and due to the risk to public health,  and because the proposals would not work.  We wrote an open letter to the NE Local Enterprise Partnership, who were contributing funding for the proposals and later received this reply.

Protest ribbons on the Little Moor

As SPACE for Gosforth believed that improvements for pedestrians and cyclists were needed at all three locations, we arranged a public meeting at Trinity Church to discuss alternatives.  We thought it was important that our community must not only say what it did not want, but also what it did want.

SPACE for Gosforth public meeting at Trinity Church

The result of the unprecedented community rejection of these plans led to a public meeting organised by Chi Onwurah, MP for Newcastle Central, and also attended by Catherine McKinnell MP (Newcastle North), Cllr Ged Bell and Graham Grant (Head of Transport Investment).

Chi Onwurah MP speaking at Trinity Church

Following this meeting SPACE for Gosforth was invited to join the Blue House Working Group. Information about the group can be found on the Blue House Working Group website, and we have also blogged about the first, second, fifth and sixth Blue House meetings.

Graphic Representation of the 2nd Blue House Meeting

The future of Blue House will continue to be decided during 2017, and we set out a series of measures of success for both policies and for people movement against which the final plans (when published) can be judged.

Poor planning at Gosforth Business Park

Shortly after the Blue House public meeting, plans were submitted to North Tyneside Council for a development on Gosforth Business Park which illustrated how planning can influence the type of journeys we make. We were very concerned to find that these plans made no reference to the nearby South Gosforth Air Quality Management Area and were likely to increase traffic in the AQMA.  With many other nearby developments planned, planning will remain an issue of concern in 2017.

And 2017?

Looking back on 2016, we are amazed at challenges our community has faced and are proud that we have added to local debate and have taken action to improve road safety and air quality in our community.

But these challenges will continue in 2017 – please join us to help make a difference!

The post SPACE’s 2016: some things old, new, borrowed and BLUE appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

British 1930s cycle track location unknown courtesy of Carlton Reid

This post is a guest blog by local journalist Carlton Reid, the executive editor of Bike Biz. Carlton lives in Jesmond and, as his parents live in Fawdon, he regularly rides his bike on Gosforth High Street.

Cycle route, John Dobson Street, Newcastle upon Tyne

The wide, smooth and kerb-delineated cycleway on John Dobson Street is believed by many to be the first and finest such infrastructure in the North East for people on bikes. It’s the finest (oh, for such width, buttery asphalt and protection in Gosforth!) but it’s not the first. Hold on to your cloth-caps because – to the surprise of most people – the North East was once a leader in providing for cyclists.

For one, there was the Tyne Pedestrian and Cyclist Tunnel, a wonderful piece of protected infrastructure, and which is currently being refurbished (although it’s taking a wee while). This two-tunnel tube was opened in 1951, sixteen years before the Tyne Tunnel for motor vehicles. At its peak, 20,000 users – mainly shipyard workers – rode or walked through the tunnel each day.

Neville’s Cross Cycle Tracks Courtesy of the Durham County Archives

And the North East had an even earlier claim to cycling fame: it had the sort of wide, protected cycleways that we today associate mainly with the Netherlands. There were “cycle tracks” on each side of major roads, such as the A167 (or former A1) at Neville’s Cross, and on Durham Road in Sunderland.

These roads were built in the 1930s – the Ministry of Transport would only provide fat grants for them if the local authorities included wide cycleways, too.  Britain once had 280 miles of these Dutch-inspired cycleways and I’ve launched a Kickstarter campaign to research and then rescue many of them.

Well, I’ll be doing the research bit, the rescue bit will be handled by fellow Geordie John Dales, who, despite being based in London, is currently helping Newcastle City Council with the Blue House Roundabout Working Group, the proposals for Gosforth High Street and the Streets for People project.

As John says in the project video below this historical Kickstarter is highly relevant today because the space for cycling that many planners and politicians say isn’t there is there!

Durham Road, Sunderland – image courtesy of Carlton Reid

Many of the North East cycleways I’ll be helping to resurrect are hidden-in-plain-sight – they’re clearly and obviously there but they’ve been there so long nobody knows they were built for cyclists. Others around the country are buried, and lie a few inches beneath verges that people assume are just wide expanses of roadside grass.


The majority of the 80 innovative-for-the-time cycleways – installed between 1934 and 1940 – are on the outskirts of London, but the next hotspot, as you can see from the map below, is the North East. There are 1930s cycleways north of Seaton Sluice and on the Links at Whitley Bay, and there’s a sliver beside junction 63 of the A1 at Chester-le-Street (blink and you’ll miss it, the rest of the cycleway has long since been grubbed up). And Team Valley – built between 1936–39 – was originally equipped with cycleways on each side of Kingsway.

In contrast, the whole of Scotland has three schemes, and Wales just one.

Ministry of Transport London map of 1937 showing proposed cycle routes – image courtesy of Carlton Reid

That there were 280-miles of Dutch-style pre-World War II cycleways in the UK came as a complete surprise to me. I started researching them for the 1930s chapter in my new book, Bike Boom, due out in May from Island Press of the US. I knew there were a few of these “cycle tracks” in the UK – the one on Western Avenue in London, and which was the first – is relatively well known, but then I kept finding more and more.

Plan of Great West Road 1936 – image courtesy of Carlton Reid

Researching ministerial papers in the National Archives I even discovered that the Ministry of Transport was provided with engineering drawings and support by its equivalent in the Netherlands. “Go Dutch” as a cycling clarion call isn’t a modern thing at all!

Building of 1930s cycle tracks in London – image courtesy of Carlton Reid

In the project video John says:  “One of the things that’s quite legitimately raised about British traffic engineers and highway engineers is that ‘we don’t know how to do this stuff’ or ‘we’ve never done it … we have to look abroad.’ What’s fascinating about these is the fact that – piecemeal as they were – we have done it.”

He adds: “Trying to recover these tracks, these paths, hidden in plain sight, is a really terrific opportunity. Who knows how many of the 280 miles are genuinely in a position to be brought back in? But let’s say it’s just a hundred, which is highly likely, that’s a hundred we haven’t got at the moment in effect, but also a hundred that could become a 150 or 200 really quickly by joining them up to other stuff that’s going on.”

John Dobson Street, Newcastle upon Tyne

The short John Dobson Street cycleway cost £1.7m to build. It’ll cost significantly less than that to restore some of Britain’s first cycleways and, if they can be meshed into modern cycleway networks, and given the sort of design treatments that we know work – such as protection at junctions – then, finally, these 1930s cycleways will be used again.

Of course, before we can go cap-in-hand to the Department of Transport and local authorities we have to do the initial legwork and that will involve succeeding on Kickstarter.

1930s cycle sign courtesy of Carlton Reid

After just a day we’ve raised £4,500 of our £7,000 target so demand is clearly strong. Those who back the project get exclusive behind-the-scenes access to our work. You’ll be more than welcome to join us as we aim to revive and protect for future generations what was once an ambitious – albeit disjointed – network of cycleways.

Gosforth High Street

With today’s impetus for active, clean and healthy travel there’s a greater-than-ever desire for these sort of protected cycleways.

This photograph of the former A1 at Neville’s Cross is courtesy of the Durham County Archive).

The post The North East’s hidden heritage appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

A Bike Train is a led ride along safe routes, and the idea is that it shows people a good route to work to get them started commuting by bike.

I heard that GoSmarter was running a Bike Train from Kingston Park through Gosforth to Quorum business park and decided to try it out. I checked out the route and timetable online.

I registered for the Bike Train, joining at my nearest stop which was Regent Centre, and received a confirmation email.

The journey

On the morning of the Bike Train I arrived at the Regent Centre where I met Dave of Bike4Health, who was leading the Bike Train, and the other riders.

With Dave in the lead we headed from Regent Centre across the Great North Road with the traffic lights, with Dave turning round to check that we were all still together as we entered Hollywood Avenue.

It turned out that this was the only busy road between Regent Centre and Quorum that we would cross on-road, but Dave explained that if I hadn’t been comfortable with this, then we would have used pedestrian crossings instead and then rejoined the road on Hollywood Avenue.

After only a couple of minutes on Hollywood Ave we turned off into quieter roads in Garden Village and took a shortcut between some houses.

We came out of the shortcut onto Woodlea Gardens alongside the Ouseburn. We crossed the bridge and were on a traffic free path.

We followed this path for a couple of minutes.

We turned onto Heathery Lane where there was no traffic, just a couple of people running or walking their dogs.

At the end of Heathery Lane we used a signalised crossing to cross Salters Lane safely.

We then followed another traffic free path, passing Gosforth Business Park and Balliol Business Park.

This path took us all the way to Benton Road where we used another signalised crossing to cross the road safely.

We used the off road cycle path to enter Quorum business park.

This brought us to our journey’s end: the undercover cycle parking.

The verdict

This was a direct and surprisingly quick journey of from Gosforth to Quorum, passing Gosforth Business Park and Balliol Business Park along the way. At only 15 minutes it was actually faster than the 20 minutes on the Bike Train timetable and compares well with GoogleMaps estimate for the journey of 12 minutes by bike and 8-22 minutes by car, depending on traffic and route. Even though I have lived in Gosforth for a long time, I wasn’t aware of this as a possible route to these workplaces. This was a flat journey so it was very easy cycling and with safe crossings at each road that we needed to cross and with most of the distance being covered off road, it is one that most people could feel comfortable cycling.

The trip on the Bike Train showed me that even close to home there are still new routes waiting to be discovered. Making this trip by bike on this route was a quieter more relaxing and scenic way to travel than going by car on the main roads. A Bike Train is sociable way to find new ways to get to work.

If this has whetted your appetite and you would like to try a Bike Train, then please leave a comment below or email us on spaceforgosforth@gmail.com letting us know where you would like to travel to/from. If there’s enough interest we’ll see if we can organise one!

The post Choo! choo! It’s the Gosforth Bike Train! appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.