This is the final statement provided for the recent Borough Road Bridge Enquiry hearing and summarises our and others’ arguments against the demolition of the bridge.
ROW/3281308 – North Tyneside Council (Borough Road Bridge, North Shields) Public Footpath Stopping Up Order 2021
Final Submission from North Tyneside Green Party
Based on our original submission and evidence presented during the enquiry our final comments are as follows:
1. The removal of the PROW (Public Right Of Way) undermines NTC policies
There was no challenge to our argument that removal of the PROW over Borough Rd bridge undermines NTC’s policies in relation to their Carbon net-zero target 2030, Heath & Wellbeing and Transport by sending the message to all residents that it is not serious about its targets – or at least not as they relate to some of the most disadvantaged communities in the borough.In order to meet the borough net zero target NTC has to rely on widespread behaviour change amongst its residents because the Council itself only generates 2% of carbon emissions, and transport within the borough – including private cars – contributes over one third. The Council has already embarked upon some ‘nudging’ behaviour change by poster campaigns in relation to encouraging people to use re-usable coffee mugs and exhorting us to have a ‘green’ Christmas. I don’t know, but expect, that a future campaign will focus on ‘active travel’ in order to encourage residents to use their feet, bicycles or public transport instead of their cars. The removal of this PROW will call into question the Council’s commitment to encouraging and providing the infrastructure for this.The NTC Health & Wellbeing policy commits to developing the infrastructure across the borough to encourage and enable more ‘active travel’. Removing this PROW removes important – and valued by local residents and the wider walking and cycling community – infrastructure.In relation to the alternative Council provision, the pedestrian way across Borough Road, the Council asserts that traffic on the road is quite low and therefore does not present a deterrent in the form of either safety or carbon emissions. However it seems that the Council has not done any traffic modelling about the car use from the planned 800 new homes to be built on Smiths Docks which is sited immediately to the west of the ferry landing and the footpath leading to the PROW across Borough Road. Our contention is that residents from this area are unlikely to use their cars to get to North Shields town centre (very limited parking being one reason) but using the footpath which crosses the bridge would be an attractive and more healthy way to get there. If residents, especially families, want to get to the coast eg Tynemouth, Cullercoats or Whitley Bay they are likely to use their cars because of the distance; if they want to do a big shop at a supermarket or go further north they are also likely to use their cars; and in both cases are likely to use Borough Road as the most direct route. This will increase the traffic on Borough Road, making the pedestrian crossing less safe and more subject to carbon emissions. On the other hand, the bridge over Borough Road provides an attractive route by bicycle or foot from Smiths Docks to North Shields town centre for shopping, a possibility the Council does not seem to have considered.Arising from the evidence presented at the Enquiry we wish to add further comments:
2. The consultation produced a substantial rejection of the proposal to remove the bridge and PROW – a result ignored by the Council.
The area to which households were sent letters informing residents of the intention of the Council to remove the bridge included a substantial number of houses to the north of Prudhoe Terrace and Saville Street. Residents living in this area would have no reason to use the bridge to access the amenities in North Shields eg the metro, the library, banks, shops and cafes because these are immediately to the east of where they live, there is no need to head south first. The Council says it distributed letters to 900 households; of these at least 300 are in this area north of Prudhoe Terrace and Saville Street. Hence only 600 of these households would be affected by the removal of the bridge.Neither of the consultation venues were within the area affected by the demolition of the bridge. One was to the west of the area, one to the east in North Shields, neither of them less than a half kilometre away from households affected. The consultation was held in the first week of December. No one remembers what the weather was like on that day, but it is likely to have been cold, perhaps wet too. In spite of the distance and probably inclement weather, a significant number of residents did presumably attend the consultation resulting in 52 responses.The Council maintains that the number of these 52 responses was low and although the large majority of them opposed the removal of the bridge, they did not constitute sufficient opposition to give the Council reason to consider alternatives. Given that only 600 of the households informed of the Council’s intention would be affected by the removal of the bridge a response of 52 comprises approximately 7% of households – a level of response which is high especially in an area like this which is one of the most disadvantaged in the borough. (See the submission from Alistair Young for information on this). The Council compared this response to that of the proposed development at Tynemouth metro, but as it was pointed out to them during the hearing the residents of the Tynemouth area are some of the most well off in the borough and well versed in expressing their views to the Council.
3. The Council suggests that there will be a net gain of benefit to local residents by using the money it would save, by demolishing the bridge/PROW, in the new North Shields Conservation Area – but this development is aimed at attracting new and better off residents and visitors, not the local communities
Several local residents gave heart-felt testimony to the importance of the bridge/PROW to their daily lives, using it for either walking or cycling sometimes both, for daily business reasons as well as recreation. Several local residents expressed the view that the Council neglected their area and ignored their concerns around for example the maintenance of the bridge and its surroundings. The bridge was seen as a local asset, a contributor to the quality of their lives.
The Council argued that the improvements to the North Shields Town Centre and access to the Fish Quay would be of benefit to local residents. However none of the residents giving evidence supported this view. On the contrary a certain amount of scepticism, resentment even, was expressed about so much money being spent there while their one asset – the bridge – was being taken away.
4. The merits of the case
It is our contention that the merits of the case have to be considered at 3 levels: the advantages/disadvantages to the local residents, to the wider community of people most likely to use the PROW, ie walkers and cyclists, and to the wider community of the borough.
- Local residents.Quite a few local residents attended the enquiry and submitted evidence to it, either verbally or in writing. Without exception they objected to the removal of the PROW for reasons which included:
- west-east accessibility into North Shields Town Centre and the ferry via a relatively flat path – particularly important for people with mobility difficulties;
- the fine view of the river from the bridge and continuing along Yeoman Street – important in lifting spirits when life is hard;
- the importance of the bridge as a heritage asset in relation to both seafaring and ship building, reminding people of the history of North Shields and the part their families played in it, contributing to their pride in place.
- The wider walking and cycling community.In addition to the local residents who used the bridge regularly as walkers or cyclists there were several others who lived outside the immediate area who gave evidence at the enquiry.
- The residents of the borough. North Tyneside Council is committed to reducing the borough’s carbon emissions to net zero by 2030. It produces only 2% of the emissions itself, so it has to rely on the residents and employers of the borough to reduce their collective emissions substantially in the next 7 years.
The alternative route provided by the Council, the pedestrian crossing across Borough Road, was not considered to be an adequate or comparable replacement for the bridge. It involves inclines, traffic and a longer distance. The argument that improvements to North Shields town centre would be of benefit to the local residents were dismissed as marginal.In summary, local residents view the bridge as a local asset and its removal would be a detriment to their quality of life which the pedestrian crossing and trees and planters in North Shields shopping centre would not replace.They pointed out the importance of the bridge as part of longer walking and cycling routes, taken individually and by groups, because it gave access to the fine views over the river. Without the bridge cyclists and walkers would have to negotiate the steep slope and traffic on Borough Road. The alternative route along which the national Cycling Route now goes is along Clive Street which local residents call The Canyon (evidence Maurice King, RAYS) because of the high buildings on one side blocking views of the river and the wall and bank and on the other – not a visually attractive route.North Tyneside Council itself recognises the value of the bridge in one of its heritage walks – the Robert Westall Walk, advertised on its website. The route takes you into Tennyson Terrace and across the bridge onto Yeoman Street, with a fine photograph of the river taken from the bridge in the leaflet.Approximately one third of these emissions are produced by cars and other vehicles. The Council has a number of strategies in place which complement their net-zero strategy, including those relating to transport and health & wellbeing. Taken together the Council message is: leave your cars behind to save on carbon emissions, and use your feet and bicycles to get around and improve your health and wellbeing at the same time. It is committed to increasing local infrastructure to encourage this.The Council has started a poster campaign to raise awareness of climate change issues as part of its strategy to encourage the changes in behaviour which are needed to get residents to reduce their carbon emissions. Encouraging ‘active transport’ is very likely to be included in this campaign. Ideally residents from all parts of the borough will be looking for attractive routes to walk and cycle as a consequence. North Shields and the Fish Quay is being redeveloped to attract more visitors. The route along the river via Yeoman Street and the bridge could be advertised as part of a walking or cycling trip there. The route is a very attractive one – as long as the bridge remains as the essential piece of infrastructure allowing people to enjoy the views over the river and avoid the traffic and slope of Borough Road. Removing the bridge goes against the Health & Wellbeing strategy of increasing infrastructure to encourage walking and cycling and sends a very negative message to residents that it is not serious about their policies.
5. Conclusion
The removal of the Public Right Of Way over the Borough Road bridge will impact negatively on the lives of local residents, reduce the attraction of the path over the bridge for walkers and cyclists and undermine North Tyneside Council policies to encourage ‘active travel’ as part of their target of zero net carbon by 2030. The pedestrian crossing over Borough Road provided by the Council as an alternative route is longer and involves slopes and traffic and therefore in no way substitutes adequately for the loss of the current amenity. The Council’s application to remove the public footpath over the bridge should therefore be refused on the merits of the case.