Docstoc

SPD Walker Riverside 2

Document Sample
SPD Walker Riverside 2 Powered By Docstoc
					  Walker Riverside Consultation Feedback report
                                         Part 2


A. Catalogue of Events
On 1st September 2005 a six week consultation period began into „Walker Riverside
Decisions‟, a Preferred Options Report developed from previous community involvement
carried out by Places for People for the Walker Riverside Development Framework Plan,
Initial Masterplan and Draft Masterplan. This consultation, which was also approved by
the Walker Riverside Project Board, was carried out in accordance with regulation 25 of
the Town Planning and Local Development (England) Regulations 2004, and with
Newcastle City Council‟s Submission Draft Local Development Scheme. It forms the
„public participation on preferred options‟ stage within PPS12 guidance on the production
of an Area Action Plan (table 7.1 of PPS12 companion guide).

A thorough programme of community involvement was implemented, which included the
following activities:

   •   Extensive awareness-raising activities and a freephone advice line
   •   Wide circulation of documents to households in the area
   •   Online facilities
   •   24 Statutory and 32 relevant consultee organisations invited to comment
   •   26 local groups were formally invited to comment
   •   10, 5 hour open access drop-in sessions held across the area‟s neighbourhoods
   •   5 focus groups and one set of telephone interviews were held…
   •   15 outreach sessions were undertaken with the help of local CVSOs
   •   Tenants and Residents Associations were contacted by community engagement
       teams and invited to comment
   •   An information portakabin was manned office hours throughout the period
   •   One to one meetings were offered on request
   •   Independent support from Planning Aid

In addition, all households whose home was affected by potential demolition under any
of the three options proposed in the consultation were informed by letter within the first
week of the consultation period.

The consultation feedback outlined in this report is accompanied by a Sustainability
Statement, which provides supporting evidence on the sustainability of the area. Further
evidence supporting the detailed proposals within the Area Action Plan will accompany
its submission to this committee in April 2007. This will build on the Case for Change
established previously by Places for People to support the Draft Masterplan.

B. Comments on Method of Response
Number of replies
In total, 832 forms were returned, including where multiple forms were received from the
same individual.

604 individuals returned response forms, representing 566 households in total. 536 of
these were from within the area.
How response forms were returned to the local planning authority
        Source                                        Percent of all response
                                                      forms received
        By post                                                  62%
        At exhibitions                                           31%
        At the information centre                                 1%
        Received electronically                                  <1%
        Other/ unknown sources, inc. received by                  5%
        hand

In addition to these responses, 84 people contributed to five, independently facilitated
focus group sessions and 99 residents‟ responses were secured through an
independent outreach programme. Five letters were received from residents, four from
residents associations (as well as the Walker and Riverside Community Network and the
Walker Riverside Project Board) and six from local CVSOs, two of which had carried out
their own additional consultation exercises (though these were not independently
facilitated or written up). When responses are looked at in their totality, then, and
allowing for double counting, a final response rate is estimated of 10.5% of residents
living in the Walker Riverside area.

Response forms received from residents of each neighbourhood

Neighbourhood              No. of responses (to            % who qualified their
                           overall level of change)        response with a written
                                                           statement
Cambrian Dovercourt                     52                           67%
Community Focus                         53                           58%
Churchwalk                              69                           73%
Industrial Area                          2                           100%
Losh Terrace                            41                           95%
Pottery Bank                            67                           82%
Western Gateway                         22                           93%
Total in all                            301                          77%
neighbourhoods of
change
Total from within the                   327                             NK
Walker Riverside area
Total including outside                 357                            79%
the area

Comments on level of response

National planning guidance provides no benchmark for assessing a „successful‟
community response rate and there has been no call for such a benchmark from
contemporary academic literature on community involvement. Differences in local
context have shown national benchmarks to be impractical in the past (e.g. open space
guidance. Those factors influencing responses to planning consultation include the size
and detail of the information being consulted on, its relevance and importance to the
local population, the number and extent of engagement exercises undertaken and the
size and demographic/ socio-economic profile of the sample population.

Statistical analysis of the representations received by the Strategic Support service
identifies that the results for the whole of the Walker Riverside area have a maximum
margin of error of 5.4%. This means that, if a response of 50% support was received to a
question, this could be relied on to be between 44.6% and 55.4% when taking into
consideration the views of those who did not respond.

C. Breakdown of Overall Views
Walker Wide outcomes

In total, 370 returns were received that responded to the overall level of change that
should occur in Walker Riverside. Of those, 79% included a written comment in their
return. Less than one per cent failed to indicate a preferred level of change.


                                Community feedback - Desired scale of Impact

                  100%
                  90%
                  80%
                  70%
   Percentage %




                  60%
                  50%                                                                       42.7%
                  40%
                  30%                                                        21.6%
                  20%                       15.7%           15.1%

                  10%        4.1%
                                                                                                          0.8%
                   0%
                         No new housing   Minor Impact   Moderate Impact   Major Impact   Maximum new    No opinion
                           or services                                                     housing and
                                                                                             services




When grouped into categories representing the three options proposed in the
consultation documents (see appendix 1 for details of how the response were grouped),
there is the following result:

            Option                                    %
Option 1 – Minor Impact                             19.7%
Option 2 – Moderate Impact           15.1%
Option 3 – Major Impact              64.3%
No response                           0.8%

Responses from those outside the area

There were 33 responses from those outside the area. These followed a similar pattern
to the responses as a whole, although there was a shift in support from option 1 to
option 2.

            Option                     %
Option 1 – Minor Impact              21.6%
Option 2 – Moderate Impact           16.2%
Option 3 – Major Impact              59.5%
No response                           3.0%

Responses from within the area

These closely resembled the overall picture.

            Option                     %
Option 1 – Minor Impact              19.5%
Option 2 – Moderate Impact           15.0%
Option 3 – Major Impact              64.9%
No response                           0.6%


Summary of Walker Wide statements given

Comment                                                                                    No. of
                                                                                           responses

I support option 3.                                                                          118
Improve local public transport services and access to them.                                   39
Existing homes should be refurbished not demolished                                           38
Green spaces to be kept and and upgraded.                                                     33
This area needs more houses that are energy efficient, with a sensible mix of properties      30
and tenures for all types of people.
More shops with better access to services                                                     27
Need new facilities for young people                                                          25
I support option 1.                                                                           22
Against any further demolition                                                                22
Support for new school.                                                                       22
More action taken against anti social behaviour and more police on the streets                16
Improve urban environment, street lighting and green corridors etc.                           14
Lightfoot refurbished for new facilites and extend use of the dome for non-sporting           14
activities.
Keep the schools separate they have their own identities. Just improve them.                  14
I support option 2.                                                                           13
Need to maintain the well balanced community in the area, do not split it up. Bring back a   12
sense of pride.
More major employers need to be brought into the area.                                       11
This area needs more community groups and activities.                                         8
Only build on land already cleared                                                            7
A new leisure centre is needed.                                                               3
New housing should not be too imposing.                                                       2
Walker should be linked to St Peter‟s and the Quayside.                                       2
Church Walk shopping centre should be refurbished.                                            1
I do not want to move from this area.                                                         1
Most people have bought their homes.                                                          1
No more new trees planted.                                                                    1
Re-open Walker pool                                                                           1
Tower blocks - selling some to fund refurbishing of others is not a good idea.                1

Walker wide responses made in writing, by letter or email

Due to its size, the summary of these responses has been included as appendix 2 of this
report.

Results of focus group and outreach sessions

Summarised results from the focus group and outreach sessions have been written up
independently by consultants Social Regeneration. They form part 1 of this report. A
summary of the business focus groups has been included with the Industrial Area
results. More detailed results relating to businesses in the wider Walker Riverside area
are available to view in the member services library.


D. Responses from Households Potentially Affected by
Demolition
The three overall options included more detailed options to demolish residential
properties in addition to those demolitions already formally agreed by the City Council.
The three options included the following number of residential demolitions.
              Option                       Properties earmarked for
                                                  demolition
 Option 1 – Minor Impact                               0
 Option 2 – Moderate Impact                           27
 Option 3 – Major Impact                           Up to 550

Under option 2, 27 properties would be demolished, 100% of which are local authority
rented properties and 15 of which (56%) were vacant at Feb 2005.

Under option 3, options to demolish up to 550 properties were presented. 811 properties
were covered by the options because some options offered a choice of demolition of one
or other area. In total, properties had the following tenure and house type breakdown.
Tenure                                        %                   Estimated house type                %
Local authority (of which                                         House (2 bed)                     2.1%
void)                                        94.3%                House (2 bed or over)            29.5%
Privately owned                              3.6%                 Flat                             65.8%
Housing association                          2.1%                 Bungalow                          2.7%

Responses from households in optional demolition areas

                         Community feedback - Desired scale of Impact from people
                                       in optional clearance areas



                  100%
                   90%
                  80%
                  70%
   Percentage %




                  60%
                  50%
                  40%                                                                          31.6%
                  30%                                                          25.0%
                  20%        14.5%            13.2%            15.8%

                  10%
                   0%
                         No new housing or   Minor Impact   Moderate Impact   Major Impact   Maximum new
                              services                                                        housing and
                                                                                               services




Respondents from optional demolition areas

In total there were 76 responses from residents of households in the optional demolition
areas. This represents 10.7% of the approximately 711 occupied properties* (811
households total). Three of the responses were from the Losh Terrace area. Of these,
two desired little or no new housing or services and one desired major change.

While the response rate from this group of residents was higher than the overall
response rate, nearly 90% of residents did not comment despite being sent letters to
inform them that their property could face demolition as well as being sent information on
the overall and neighbourhood options and given freepost envelopes to reply with.

* assuming 100 vacant properties. There were 91 local authority vacant properties in this
group in July 2005.

E. Neighbourhood Responses
Number of responses to options for each neighbourhood
               Neighbourhood             No. of       % of total
                                         returns
               Cambrian Dovercourt            43        16.5%
               Churchwalk                     63        24.1%
               Community Focus                47         18%
               Industrial Area                 2        0.8%
               Losh Terrace                   30        11.5%
               Pottery Bank                   66        22.6%
               Western Gateway                17        6.5%
               Total                         261

Response level for each neighbourhood as a percentage of occupied households.
(Please note, this data does not include responses received at focus groups, outreach
sessions and by letter/ email)

               Neighbourhood              No. of       % response
                                          occupied
                                          properties
               Cambrian Dovercourt            771         5.6%
               Churchwalk                     902         6.8%
               Community Focus                492         9.6%
               Industrial Area                76          2.6%
               Losh Terrace                   411         7.3%
               Pottery Bank                   837         7.9%
               Western Gateway                788         2.2%
               Total                         4528
       N.B. Voids estimated from July 05 YHN voids info and known voids in other
       tenures


Cambrian Dovercourt
Number of responses

52 Walker-Wide forms were received from residents of the Cambrian Dovercourt area. A
total of 78 responses were received to the Cambrian Dovercourt neighbourhood options
and 73 of these were from residents of the Cambrian Dovercourt area. 24 responses
were received from those within optional clearance areas.

Desired Scale of Impact
           Cambrian Dovercourt Feedback - Desired Scale of
                            Feedback
  Percentage Respondents
      100%
       90%
       80%
       70%
       60%                                                           50.0%
       50%
       40%
       30%                                                23.1%
       20%                      9.6%           11.5%
                   5.8%
       10%                                                                      0.0%
        0%
                 No new         Minor        Moderate      Major    Maximum    No
                 housing       Impact         Impact      Impact      new    opinion
                    or                                               housing
                 services                                              and
                                                                    services
                                        Scale of Impact Desired


Responses to Cambrian Dovercourt options
                                                Support   Oppose   No Opinion
New town houses on Walker Road                   75.6%      7.7%       16.7%
School d: Two new primary schools in the
east of Walker                                   23.1%     24.4%       52.6%
School E: A merged school on an existing
site in the East of Walker                       35.9%     11.5%       52.6%
School F: a merged school on the Lamb
Street site                                      34.6%     15.4%       50.0%
New housing and open space between
West Walker Primary School and the gas
holder                                           67.9%     16.7%       15.4%
Redevelop the flats, but not the shops, on
the east side of Church Street                   56.4%     16.7%       26.9%
Redevelop the flats and shops on the east
side of Church Street                            60.3%     15.4%       24.4%
Redevelop the maisonettes on Dovercourt
Road                                             76.9%     11.5%       11.5%
Retain all residential tower blocks              32.1%     25.6%       41.0%
Demolish Wardroper House and build
houses there                                     48.7%     25.6%       25.6%
Keep all three tower blocks but re-house
some existing tenants and sell some flats to
fund improvements                                14.1%     42.3%       41.0%
Responses to Cambrian Dovercourt options from residents of the area
                                               Support   Oppose   No Opinion
New town houses on Walker Road                  75.3%      8.2%       16.4%
School d: Two new primary schools in the
east of Walker                                  23.3%     21.9%       54.8%
School E: A merged school on an existing
site in the East of Walker                      34.2%     12.3%       53.4%
School F: a merged school on the Lamb
Street site                                     35.6%     13.7%       50.7%
New housing and open space between
West Walker Primary School and the gas
holder                                          64.4%     17.8%       17.8%
Redevelop the flats, but not the shops, on
the east side of Church Street                  57.5%     15.1%       27.4%
Redevelop the flats and shops on the east
side of Church Street                           60.3%     13.7%       26.0%
Redevelop the maisonettes on Dovercourt
Road                                            80.8%      9.6%        9.6%
Retain all residential tower blocks             30.1%     27.4%       42.5%
Demolish Wardroper House and build
houses there                                    50.7%     26.0%       23.3%
Keep all three tower blocks but re-house
some existing tenants and sell some flats to
fund improvements                               15.1%     43.8%       41.1%

Responses to Neighbourhood options from residents within optional clearance
areas within the Cambrian Dovercourt area

                                               Support   Oppose   No Opinion
New town houses on Walker Road                  58.3%      8.3%       33.3%
School d: Two new primary schools in the
east of Walker                                  25.0%     16.7%       58.3%
School E: A merged school on an existing
site in the East of Walker                      33.3%      8.3%       58.3%
School F: a merged school on the Lamb
Street site                                     33.3%      8.3%       58.3%
New housing and open space between
West Walker Primary School and the gas
holder                                          66.7%     20.8%       12.5%
Redevelop the flats, but not the shops, on
the east side of Church Street                  54.2%     16.7%       29.2%
Redevelop the flats and shops on the east
side of Church Street                           66.7%     12.5%       20.8%
Redevelop the maisonettes on Dovercourt
Road                                            87.5%      4.2%        8.3%
Retain all residential tower blocks             33.3%     25.0%       41.7%
Demolish Wardroper House and build
houses there                                    45.8%     29.2%       25.0%
 Keep all three tower blocks but re-house
 some existing tenants and sell some flats to
 fund improvements                              16.7%   41.7%     41.7%

Response form comments

Support for option 3                                                             31
Demolish tower blocks as proposed.                                               20
Flats need to be refurbished to a decent standard.                               13
Only certain types of tenants should be allowed in the tower blocks.             10
Keep as much open space as possible.                                             10
Against merging of schools.                                                       9
Against demolishing tower blocks.                                                 8
I would like to see more shops in the area.                                       8
Support for new school.                                                           8
Need new and good standard homes with mixed tenure suitable for all
types of people.                                                                  8
Need youth clubs and facilities for young people are needed.                      7
Support for option 1                                                              4
Concern at implications for local businesses.                                     4
Against option 3                                                                  3
No opionion on school proposals.                                                  3
Good bus service is vital for Walker.                                             3
Where will people be moved too while building work/refurbishment takes
place?                                                                            3
Against building homes next to gas holder.                                        2
Need to encourage more employers into the area.                                   1
Better access routes for schools                                                  1
Improve community facilities.                                                     1
Please do not build houses with flat roofs                                        1

Comments received in writing

Local Councillors
No demolition of family housing.

Walker Councillors, Byker Councillors, Walker Labour Party, Newcastle upon Tyne East
and Wallsend Labour Party
With regard to development east of the gas holder, I support building on open space, not
demolishing good quality houses.

Your Homes Newcastle
We would welcome proposals for redeveloping properties on Dovercourt Road and
Church Street as they have not been let for some time.


Churchwalk
Number of responses
63 Walker-Wide forms were received from residents of the Churchwalk area. A total of
105 responses were received to the Churchwalk neighbourhood options and 97 of these
were from residents of the Churchwalk area. 21 responses were received from those
within optional clearance areas.

Desired Scale of Impact

                                      Churchwalk - Desired Scale of Feedback
   Percentage Respondents




                            100%
                             90%
                             80%
                             70%
                             60%
                             50%
                             40%                                      30.4%      33.3%
                             30%              17.4%
                             20%                           13.0%
                             10%    2.9%                                                   2.9%
                              0%
                                   No new      Minor     Moderate      Major    Maximum      No
                                   housing    Impact      Impact      Impact       new     opinion
                                      or                                         housing
                                   services                                        and
                                                                                services
                                                       Scale of Impact Desired

Responses to Churchwalk options
                                                        Support   Oppose   No Opinion
 New housing at Walker Baths                             74.3%     11.4%        14.3%
 New housing east of Lamb Street                         59.0%     14.3%        26.7%
 School D: Two smaller primary
 schools in East Walker                                  23.8%     22.9%        53.3%
 School E: merged schools in east
 Walker on one of the existing sites                     39.0%     21.0%        40.0%
 School F: merged schools on the
 Lamb Street site                                        12.4%     33.3%        54.3%
 New housing on the bus terminus site                    37.1%     35.2%        27.6%
 Redevelopment of Berry Close                            75.2%     15.2%         9.5%
 Cumberland Arms replaced with
 housing                                                 63.8%     14.3%        21.9%
 A new road serving Churchwalk                           55.2%     23.8%        21.0%
 New housing on the corner of Hexham
 Avenue and Duncan Street                                54.3%     21.0%        24.8%
 Retain all tower blocks                                 19.0%     44.8%        34.3%
 Redevelopment of one tower block for
 new housing                                             51.4%     15.2%        33.3%
Sell some flats in tower blocks to pay
for improvements                          21.0%     33.3%        45.7%

Responses to Churchwalk options from residents of the area
                                         Support   Oppose   No Opinion
New housing at Walker Baths               74.2%     12.4%        13.4%
New housing east of Lamb Street           57.7%     15.5%        26.8%
School D: Two smaller primary
schools in East Walker                    23.7%     20.6%        55.7%
School E: merged schools in east
Walker on one of the existing sites       38.1%     20.6%        41.2%
School F: merged schools on the
Lamb Street site                          11.3%     30.9%        57.7%
New housing on the bus terminus site      39.2%     35.1%        25.8%
Redevelopment of Berry Close              76.3%     14.4%         9.3%
Cumberland Arms replaced with
housing                                   63.9%     13.4%        22.7%
A new road serving Churchwalk             55.7%     21.6%        22.7%
New housing on the corner of Hexham
Avenue and Duncan Street                  54.6%     20.6%        24.7%
Retain all tower blocks                   18.6%     46.4%        35.1%
Redevelopment of one tower block for
new housing                               52.6%     15.5%        32.0%
Sell some flats in tower blocks to pay
for improvements                          19.6%     33.0%        47.4%

Responses to Neighbourhood options from residents within optional clearance
areas within the Churchwalk area
                                         Support   Oppose   No Opinion
New housing at Walker Baths               71.4%      9.5%        19.0%
New housing east of Lamb Street           61.9%      9.5%        28.6%
School D: Two smaller primary
schools in East Walker                    14.3%     14.3%        71.4%
School E: merged schools in east
Walker on one of the existing sites       28.6%      9.5%        61.9%
School F: merged schools on the
Lamb Street site                           9.5%     14.3%        76.2%
New housing on the bus terminus site      47.6%     19.0%        33.3%
Redevelopment of Berry Close              76.2%      0.0%        23.8%
Cumberland Arms replaced with
housing                                   47.6%      4.8%        47.6%
A new road serving Churchwalk             52.4%     14.3%        33.3%
New housing on the corner of Hexham
Avenue and Duncan Street                  57.1%      9.5%        33.3%
Retain all tower blocks                   19.0%     42.9%        38.1%
Redevelopment of one tower block for
new housing                               52.4%     23.8%        23.8%
Sell some flats in tower blocks to pay
for improvements                          28.6%     19.0%        52.4%
Response form comments

In support of redevelopment                                                          51
The tower blocks should be demolished.                                               23
Against any demolition.                                                              13
In support of option 1                                                               12
Walker Baths should be refurbished and re-opened.                                    12
The Cumberland Arms should be demolished.                                            11
New housing should be mixed tenure and suitable mix for people in this area.         10
Green areas and open spaces should be kept                                           10
Shopping facilities and local services improved.                                     10
Improve bus terminal/station and bus services                                         9
Open spaces should be untilised.                                                      8
Against a new road                                                                    8
I do not want to move and would not like Hexham House to come down                    7
Against merging of schools, they have their own identitiy.                            5
I can't have an opinion on demolishing other peoples homes.                           4
Redevelopment plans should be extended.                                               4
Support for new school                                                                4
More garages are needed.                                                              3
Support for keeping local pub                                                         3
New improved roads would create much easier access and be an upgrade.                 3
Need to safeguard access                                                              2
Relocating the shops is a silly idea.                                                 1
Eco friendly tower blocks an opportunity                                              1
Concern at consultation                                                               1
Most houses in Hexham Avenue have been moderrnised twice in the last 25
years.                                                                                    1
Need allotments for people like me who have not got a garden.                             1

Comments received in writing

Walker Councillors, Byker Councillors, Walker Labour Party, Newcastle upon Tyne East
and Wallsend Labour Party
Retain housing and amenities

Your Homes Newcastle
We feel it is difficult to see any benefit to demolishing Churchwalk House to build a
straight road which seems to offer few benefits to the area
YHN would find it very difficult to rehouse 80 plus households from the demolition of a
tower block in the area
The bungalows on Wharrier Street remain popular, despite being small
Properties on St Anthony‟s Road are extremely popular and are included in the Modern
Homes Programme, although investment costs to bring them up to standard are high


Community Focus
Number of responses
47 Walker-Wide forms were received from residents of the Community Focus area. A
total of 69 responses were received to the Community Focus neighbourhood options
and 62 of these were from residents of the Community Focus area. 26 responses were
received from those within optional clearance areas.

Desired Scale of Impact


                              Community Focus Feedback - Desired Scale of Feedback
   Percentage Respondents




                            100%
                             90%
                             80%
                             70%
                             60%                                                 49.1%
                             50%
                             40%
                             30%                                     22.6%
                             20%              9.4%        11.3%
                                    5.7%
                             10%                                                           0.0%
                              0%
                                   No new      Minor     Moderate     Major     Maximum      No
                                   housing    Impact      Impact     Impact        new     opinion
                                      or                                         housing
                                   services                                        and
                                                                                services
                                                       Scale of Impact Desired

Responses to Community Focus options
                                              Support    Oppose   No Opinion
 New town houses on Walker
 Road and south of Readhead
 Drive                                         65.2%      15.9%         18.8%
 School A: a new school
 adjacent to Chalfont Road                     27.5%      24.6%         47.8%
 School B: A new school on
 Walker Road                                   27.5%      26.1%         46.4%
 School C: A new school on
 the southern part of the
 Lightfoot Pitches                             29.0%      27.5%         43.5%
 Clear 5 properties to create a
 green link to the river                       37.7%      31.9%         30.4%
 Selective demolition to open
 up views of the pitches behind                39.1%      43.5%         17.4%
 Retain all housing on St
 Anthony's Road                                49.3%      15.9%         34.8%
Clear some housing to open
up views of the Lightfoot
Dome                                23.2%     37.7%         39.1%
Refurbish the Lightfoot Dome
for continued sports use            68.1%      4.3%         27.5%
Renovate the Lightfoot Dome
for a new use and build a new
sports facility nearer the local
centre                              30.4%     31.9%         37.7%

Responses to Community Focus options from residents of the area
                                   Support   Oppose   No Opinion
New town houses on Walker
Road and south of Readhead
Drive                               62.9%     17.7%         19.4%
School A: a new school
adjacent to Chalfont Road           27.4%     22.6%         50.0%
School B: A new school on
Walker Road                         27.4%     22.6%         50.0%
School C: A new school on
the southern part of the
Lightfoot Pitches                   29.0%     25.8%         45.2%
Clear 5 properties to create a
green link to the river             38.7%     30.6%         30.6%
Selective demolition to open
up views of the pitches behind      38.7%     43.5%         17.7%
Retain all housing on St
Anthony's Road                      50.0%     14.5%         35.5%
Clear some housing to open
up views of the Lightfoot
Dome                                22.6%     37.1%         40.3%
Refurbish the Lightfoot Dome
for continued sports use            66.1%      4.8%         29.0%
Renovate the Lightfoot Dome
for a new use and build a new
sports facility nearer the local
centre                              32.3%     29.0%         38.7%

Responses to Neighbourhood options from residents within optional clearance
areas within the Community Focus area
                                   Support   Oppose   No Opinion
New town houses on Walker
Road and south of Readhead
Drive                               57.7%     23.1%         19.2%
School A: a new school
adjacent to Chalfont Road           23.1%     23.1%         53.8%
School B: A new school on
Walker Road                         15.4%     19.2%         65.4%
School C: A new school on
the southern part of the
Lightfoot Pitches                  23.1%     19.2%          57.7%
Clear 5 properties to create a
green link to the river            26.9%     30.8%          42.3%
Selective demolition to open
up views of the pitches behind     23.1%     57.7%          19.2%
Retain all housing on St
Anthony's Road                     69.2%      3.8%          26.9%
Clear some housing to open
up views of the Lightfoot
Dome                               11.5%     46.2%          42.3%
Refurbish the Lightfoot Dome
for continued sports use           61.5%      3.8%          34.6%
Renovate the Lightfoot Dome
for a new use and build a new
sports facility nearer the local
centre                             30.8%     26.9%          42.3%

Response form comments
Opposed to demolishing of any existing housing.                                      28
In favour of improvements.                                                           11
New school should be built on one of the existing school sites.                       6
Lightfoot should remain but offer more variedand youth activities                     7
Green link is unnecessary.                                                            5
There is a need for more local shops and services in a central area.                  4
Security needs to be considered more.                                                 4
No new schools                                                                        4
In favour of option 3                                                                 3
Demolish unused derelict homes on Walker road and landscape sites.                    3
We like living on St Anthony's Road - good community spirit.                          2
Too many new buildings will lead to overcrowding and must not obstruct view of        2
river.
New housing must be occupied and at a reasonable price to buy or rent.                2
If residents‟ houses are demolished would they be provided with a new house to        2
move into?
Concerned at height of new town houses and how that will affect privacy/light.        2
Better use of green space.                                                            2
Soundproof housing next to road.                                                      1
Selby court needs upgrading.                                                          1
Refurbished housing should not be demolished.                                         1
New houses for sale should be for local people.                                       1
More youth facilities.                                                                1
More housing choice for disabled/older residents.                                     1
Lightfoot has gone downhill over the last few years.                                  1
Landlords should take more responsibility for their tenants.                          1
Drug rehab clinic should not be run from a GP's surgery/ pharmacy in a residential    1
area.
Do not want to live on a building site while work is being done.                      1
Concern over location of pedestrian and cycle access.                                 1
A school on a main road would be dangerous.                                           1
Comments received in writing

Mr Nick Brown MP
The opportunity to make use of part of the Lightfoot site for the purposes of a new
primary school for Walker is an attractive one
I favour the retention of the Lightfoot building for leisure use, perhaps combined with
educational use, and I do not want to see uncertainty blighting its future
A new build of the Lightfoot Sports Centre would not be an effective use of public money
There should be no demolition of family housing

Local Councillors
A new build of the Lightfoot Sports Centre would not be an effective use of public money
no demolition of family housing

Walker Councillors, Byker Councillors, Walker Labour Party, Newcastle upon Tyne East
and Wallsend Labour Party
Opposition to the demolition of housing on St Anthony‟s Road was stated
Everyone knows where it is (regarding the Lightfoot Dome)
Refurbishing the Lightfoot Dome would be cheaper than new build

Walker Riverside Network
Concern about the sharing of common entrances with a variety of centres and services.
The client base at the Thomas Gaughan may be very different to other client bases and
would be reluctant to use a shared centre.

Losh Terrace Residents Association
These houses are not slums: no need for demolition

Churches Together
The community focus school could be a useful full service facility
Road safety around the community focus area, particularly relating to children, is of
crucial importance

Your Homes Newcastle
All the properties specified as possible demolition targets in option 3 are properties that
we can let
The profile of the area has changed, with properties being allocated to those over 20, in
full time employment
We would like clarification of the rationale for the proposal to demolish the properties
along St Anthony‟s Road „to open up views of the playing pitches and the new school
behind‟ as these houses are included in the modern homes programme. We suggest
there may be better routes that would not necessitate the loss of popular family housing
There is no reference to Selby Court, which is a sheltered housing scheme which is
currently running with a high void rate. Individual bedsits are generally unpopular
YHN would find the proposals for the Community Focus area the most difficult to support
of all the area specific plans

Sport England
It is imperative that options for development at the Community Focus area do not add to
a playing pitch shortfall.
Sport England would object to any of the 3 school site options as currently depicted until
such time as the Area Action Plan gives clarity that the regeneration proposals will not
result in a net loss of playing fields.
Provision of an omniturf pitch with new junior football pitches offer the potential for the
outdoor facilities to once again play an important role within the city‟s playing pitch stock.
There is considerable merit in options which bring natural surveillance and facility
management close to the pitches. The opening up of the St Anthony‟s Road frontage
through selective demolition would provide more public surveillance of the pitches while
also affording the facilities a degree of kerb appeal that they currently lack.
A new school adjacent to the pitches would provide security and servicing benefits
The Lightfoot Centre should be retained until Newcastle have evidence that the facilities
it provides are no longer needed by the locality or the city or that they can be better
provided elsewhere
Facilities complementary to the Lightfoot Centre‟s main sporting role or that simply bring
people and activity through its doors could be used to tackle limited patronage.
Pedestrian through routes, co-located parking, etc… could be used to create links
between the Lightfoot and Community Focus.

Losh Terrace
Number of responses
30 Walker-Wide forms were received from residents of the Losh Terrace area. A total of
77 responses were received to the Losh Terrace neighbourhood options and 74 of these
were from residents of the Losh Terrace area. 23 responses were received from those
within optional clearance areas.

Desired Scale of Impact

                                     Losh Terrace - Desired Scale of Feedback
   Percentage Respondents




                            100%
                             90%
                             80%
                             70%
                             60%
                             50%              39.0%
                             40%
                             30%   19.5%                                         22.0%
                             20%                                    14.6%
                             10%                           4.9%
                                                                                         0.0%
                              0%
                                   No new      Minor     Moderate    Major   Maximum       No
                                   housing    Impact      Impact    Impact      new      opinion
                                      or                                      housing
                                   services                                     and
                                                                             services
                                                       Scale of Impact Desired
Responses to Losh Terrace options
                                      Support   Oppose   No Opinion
Retain housing on St Anthony's
Road and Losh Terrace (no
development)                             61.3     22.7          18.7
Selective demolition to develop one
block of new housing and two
squares of allotments                    14.7     52.0          36.0
Selective demolition to develop two
blocks of new housing and one block
of allotments                            17.3     53.3          32.0
Clearance of housing along St
Anthony's Road to build new housing
and improve allotments                   20.0     56.0          26.7

Responses to Losh Terrace options from residents of the area
                                      Support   Oppose   No Opinion
Retain housing on St Anthony's
Road and Losh Terrace (no
development)                             59.5     23.0          17.6
Selective demolition to develop one
block of new housing and two
squares of allotments                    14.9     50.0          35.1
Selective demolition to develop two
blocks of new housing and one block
of allotments                            17.6     51.4          31.1
Clearance of housing along St
Anthony's Road to build new housing
and improve allotments                   20.3     54.1          25.7

Responses to Neighbourhood options from residents within optional clearance
areas within the Losh Terrace area
                                      Support   Oppose   No Opinion
Retain housing on St Anthony's
Road and Losh Terrace (no
development)                             56.5     13.0          30.4
Selective demolition to develop one
block of new housing and two
squares of allotments                     8.7     52.2          39.1
Selective demolition to develop two
blocks of new housing and one block
of allotments                            13.0     52.2          34.8
Clearance of housing along St
Anthony's Road to build new housing
and improve allotments                   26.1     56.5          17.4

Response form comments

Against any demolition.                                                37
Existing properties should be refurbished.                             35
In support of option 3                                                             22
Redevelopment of allotment area is a good idea.                                    7
Improve street lighting and security in the area so people feel safer at night     5
New housing needs to be a good mix of types which is suitable for elderly
and young families.                                                                5
Against option 3.                                                                  4
Play area for young children is needed                                             3
Lightfoot Centre should be refurbished.                                            2
Improve local facilities for shopping and services.                                2
New leisure facility is needed.                                                    2
Concern over height of new houses.                                                 1
In support of option 2.                                                            1
Improve facilities for young people.                                               1
Most allotment holders want to keep them                                           1
Car parking outside of houses is needed.                                           1
Shopping at local level is important - community focus shops would be a
good idea                                                                          1

Comments received in writing

Local Councillors
Retain housing on both St Anthony‟s Road and Losh Terrace AND redevelop the
allotment site. This option was „drawn up‟ at the Community Enquiry event in November
2004.
No demolition of family housing
I support the building of new housing/ facilities on „open land‟ but oppose the demolition
of existing housing so that new housing could be built in its place
I do not support the demolition of existing community facilities where there are no plans
to replace them

Walker Councillors, Byker Councillors, Walker Labour Party, Newcastle upon Tyne East
and Wallsend Labour Party
You can redevelop the allotments and retain housing on St Anthony‟s Road and Losh
Terrace. This was shown at the Community Enquiry as one of the options.

Losh Terrace Residents Association
Use ALMO money to modernise houses (inside and outside) to decent homes standard.
Modernise allotments and use half of the land to build bungalows for elderly residents,
as was identified at the community enquiry.

Pottery Bank
Number of responses
67 Walker-Wide forms were received from residents of the Pottery Bank area. A total of
108 responses were received to the Pottery Bank neighbourhood options and 100 of
these were from residents of the Pottery Bank area. 15 responses were received from
those within optional clearance areas.
Desired Scale of Impact


                                  Pottery Bank Feedback - Desired Scale of Impact

                           100%
  Percentage Respondents




                            90%
                            80%
                            70%
                            60%
                            50%                                                              40.3%
                            40%                                 29.9%
                            30%                                               17.9%
                            20%                  10.4%
                            10%     0.0%                                                                    1.5%
                             0%
                                   No new      Minor Impact   Moderate     Major Impact    Maximum       No opinion
                                  housing or                   Impact                     new housing
                                   services                                               and services
                                                              Scale of Impact Desired


Responses to Pottery Bank options
                                                                        Support   Oppose     No Opinion
 New houses on Walker Road                                                 74.1     14.8            11.1
 New housing near the gas holder                                           63.9     18.5            17.6
 New housing south of Evistone Gardens                                     69.4     12.0            18.5
 New housing on the site of the women's refuge                             67.6     12.0            20.4
 New housing and open space on land between
 West Walker Primary School and the gas
 holder                                                                    52.8       23.1           24.1
 Housing where St Anthony's School and
 Thomas Gaughan Centre currently are                                       46.3       38.0           15.7
 Selling some flats in St Anthony's House to
 fund improvements                                                         45.4       32.4           22.2
 No investment in Pottery Bank and Caldbeck
 Close                                                                     14.8       45.4           39.8
 Investment to DHS in Pottery Bank and
 Caldbeck Close                                                            50.9       20.4           29.6
 Full estate refurbishment and env
 improvements in Pottery Bank and Caldbeck
 Close                                                                     55.6       19.4           25.0
 Clearance of Pottery Bank and Caldbeck Close
 and new housing around and to replace it                                  50.0       34.3           15.7

Responses to Pottery Bank options from residents of the area
                                                                        Support   Oppose     No Opinion
 New houses on Walker Road                                                 75.0     14.0            11.0
 New housing near the gas holder                                           64.0     18.0            18.0
 New housing south of Evistone Gardens                                     70.0     11.0            19.0
 New housing on the site of the women's refuge                             68.0     11.0            21.0
New housing and open space on land between
West Walker Primary School and the gas
holder                                              53.0      22.0          25.0
Housing where St Anthony's School and
Thomas Gaughan Centre currently are                 49.0      35.0          16.0
Selling some flats in St Anthony's House to
fund improvements                                   49.0      30.0          21.0
No investment in Pottery Bank and Caldbeck
Close                                               16.0      42.0          32.0
Investment to DHS in Pottery Bank and
Caldbeck Close                                      51.0      19.0          30.0
Full estate refurbishment and env
improvements in Pottery Bank and Caldbeck
Close                                               55.0      19.0          26.0
Clearance of Pottery Bank and Caldbeck Close
and new housing around and to replace it            54.0      30.0          16.0

Responses to Neighbourhood options from residents within optional clearance
areas within the Pottery Bank area
                                                Support    Oppose    No Opinion
New houses on Walker Road                          86.7      13.3            0.0
New housing near the gas holder                    73.3      20.0            6.7
New housing south of Evistone Gardens              66.7      20.0           13.3
New housing on the site of the women's refuge      60.0      13.3           26.7
New housing and open space on land between
West Walker Primary School and the gas
holder                                              73.3      20.0           6.7
Housing where St Anthony's School and
Thomas Gaughan Centre currently are                 46.7      40.0          13.3
Selling some flats in St Anthony's House to
fund improvements                                   33.3      33.3          33.3
No investment in Pottery Bank and Caldbeck
Close                                                6.7      53.3          40.0
Investment to DHS in Pottery Bank and
Caldbeck Close                                      66.7       6.7          26.7
Full estate refurbishment and env
improvements in Pottery Bank and Caldbeck
Close                                               53.3      26.7          20.0
Clearance of Pottery Bank and Caldbeck Close
and new housing around and to replace it            46.7      40.0          13.3

Response form comments

Support for demolition of properties as proposed.                                  92
Tenants on this estate would appreciate refurbishment to their homes than houses   45
being demolished.
The schools and the Thomas Gaughan Centre lie at the centre of the Pottery Bank    29
area. The schools should be developed for the area, not demolished.
Only support building of new houses on existing clear land.                        16
I am against demolition of existing houses.                                        14
New homes are not a problem, it‟s who lives in them.                               14
New housing needs to be appropriate mix, with mixed tenure suitable for all types      13
of peole.
Walker taxis has been here for over 7 years and employs over 70 people and has         11
been one of the best offices in Newcastle for 25 years.
The Lightfoot area should remain park land.                                             8
Concern regarding the height of proposed new housing on Walker Road.                    8
We need a youth centre for young people                                                 7
Lack of faith in consultation                                                           7
People wouldn‟t want to live next to the gas tank.                                      6
Improved shopping facilities in the Walker area, with café and restaurants.             6
Improved local community facilities in appropriate location.                            5
New bus route to link to Newcastle Centre to Walker Road - City Road for workers        4
and shoppers.
Improvements to the road are needed.                                                    3
Concerns regarding high rise flats and who would own them if sold.                      3
We expect to stay in the locality and expect the Council to adhere to the Walker        2
Riverside Promise.
Need improvement in police presence, more street wardens and council services.          2
All flats should be sold - hotspot for drug users. Students would be better tenants.    1
Opposition to any new trees being planted.                                              1
Where I live is convenient for local shops and transport.                               1

Comments received in writing

Local Councillors
Build new housing or services on open land
Have the „new alongside the old‟
I and my colleagues conducted a door to door survey of residents of the area and the
results showed that over 90% of the residents preferred the option of refurbishment (for
which there are funds available) rather than demolition
Residents are concerned with uncertainty
This is a policy of „council house cleansing‟
Void properties in the Pottery Bank area have been deliberately created
There is a demand for housing in the area and I am sure that with refurbishment this
would rise
The housing in the Pottery Bank area is no different to housing nearby where an
enormous amount of funding has recently been invested with proven success

Walker Councillors, Byker Councillors, Walker Labour Party, Newcastle upon Tyne East
and Wallsend Labour Party
Build on available open space
Improvements to Pottery Bank on a par with the St Anthony‟s estate

Pottery Bank Residents Association
No demolition of Pottery Bank/Belmont/St. Anthony‟s walk and Caldbeck close.
However, we would be interested in discussing an option 4 or 5.

Churches Together
We are very concerned by the proposed closure of Belmont Methodist Church and of the
future of St Anthony of Egypt
Your Homes Newcastle City Council
If this stock remains and continues to be managed by YHN, then investment to modern
homes standard would be made as a minimum
We support proposals to demolish and redevelop Caldbeck Close
There has been a marked increase in demand for housing in the Pottery Bank area,
particularly for 3 bedroom homes

Other issues
Three residents of a block of housing on Burwood Road, outside but adjacent to the area
shown for redevelopment under option 3d, made representations. Two of these
requested that the block of 6 properties should be included in the redevelopment area
within option 3 (d – redevelopment). One resident requested that the property remain
outside the proposed redevelopment area.

Western Gateway
Number of responses
17 Walker-Wide forms were received from residents of the Western Gateway area. A
total of 30 responses were received to the Western Gateway neighbourhood options and
27 of these were from residents of the Western Gateway area. There is no further
demolition proposed in the Western Gateway area under any of the options.

Desired Scale of Impact


                                   Western Gateway - Desired Scale of Feedback
   Percentage Respondents




                            100%
                             90%
                             80%                                                  68.2%
                             70%
                             60%
                             50%
                             40%
                             30%
                             20%              9.1%         9.1%        9.1%
                             10%    4.5%                                                    0.0%
                              0%
                                   No new      Minor     Moderate      Major     Maximum      No
                                   housing    Impact      Impact      Impact        new     opinion
                                      or                                          housing
                                   services                                         and
                                                                                 services
                                                       Scale of Impact Desired


Responses to Western Gateway options
                                               Support    Oppose    No Opinion
Develop housing on land that
was allotments, behind
Bakewell Terrace                        68.8         0.0           31.3
Build new housing on land
between Walker Road and
Chatsworth Gardens                      65.6       15.6            18.8
Build new housing ro the rear
of Kingston Ave and improve
the remaining green space               62.5         9.4           28.1

Responses to Western Gateway options from residents of the area
                                    Support     Oppose     No Opinion
Develop housing on land that
was allotments, behind
Bakewell Terrace                        63.3         0.0           26.7
Build new housing on land
between Walker Road and
Chatsworth Gardens                      60.0       16.7            13.3
Build new housing ro the rear
of Kingston Ave and improve
the remaining green space               56.7       10.0            23.3

Response form comments

Option 3 is excellent - Financial investment, sustainability, flexibility - the energy efficient   12
homes, health centres and schools.
Chatsworth Gardens - concerns regarding how close the new houses will be and if they                7
are going to take view away. Also creation of a back lane again.
Harbottle Park needs to be retained as a green area. The 'green appeal to the gateway'              5
is very important.
Green area is underused with few features                                                           4
More/ better consultation                                                                           4
Energy efficient properties with the option to buy or rent.                                         3
Improved transport to/from Walker Road. Improve road crossing facilities.                           3
Local shopping facilities.                                                                          2
Concern for loss of open space/ need more green corridors                                           2
Improve entrance to the gateway. Parking rear of Chatsworth not well used.                          1
Concerned the area north of Walker Road will remain an unbalanced community with                    1
high levels of council owned property. Many streets seem featureless with very little
greens or points of interest.
Need greater control of private landlords                                                           1
I don‟t know how much land is available for this project but as long as there is no                 1
demolition I am in favour.
Proposed plans are certainly not over congested - appearing as merely a small perimeter             1
of quality properties on under utilised green areas.
A few rows of properties, just a part perimeter on unused Harbottle Park would be an                1
asset
Building new houses gives residents a chance to move back to the area they were born                1
and bred in. I have been born and breed in Walker near the banks of the Tyne, it needs a
dramatic change and updated.
Need garage due to vehicle insurance                                                                1
Not happy at all. If this means Chatsworth Gardens would be demolished. If this also      1
means Irving Avenue, I don't think these should be options
Improve the back gardens in Walker area in general.                                       1
It seems to me that council tenants have had more say about what goes on than home        1
owners
Concerns for deterioration around Irthing Avenue                                          1
It is better to build rather than demolish many people didn‟t want to move or relocate.   1
The walk along the river should be kept.                                                  1
As long as the new housing is similar to what is already there it would be okay.          1
Improvement in services and facilities for young people.                                  1
Excellent views should be maximised.                                                      1
Houses overlooking green site should prevent anti-social behaviour on site.               1

Comments received in writing

Local Councillors
No demolition of family housing
Support for building on open land

Walker Riverside Network
The Western Gateway area has an issue with private landlords. The condition of housing
in the Irving Avenue and Chatsworth Gardens has declined as a result of poor private
landlords.

SUSTRANS
Development at the Western Gateway should preserve the route of Hadrians Way as off-
road cycle and walking provision

Industrial area
Number of responses
2 Walker-Wide forms were received from residents of the Community Focus area. The
majority of respondents in the area engaged through focus groups and formal letters
rather than the response forms and, unlike the other areas, the neighbourhood response
form included a section to comment on the overall options. A total of 8 responses were
received to the Community Focus neighbourhood options and 7 of these were from
residents of the Community Focus area. 3 responses were received from those within
optional clearance areas.

Desired Scale of Impact

Of the two Walker-Wide forms received, one respondent wished to opt for moderate
impact while the other opted for major impact.

Responses to Industrial Area options
                                  Support    Oppose    No Opinion
 Progressive management
 vision                             50.0%     12.5%           37.5%
 Offshore technopole vision         50.0%     12.5%           37.5%
 Technology and industrial park
 vision                             62.5%     12.5%           25.0%
    Minor Impact                      37.5%     12.5%         50.0%
    Moderate Impact                   50.0%      0.0%         50.0%
    Major Impact                      75.0%     12.5%         12.5%

Responses to Industrial Area options from businesses in the area
                                     Support   Oppose   No Opinion
    Progressive management
    vision                            42.9%     14.3%         42.9%
    Offshore technopole vision        42.9%     14.3%         42.9%
    Technology and industrial park
    vision                            57.1%     14.3%         28.6%
    Minor Impact                      28.6%     14.3%         57.1%
    Moderate Impact                   42.9%      0.0%         57.1%
    Major Impact                      57.1%      0.0%         14.3%

Responses to Industrial Area options from businesses within optional clearance
areas in the Industrial Area
                                     Support   Oppose   No Opinion
    Progressive management
    vision                            66.7%     33.3%          0.0%
    Offshore technopole vision        66.7%     33.3%          0.0%
    Technology and industrial park
    vision                            66.7%     33.3%          0.0%
    Minor Impact                      66.7%     33.3%          0.0%
    Moderate Impact                  100.0%      0.0%          0.0%
    Major Impact                      66.7%     33.3%          0.0%

Response form comments

Concern about loss of business property                                                      14
need more information/ time/ lack of prior consultation                                       5
Maximum funding subject to satisfactory relocation in advance of redevelopment                3
Keep and enhance local enterprise                                                             1
Concern that Bath Street units could be lost                                                  1
Newcastle College supports the options                                                        1
Replace scrapyards with a hotel                                                               1

Focus group and outreach feedback

Two sessions were held for businesses in the area, including those located in the
industrial area on the riverside. The list of invitations was compiled with the assistance
of the North East Chamber of Commerce and, in total, 664 letters were sent out. 35
people attended the sessions.

The main issues were:

       the early production of a ‘Promise’ specifically for businesses in the area (along
        the lines of that produced for residents)
    the City Council to embark on individual discussions and negotiations with
     businesses likely to be directly affected by the options as soon as possible

    the City Council to produce a range of management and financial mechanisms
     aimed at supporting and benefiting businesses affected by the options, including, in
     particular, details of compensation and relocation

    the City Council to ensure that due emphasis and attention is given to the futures
     of businesses in the area (and to the same degree as they will be given to
     residents)

    the City Council to move as quickly as possible to produce final proposals to
     provide certainty to businesses in the area

    a regular and steady flow of information to be produced during the development
     of the final proposals, and beyond, so businesses know what is happening

    consideration of the need for renovation and improvement of existing business
     buildings as part of the Area Action Plan as well as new development

In conclusion, businesses were most concerned that there was regular discussion with
them about their individual circumstances and opportunities, that information was
provided as soon as possible about compensation and relocation arrangements and
that the Council produce a ‘Promise’ document for businesses.

Summary of Industrial Area comments received by letter/ email

Nick Brown MP
Document too general
Economic development issues vital to regeneration

Pearson Engineering Services
Significant investment needed for regeneration – option 3 is supported
Offshore Technopole option is supported
Workshops are in need of regeneration to support the regeneration of the area
Disappointment at lack of prior engagement

Sister Jill Gracie
Industrial area – I would like to see forms coming in to build in a certain percentage of
jobs and apprenticeships for local people.

Territorial Army
Concern about the absence of previous engagement
The RFCA do not envisage that relocation is a cost effective option.
The RFCA do not see a marginal displacement in geographic terms to be sensible given
the high cost that it would involve. Thus the association is opposed to any relocation.
If the City Council can persuade us of any advantage in relocation to both the RFCA, the
units and cadets that make up the TA centre and the wider community, then we are
prepared to reconsider our position.
SUSTRANS
There are not enough green corridors leading to the Industrial Area

F. Comments on Validity of Responses
A bundle of 21 Churchwalk response forms and 20 response forms responding to
Walker Riverside wide issues were received stating the same comments in the same
places with the same preferences ticked. Quality check interviews were carried out to
establish how far these responses reflected the residents‟ own views. The responses
were discounted after one resident admitted to filling in the forms and knocking door to
door to ask residents to sign on the basis of partial advice on the proposals. 24 further
response forms were discounted after quality check interviews uncovered that the
alleged respondents denied having filled them in.

A 10% survey was undertaken of respondents to the consultation. Initial feedback
suggests that there were no other issues of concern.

G. Conclusion
Recommended scale of impact

The results of the consultation show a consistently high level of support for option 3 and
above. The option to pursue 'maximum new housing and services' (3+) was the most
popular level of impact overall, was most popular amongst those households who
responded and whose home was in an option for demolition and was the most popular in
every 'neighbourhood of change' except Losh Terrace. Nevertheless, it is noted that
demolition was raised as a significant issue both prior to development of the options and
during the consultation. Option 3 had already responded to this concern by proposing a
reduced level of demolition than the Draft Masterplan. The Sustainability Statement sets
out why option 3 or 3+ would not be successful without demolition and tenure change.
Therefore it is proposed that a balance be struck between maximum new housing and
concerns over more demolition, and that a level of change similar to option 3 is pursued.

The Sustainability Statement, which accompanies this report, outlines how national
planning guidance and funding principles, together with academic and expert
consensus, support regeneration in Pathfinder areas that deals with issues of tenure
imbalance and the need to replace housing. They also recognise these changes as an
important tool with which to tackle issues of urban deprivation. Option 3 aligns most
closely with these principles and is thus likely to both be the most successful and draw
the most external funding into Walker Riverside of the three options presented in the
consultation documents.

The sustainability argument for option 3 is supported by the Sustainability Appraisal.
Comments from the one residents association that responded to the sustainability
appraisal will be taken into consideration though it should be noted that, even if these
comments were fully accepted, the appraisal would still show option 3 as the most
sustainable of the three options.

Neighbourhood level recommendations
The Area Action Plan needs to define one proposal in detail which will set the future land
use and investment framework for Walker Riverside over the next 15 years. In order that
progress can continue with certainty, and that the views of the community are clearly
linked to the forthcoming Area Action Plan, the Committee is asked to provisionally
agree to the neighbourhood level recommendations outlined in the covering report.

Areas where further work is needed

It is acknowledged that there are three areas where there is still a lack of consensus

Losh Terrace
There is significant concern around demolition in the Losh Terrace area, but there is a
need for demolition in order to gain access to the underused allotment land behind,
either to improve it or develop it for housing. Lack of overlooking and integration with its
surrounding land uses has been a major contributing factor to the very poor condition
and use of the allotment land at present. It is proposed that routes into the allotment land
are sought by negotiating the purchase of a strip of properties with the full consent of the
owners, or by using opportunities within the natural turnover of local authority rented
stock. This process would occur outside of the area action plan process.

1-11 Burwood Road
Residents of this area have not been in agreement as to whether it should be included in
the area of Pottery Bank shown for redevelopment in option 3 (d). Should the Executive
support this option for the Pottery Bank area it is proposed to convene a meeting of all
residents in the block, together with the member for regeneration and development, to
begin the process of coming to a conclusion on the matter.

Industrial Area
It is recognised that more work needs to be carried out with businesses and users of the
Industrial Area before firm proposals can be drawn up. It is proposed that the nature of
the area should remain industrial but that the Area Action Plan should identify the future
land use as mixed use, to include education and housing as well. Parameters for these
may be set within the Area Action Plan. Future work will then inform an Industrial Area
Supplementary Planning Document, specifying land use classes and investment
programmes in more detail.

H. Next Steps
Timetable for the development of the Draft Area Action Plan

It is proposed to feedback to the Planning and Transportation Strategy Committee in
April 2006, followed by Full Council in May 2006. Adoption of the Area Action Plan is
expected in February 2007.
Feedback to communities

A feedback newsletter will be produced and circulated to all households in the area. A
more detailed summary, responding to individual comments where possible, will be
produced and sent to those who have requested it (an option to be kept informed was
included on response forms).


I. Appendices
Appendix 1 of 2 - How responses were grouped into options 1, 2 and 3




Appendix 2 of 2 – Summary of responses made in writing

Key workers

This Focus Group consisted mainly of representatives from community and voluntary
organisations in the area, many of whom had worked in the area for a long time. A total
of 26 invitations were sent out to groups and organisations, many of which had also
been involved in assisting with the arrangements for the outreach programme (see
below), along with others suggested by the City Council, the East End Community
Development Alliance, and the Walker Riverside Information Centre. 10 people
attended the session.

The main issues raised were:

          the need to clarify the position on current and future funding for the
           community and voluntary sector

          the involvement of young people in the development and implementation of
           the Area Action Plan on an on-going basis

          the clarification of the future of some of the community buildings identified
           in the options

          the need to provide resources to the community and voluntary sector to
           support its role and representation in the planning process

          clarification of how the regeneration process will bring value to the community
           social and economically (as well as physically),          particularly in
           relationship to service improvement
In conclusion, key workers were concerned that the position of the community and
voluntary sector in terms of support and funding is clarified, that the sector was
used as a vehicle to engage residents (with appropriate resources) and that the Area
Action Plan specifically highlights the social and economic benefits that will accrue
from physical change, detailing the service improvements that will take place.

Community stakeholders

The Community Stakeholder Focus Group consisted of representatives of public sector
service providers in the area, including departments of the City Council. The original list
was compiled with input from the City Council, the East End Community Development
Alliance, and the Walker Riverside Information Centre. A total of 61 invitations were
sent out and 28 people attended the session.

The main outcomes were:

          the need to ensure inclusive, on-going and thorough consultation with
           the community and voluntary sector in the area throughout the
           development and implementation of the Area Action Plan, and, as part of this,

          to ensure specific groups of the community are targeted, including
           homeless / vulnerable young people, schools (children and staff / governors),
           young people generally and asylum seekers and refugees

          the importance of addressing issues of service delivery as a major
           component of the Area Action Plan and covering timescales, co-ordination,
           service requirements / commitments to change and funding

          the necessity to involve the community and voluntary sector to support,
           mediate and manage consultation processes within neighbourhoods and
           across the area as a whole

In conclusion, community stakeholders highlighted the need for comprehensive and
on-going consultation with the community and the community and voluntary sector
throughout the Area Action Plan process, to ensure all sections of the community are
actively engaged in this and that service delivery is a major component of the Area
Action Plan.

Walker Riverside Network

The Walker & Riverside Community Network is an umbrella group of
representatives drawn from a number of individual residents and tenants group and
other community groups, such as the Thomas Gaughan Community Centre and
Churches Together. It consists of:

          Lancefield Avenue Tenants Association
          Pottery Bank Tenants Association
          Proctor Court Tenants Association
          The Oval Residents Association
          Cambrian Residents Association
          Walker Churches Together
          Wilton Avenue Residents Association
          Thomas Gaughan Community Centre
          Owner Occupiers Group

Ten people attended the session from Cambrian RA, Lancefield Avenue TA, Wilton
Avenue RA, Thomas Gaughan Centre, Pottery Bank TA and the Owner Occupiers
Group.

The main outcomes of the session were:

          the need to analyse responses to the options by neighbourhood in order
           to differentiate between responses from residents living in a neighbourhood
           about that neighbourhood, and those from residents who may live in the area
           but not in the particular neighbourhood they are commenting on

          the need to consider social and economic issues (i.e. antisocial behaviour
           and tenancy enforcement), and ways of addressing them, with as much
           emphasis and priority as physical issues

          the development of an on-going and inclusive programme of consultation
           with and regular information to residents, community and voluntary
           organisations, stakeholders and businesses in the area

          NCC to better co-ordinate internally and with partners regeneration, planning
           and housing in order that policies and practices are linked, inform each
           other and provide a consistent and unified approach

          the need to review proposals for the Community Focus area, in particular
           the pros and cons of centralising service and retail provision as against
           dispersing it across the neighbourhoods

In conclusion, the Network‟s primary concerns were that it was clear in the analysis of
the responses whether residents were commenting on their own or other
neighbourhoods, that social and economic improvements must be treated with as
high a priority as physical ones, that there should be an on-going and inclusive
programme of consultation across the area and that the City Council need to better
co-ordinate policies and practices to provide a consistent and unified approach to the
area.


Outreach

In order to consult with sections of the community who might not attend consultation
sessions at times they find difficult or in places they are not familiar with, 12 sessions
were held with:

          young people (4) – Rathbones Entry to Employment students, Rathbones
           Childcare students, Walker Wanderers, YMCA Detached Youth Group
          older people (3) – Thomas Gaughan Centre Food Co-op x 2, Greater Walker
           Community Trust Monday Club at Monkchester Community Centre
          asylum seekers and refugees (2) – Common Ground, New Neighbours
           (Sure Start)
          young parents (2) – NCH Parents Group, Sure Start Young Parents Group
          community centre users (1) – Thomas Gaughan Centre

In addition, 3 sessions were organised by the City Council’s Play and Youth (East)
section for young people and facilitated by the Walker Riverside Engagement
Manager. These sessions used summaries of the options on flip charts followed by
discussion. The young people identified changes / improvements they would like to see
to the area overall. These were then allocated to the options it was felt most likely would
accommodate them. Finally, each person then indicated which option for the area
overall would best suit their aspirations.

The groups to be consulted as part of the outreach work were identified through
discussion with the City Council,

While the detailed notes of all these sessions can be found in the appendices,
the approach, outcomes and key issues are summarised here.

The approach to each of the sessions varied according to the nature of the group,
although the broad approach was to use „participatory appraisal‟, a range of simple
visual techniques which are easy to engage in, can be tailored, and provide qualitative
information. Officers and support staff working with the groups attended some of the
sessions to assist with the process.

Laminated copies of the plans of the options from the suite of Decisions booklets were
used to introduce the discussions. The groups themselves decided which
neighbourhoods they wanted to focus on or whether they wanted to consider the options
at an area wide level. The discussion was facilitated, using the questions on the
Response Forms as prompts for discussion and debate. The main points from the
discussion were recorded on a flipchart. In some cases, individuals and groups felt able
to complete the Response Forms.

These sessions were tailored to suit the group involved, in such a way as to recognise
their particular interests, experiences and circumstances and encourage the maximum
understanding of, and response to, the options for the future of Walker Riverside. In
total, 99 people were involved in the outreach programme.

The main outcomes are set out below (detailed notes of each session appear in the
appendices).

Young people

A total of seven sessions were held with young people, involving 50 young people all
together. These sessions depended very much for their success on the support, advice
and involvement of youth workers and other staff who helped arrange and facilitate the
sessions.
The main issues were:

          early action to address the lack of facilities for young people across the
           area to prove young people are being listened to and action being taken

          positive and on-going involvement of young people in plans for the future
           of the area as a whole and facilities / amenities for young people in particular

          the need to address the ‘people’ issues as much as the physical nature of
           the area, i.e. alcohol and drug abuse, crime and antisocial behaviour

          measures to make the area feel safer, including more activities and
           facilities for young people, management of parks and open spaces, better
           street lighting and improved relations with the police

          a greater variety of housing, including housing specifically for young
           people, and better management to tackle antisocial behaviour and neighbour
           disputes

          more and more appropriate / accessible local job and training
           opportunities, including job experience and links to local businesses

          better quality, and a greater range of, shops in the area

          improvements to the public transport system to provide good services on
           all routes, affordability and better customer care

In general, the young people involved in the outreach programme were very concerned
about the area, now and in the future. Most of them expressed a desire to be part of
the regeneration process but were also sceptical about whether this would happen,
whether, in any event, their opinions would be taken into account and whether anything
would change anyway. Their other main concerns were the lack of activities and
facilities for young people, the need to tackle social and economic issues
(especially those of safety and drug / alcohol abuse), the need for better and a greater
range of housing, particularly for young people and appropriate and accessible job and
training opportunities.

Older people

Three sessions were held with older people, involving 21 people in total. Again, local
workers involved with the groups played a significant part in organisation and
management of the sessions.

The main issues were:

          a greater variety of housing is needed, and the mix / tenure / cost must be
           developed in response to the needs of all sections of the community;
           refurbishment of existing housing is equally important
          housing density is important – there are more problems of antisocial
           behaviour and crime when the housing is too dense

          bus services need improving, especially into the City centre, and within the
           area if new local centres are going to be developed

          the need for more activities and facilities for young people, and
           improvements to existing, and the development of more, community buildings
           generally

          better shopping facilities, including improvements to existing local centres,
           like Church Walk, and the development of new ones

          measures to make the area feel and look safer, including more police,
           better street lighting, and more visible street wardens

           improvements to the environment to make the area look cleaner and more
            attractive; the development of local open spaces / play areas which are safe
            for children, on-site management of open spaces (i.e. park wardens), and
            opening up access to the river
In conclusion, older people had very similar concerns to young people and other
groups involved in the outreach programme. Their concerns went far beyond the needs
of their particular age group, reflecting a concern about all aspects of the area and all
sections of the community. In particular, they highlighted the need for new housing
development and improved shopping facilities in the area to provide for the existing
community and to attract new people, better bus services, provision for young
people, and measures to improve safety and to make the area look more attractive.

Asylum seekers and refugees

Two sessions were held with asylum seekers and refugees, involving 17 people in
total. Again, the assistance of local workers was essential in organising and running
these sessions.

The main issues were:

          the need for more language courses in the area, with crèche facilities, to
           meet the strong desire of most asylum seekers and refugees to learn English
           (which would aid integration as well as benefiting them as individuals)

          the need for more and better quality job opportunities in the area (even
           though asylum seekers themselves cannot work) to reduce the dependence
           on benefits generally and improve economic prospects for individuals and the
           area generally

          increased resources for community and voluntary organisations, like
           Common Ground, to continue and expand their work with the community
         the need to promote greater understanding and tolerance of asylum
          seekers and refugees amongst the local community to counter racism and
          resentment

         improvement of the Church Walk shopping centre and generally
          improving services in the area alongside housing improvement

         opening up the riverside for local people, managing new and existing
          open spaces and developing local play areas for children

In conclusion, asylum seekers and refugees were concerned about their own situation
as individuals and families living in uncertainty, but were also concerned more broadly
with the community and the area overall. In particular, they are concerned about
increasing resources to community and voluntary organisations which work with
local people, promoting greater understanding of asylum seekers and refugees
(and black and minority ethnic communities generally), more opportunities to learn
English, more local job opportunities and improving shopping provision and the
environment.

Young parents

Two sessions were held with young parents, involving 11 people overall. Local
workers again helped organise and run the sessions.

The main issues were:

         the retention of the tower block, St Anthony‟s House, would detract from the
          improvement of the area and its future should be seriously considered

         the future of schools in the area was an important consideration; with
          mixed views about whether to keep the schools as they are or merge them

         the need for a greater variety of housing in the area, particularly to meet
          the needs of young people and larger families, and to attract new people

         better shopping facilities and the development of small, local parks for
          children

         more activities and facilities for young people, including retaining the
          Lightfoot Centre and incorporating provision for young people and a pool

         greater emphasis on tackling racism, antisocial behaviour, vandalism and
          encouraging parental control

In conclusion, young parents were concerned about many of the issues raised in
outreach sessions with other sections of the community. They felt strongly about the
future of schools in the area (making it clear that any changes should involve parents
and local people generally), identified the need for a wider variety of housing
developed to modern needs and standards, the improvement of local shopping
facilities, and the need to vigorously tackle antisocial behaviour, including racism.
Their other main concerns were the tower blocks (and St Anthony‟s House in
particular), more activities and facilities for young people and local, managed play
areas for children.

Community centre users

An opportunity arose after a session with the Thomas Gaughan Food Co-op Group to
invite discussion about the masterplan options with a group of four women using the
café at the centre. This resulted in the completion of four individual Response Forms
about Pottery Bank and then two Response Forms for the area overall.


Telephone interviews

It was considered important to consult with potential residents to consider how new
people might be attracted into the Walker Riverside area. Data protection
considerations limited the options for tracing these individuals but it was concluded that
the Cambrian show homes visitors log book would provide a good source of information.
The criteria for selection from the log was that individuals currently lived outside the
masterplan area and, due to the time constraints of the consultation period, had a
telephone number listed for contact. A total of 25 people were identified as possible
participants. From these, seven agreed to take part in the survey.

The approach to each of the interviews was an initial introductory telephone call to
establish whether the individuals were willing to take part in the survey. Those
interested were then sent a copy of the Council‟s Decisions‟ document for reference
prior to their telephone interview. The short interview script established the individual‟s
current and future housing needs, their thoughts about the Walker Riverside area and
the factors that may lead to a move into the area.

A total of seven interviews were carried out with four men and three women. Six were
current owner-occupiers and one lived in rented accommodation. Four of the
participants had previously lived in the masterplan area and were hoping to return, while
three were potential new residents.

A detailed summary of the results of the interviews can be found in the appendices. The
main outcomes (based on the questions asked) follow.

Participants were asked to consider the factors that may influence their return to the
area:

          proximity to family and friends was the most popular reason followed by,
          the quality and affordability of the proposed new housing and the
           regeneration of the area and its overall potential for improvement under
           these plans

Current perceptions of the Walker Riverside area were discussed with each participant:

          equal emphasis was given to the dilapidated look of the area, its high crime
           rate and lack of facilities and services
          several references were also made to the groups of young people hanging
           around on the streets and the negative image this gave the area
          a majority of participants considered the riverside location of the area to be
           a great advantage
          accessibility to the city centre, a supportive community and its potential
           for improvement were also considered positive factors

Participants were asked to consider any specific improvements that would attract them
into Walker Riverside:

          improvements to the overall image of the area were considered very
           important by most
          considerable emphasis was given to a wider choice of housing, a better
           environment, improved public transport and a wider range of
           community facilities
          much emphasis was given to the need to address security and personal
           safety issues
          it was thought that potential new residents were unlikely to consider moving
           an area with a difficult reputation without the reassurance that special
           emphasis was being given to issues such as CCTV, an increased police
           presence, better street lighting and garaging

Participants were asked to consider the type of property they would consider in the
Walker Riverside area:

          a large majority would prefer to buy a new house in the area and the most
           popular size of house was a property with three bedrooms
          both gardens and garages were considered very important and there was
           disappointment that the housing currently being proposed for the area lacked
           garages or off-road parking
          there was some concern that potential new residents would be less likely
           than current residents to be able to rent a new property rather than buy
           one

In conclusion, the overall feeling was that the people interviewed were seriously
interested in returning to the area. However, it was clear that if this was to happen the
image and perception of the area had to be changed through visible and sustainable
improvements, physically, socially and economically. In particular, the reputation of the
area in terms of crime and antisocial behaviour was highlighted, along with the general
appearance and „feel‟ of the area, which was described as being „shabby‟ and „deprived‟.

There was a strong feeling that Walker Riverside could be a very attractive area for
professional people, especially young professionals working in the City. This was felt to
be highly desirable for the future of the area but that it was unlikely to happen unless
there was substantial change to the physical and economic fabric.
Resident/ Community Organisations

Losh Terrace Residents Association
- Do not want demolition of any properties. Properties need modernising.
- Keep one school (Wharrier Street) other school (St. Anthony‟s) to be turned
- into a community centre
- The regeneration must improve transport ie. Regular and number of buses
- increased.
- Build a shopping centre that is easy access around Walker Road. More variety.
- A proper Youth Centre. The Lightfoot needs modernising. If more information
   available it would be better supported by local people. Too expensive for Seniors.
- Better improved activities as well as the fabric of the park.

Walker Riverside Network
- „yob culture‟ needs to be addressed as a priority (this might impact on the ability to
   sell new housing)
- There is concern that less desirable residents could move from the areas affected by
   clearance into the better areas, creating the same problems there
- There is a need for allotments to be managed and „patrolled‟ at all times
- Consultation may have been lacking in areas where clearance had already been
   agreed
- There was concern that residents moved out of the Cambrian estate onto Pottery
   Bank may, again, face clearance.
- The Council‟s intention to re-house residents in the area and provide like for like
   accommodation is unrealistic
- There is concern that the relocation process takes too long and involves too much
   uncertainty
- Empty properties need to be offered to people affected by clearance.
- Need to ensure provision of sheltered accommodation

Belmont Area Residents Association
- Residents are being forced to choose between three options which are being
   presented as the only options for regeneration. This is not the case
- The demolition of other people‟s homes is morally wrong
- Walker Riverside has been subdivided into separate areas. The boundaries are
   artificial and do not reflect the existing communities. We are concerned that they
   have been drawn in such a way as to exclude a large proportion of the population
   from the consultation to avoid large scale opposition to the plan
- Your Homes Newcastle should have been more closely involved in the consultation
- Planning Aid should have a much greater role in any future consultation
- The City Council has not defined what it means by a sustainable community, it has
   not explained what makes an area unsustainable and it has provided no examples of
   sustainable communities
-   The community has not been included in undertaking the sustainability appraisal.
    How can the council make a decision about sustainability when they have not
    spoken to the community?
-   The sustainability appraisal of option 3‟s impact on energy efficiency is incorrect
    because new homes will be energy efficient and cheaper to run but it is much more
    energy efficient to refurbish homes to a high energy efficiency standard than to build
    a new one
-   The sustainability appraisal of option 3‟s impact on health and well being is incorrect
    as it makes no acknowledgement of the negative impact that option 3 will have on
    the health and well being of people who face losing their homes or are afraid they will
    lose their homes in future.
-   The options suggest that the area can only be regenerated to provide the homes,
    schools and facilities that the community needs if the community agrees to large
    scale demolition but the council has provided no evidence to demonstrate that this is
    the case.
-   There is no guarantee that option 3 would bring the investment needed- the only
    thing guaranteed is demolition
-   There are other options for the regeneration of Walker Riverside and BARA would
    like to propose a Community Option that would make sure that the regeneration of
    Walker Riverside benefits the existing community as well as attracting new residents
-   Newcastle City Council and partners should return to its original Promise to „stay
    ahead of the game‟ building new homes on all available brown field/ vacant land as
    indicated in the Unitary Development Plan prior to any demolition
-   If there is further need for the building of new homes whereby the demolition of
    properties is necessary then there must be firm evidence to support this and it must
    be discussed with the people directly affected. It should only proceed if the people
    affected agree and they must be given proper compensation packages and offered
    alternative accommodation in Walker Riverside.
-   We have grave concerns about the current level of compensation offered
-   The proportion of new build properties for rent within Walker Riverside should be
    50%. This is to reflect the fact that right to buy means that the supply of rented
    accommodation is continually decreasing
-   Existing council housing should be retained and refurbished – this housing is vital to
    the sustainability of the community
-   The Walker Riverside Promise should be legally binding and the local community
    should be involved in reviewing it
-   The way the regeneration process is working at the moment means that people are
    being intimidated into leaving Walker Riverside and new people are afraid to move in

Dunn Terrace Group (Byker, outside the area)
- Support new housing but only if it is truly affordable – some housing for sale is
   necessary but the same amount of rented housing must stay
- More community building particularly so young people can get off the streets. Not
   just organised activities but places they can go themselves
- Bus routes must be improved
- Riverside is underused. People must be able to see it and get to it. Must improve the
   riverside NOT just new housing blocking people‟s views
- Shops in the area need improving if people are going to be attracted to the area
- The Council will have to do something major!

Walker Riverside Project Board
-   The clear majority view of the board was that their preference was for option 3 with a
    number of minor changes relating to specific sites or areas. Consequently it was
    recognised that an „option 4‟ incorporating some or all of these changes may be
    preferable
-   It was generally felt that only the opportunity for substantial change afforded by
    Option 3 would lead to long-lasting regeneration (although this view was not
    unanimous as one member expressed concern in relation to the extent of
    demolitions involved, particularly of family social housing).
-   Overall, Board members wished to encourage new housing on already available
    sites whilst seeking to maximise investment and benefit to the community through
    establishment of new infrastructure.
-   Board members also sought to stress the need to support residents affected by the
    proposals, and that assurances given in the Walker Riverside Promise document
    should be fulfilled.
-   There was also a particular wish to resolve the situation with regard to Pottery Bank
    as a priority.

Stakeholder Organisations

East End Community Development Alliance
- Extensive comments were made about details of the consultation exercise and
   issues of long term community involvement in the area, particularly with relation to
   the community and voluntary sector
- The feasibility of promised benefits, particularly under option 3, actually being
   delivered was questioned
- Professionals working with particular groups (e.g. young people, asylum seekers) are
   concerned that their needs are being overlooked
- Many of those we speak to ask if there has been sufficient attention given to
   identifying an option 4, whereby the possibility of positive change as envisaged in
   option 3 can be achieved without the need for large-scale demolition
- Minutes of a question and answer session were also supplied, along with a broad
   range of comments and questions relating to regeneration, City Council and
   community and voluntary service activities in the area. The only comment that
   expressed an opinion on the preferred options report is stated below
- More choice needed for people who want to stay in the East End- linked to
   affordability

St Anthony of Padua Community Association
- There is nothing in the proposals to ensure long term employment either in
    manufacturing or service industries for the local people
- The development of education and training to benefit and empower the existing
    community is too indefinite and totally inadequate
- The population decline could be reversed by involving people in the decision
    process, i.e. enabling local people how to think? Rather than what to think? This
    gives the locals the responsibility for making the area an attractive place to live in.
- There is no clear evidence that the twin approach of social regeneration is
    demonstrated in the options.
- People who live in an area must be allowed to take ownership of the area, must be
    given support education and training to develop them in that process.
- There is no evidence that the target area is in any way unpopular.
-   To engage the existing residents in any sort of regeneration which creates insecurity
    within the four walls of their homes would be of deep concern to our members
-   There is no evidence that the two new schools that are proposed have financial
    support. Why were these schools not included in the building schools for the future
    programme? Could there be any consideration of building a school on contaminated
    land?
-   As our members are against the amount of demolition proposed they would welcome
    a clearer exposition of costs and comparison with costs of refurbishment.
-   If this were an investment in existing stocks and a promise of additional elements
    that would attract additional residents.
-   Many, many special needs families would welcome the extended families living
    within the area for support. Has this been considered?

Tynebikes
- We would like to support the overall vision for a regenerated Walker Riverside
- We find it difficult to respond to the options as they appear to be more of an
   identification of options rather than presenting a preferred option, which is what we
   were expecting. We are unclear whether this is consultation under regulation 25 or
   participation under regulation 26, as both are mentioned in the Statement of
   Proposals
- We think that the objectives if the plan as set out in the options appraisal report and
   elsewhere are too narrow and that it should have a broader set of objectives
   covering all aspects of regeneration, including transportation, recreation and
   accessibility
- We welcome the mention of cycling and possible enhancement of cycle routes
- We are concerned that there may be unacceptable impacts on Hadrian‟s Way,
   especially in option 3. The plans should make absolutely clear that the quality of the
   route will be protected in the interests of both local cyclists and those passing
   through

Churches Together
- Regeneration should ensure available accommodation for the refugee community
   and other vulnerable households and include positive action to provide for their
   needs
- Support significant change but have concerns over demolition
- We recognise that demolition is always necessary for communities to develop but
   would wish to ask the following constructive questions by was of finding new
   solutions:
- is the extent of demolition proposed in option 3 really necessary in order that the
   number of new homes required can be built? Could more use of derelict land be
   made than is currently foreseen (as an alternative)?
- Are there alternatives to demolition that we have yet to consider, ones that might be
   available from the experience of other cities or the wealth of resource that the
   voluntary sector offers?
- Could we ensure that the housebuilding is ahead of the demolition so that those who
   are losing their homes might be relocated once into their new, permanent property?
   An addition to the Promise?
- It is important that there is full engagement in the future with Belmont Methodist
   Church, St Anthony‟s of Egypt Church of England and St Vincent‟s Roman Catholic
   Church. The potential investment that is available needs to be recognised more fully.
-   It is crucial that the commitment in the Promise that there would be no reduction in
    the number of houses for rent is kept and that it is defined as social rent, rather than
    the broader tenure including private rent
-   Where rents may not be affordable. We are concerned about the very vulnerable and
    marginalised including those experiencing addiction, offenders undergoing
    rehabilitation, asylum seekers, refugees, economic migrants and those who do not
    have the prospect of gaining long term, stable employment
-   Living accommodation over shops is not good because of night disturbances
-   There is not enough housing for younger households as well as families
-   Accommodation should be affordable, particularly for first time buyers
-   If flats in tower blocks are demolished this would affect the young and marginalised
-   Housing provision should be made for asylum seekers
-   No one should be obliged to have a temporary move, they should be given housing
    immediately
-   The show houses should be the icon for what people hope for and expect if they
    have to be re-housed
-   Need more training for jobs and other educational possibilities
-   It is important for the church to work with development issues and needs to be
    recognised
-   Potential investment by church not recognised by planners
-   St Anthony of Egypt seems to be cut off in the new plans. Could the entrance be at
    the other end?

Raby Way Sheltered Accommodation Oban Court (Byker)

-   We would support new housing if special consideration is made to elderly and
    families
-   Public transport needs to be improved because its very isolating- its unpredictable
-   Very important that young people are given somewhere to go to get off the street and
    play areas for young children
-   Parks and open spaces that are attractive and have a purpose are important
-   Shops in Community Focus would be handy. Needs improving the area.

Walker Resource Centre Group
- More clearance would be supported if it meant better services for the community.
   Much better shops and services would attract people into the area.
- It is very important that transport and the buses in particular are improved.
- Bigger choice of housing for everyone including the elderly
- Making more use of the Riverside and make all open spaces well managed and local
   if possible so people can get to them easily
- More community facilities
- If more clearance needed make sure it‟s the worst housing and not waste money on
   replacing decent housing

Care in the Community Group
- Some further clearance would be supported if that mean better services and an
   overall improvement to the quality of life for Walker Residents
- Greater choice of housing is needed with particular concern for elderly
   accommodation and the disabled
- Alongside the physical improvements attention must be given to police support in the
   area
-   Attention must be given to the activities for teenagers to keep them off the streets
-   Improvements to open space must be concentrated on local and managed open
    space
-   Shopping facilities need to improve and both Churchwalk and Community Focus
    would be supported but a better bus service is essential

Your Homes Newcastle
The majority of comments have been responded to by Strategic Housing. A full summary
is available in the member services library.
- Evidence on housing need and demand has not been included in these proposals. In
    many cases there is now demand for accommodation that had in the past been
    considered „difficult to let‟ and low demand.
- If YHN were required to clear one or more tower blocks to facilitate a change of
    tenure, this would prove very difficult within current occupancy levels. There would
    be implications to concierge service provision
- We calculate that up to 106 bed spaces would potentially be lost under option 3, this
    would have implications for the contract with NASS
- We would welcome a commitment within the proposals to a high proportion of family
    accommodation within these developments
- The Promise commitment to offering „appropriate, similar house/ flat types‟ and the
    option of „living next to people you live next to now‟ may not be possible within the
    context of competing demands for housing
- The Promise statement that „tenants will, wherever possible, be offered alternative
    housing that reflects their current accommodation size and/ or future housing
    requirements‟ does not fit with current Your Choice Homes policy which encourages
    the best use of housing stock. This statement has not been the policy on other
    clearance schemes and the Housing Corporation was critical of this practice on the
    Cambrian estate as being inequitable and contravening their guidance on value for
    money
- Option 3 would impact on YHN‟s ability to deliver choice and equality throughout the
    lettings service
- The following two promises:
    - to enable residents to stay in their immediate neighbourhood
    - wherever possible, offer alternative housing that reflects current accommodation
         size and/ or future housing requirements
         would severely impact on the City‟s requirement under section 167 of the
    Housing Act 1996 to ensure that ‘overall, reasonable preference for allocations is
    given to applicants in the reasonable preference categories*1; and that their local
    lettings policies do not discriminate, directly or indirectly, on racial or other equality
    grounds.’ We are concerned about the likely impact of such promises on the City‟s
    ability to meet its statutory requirements under homelessness legislation. (cases
    study of similar problems in Oldham provided)
- If as a result of the regeneration, households need to move from homes throughout
    Walker at similar times, there will be insufficient accommodation to meet needs, even
    on a temporary basis. The worst case scenario would mean having to suspend
    normal lettings in the East End just to ensure we could relocate households affected
    by the regeneration. We do not believe we have the capacity to fulfil the
    commitments made in the Promise
- Under the proposals outlined in option 3 YHN would be concerned about the likely
    effects on our capacity to deliver excellent housing services in light of the likely loss
    of rental income that such large scale demolition would lead to
-   The proposals for tower blocks take no account of the planned option appraisal for
    the Walker multi-storey blocks
-   Development should start on existing brown field sites
-   YHN would welcome more of a role as managing agents for some of the new build
    property in order to better facilitate the regeneration process. Without this we feel
    that our scope for working in true partnership is limited
-   YHN would like a commitment from the partnership to encourage RSLs to engage
    fully in the Your Choice Homes scheme, which would mean residents facing
    clearance would have all the available choices for re-housing before them
-   Does the partnership have evidence to show that housing at Pottery Bank would be
    popular? If so, what type of housing is it?

Individuals

Sister Jill Gracie of St Aidan‟s Community
- I cannot support any of the existing options
- Demolition seems excessive in option 3. Are there alternatives that could be
    explored such as the use of derelict land, poisoned land after decontamination?
    Would it not be better in the long term to reclaim presently unused land?
- My concern is for environmental wisdom expressed practically in housing
    improvements to address global warming
- Developers coming in from the outside need to generate jobs for people in the
    locality, such as by offering apprenticeships to local young people. Interest in this
    can be generated through making use of local networks
- Will there be adequate social housing particularly if control is handed over to private
    companies, as what may start as affordable may soon become unaffordable if rents
    are allowed to rise unrestrictedly?
- What provision is being made for the awkward young, the marginalised and
    particularly asylum seekers if any of the tower blocks are demolished?
- There should be a serious commitment to training. Local networks and schools need
    to be engaged to stimulate interest in employment opportunities
- Continuing community engagement - Resources need to be put now into existing
    networks to develop wider understanding of regeneration and involvement in future
    developments. Development with more involvement from the bottom up will be much
    more life-giving for existing residents and also new comers
- I would like to see at least one new, fully equipped school in the area

Mrs Alison Gardner-Medwin (living outside the area)
- Cycle routes – please consider how new cycle routes in the area are used. How well
   do the routes converge on Walker School, the Lightfoot and the local shopping
   centre and will these places have a secure place in which riders may leave their
   cycles?
- The river – The Tyne is a wonderful asset, could it not also be used as a through
   route: what about a river bus? If people could get very easily, without traffic jams, to
   the Quaysides of Newcastle and Gateshead, they might consider living near the river
   in Walker.

Mark Murray (local resident)
- There are design faults in the Dovercourt maisonettes. Stairs to the fourth floor have
   rotted away meaning the only fire escape is through a trap door. Making escape for
   elderly or disabled very difficult/ dangerous
-   Many comments were made concerning the poor condition and design of the
    properties
-   You may not be able to do anything now, as you are only head of planning, so plan
    properly for the future

Mr Matthew Lennon (living outside the area)
- Public art should be included in the action plan for the area (some suggestions for
   public art policies were included)

Mr Nick Brown MP
- Site assembly for build-for-sale is overemphasised in the proposals and a lot of
   unnecessary/ gratuitous disruption could be avoided
- I am opposed to pulling down perfectly good houses that people are broadly satisfied
   with, the more so given the rising demand for public sector houses to rent
   (particularly family houses)
- I am worried about the impact of too much demolition on the asset-base and rental
   income of Your Homes Newcastle
- Community Focus – the sustainability of new retail uses depends on the number of
   potential local customers (the local population base) and therefore, in part, local
   employment opportunities
- The need to address the issue of primary school places becomes more pressing with
   option 1
- I have serious reservations about the proposals to take heavy traffic off Walker Road
   as it will be redirected elsewhere and undermine any future proposals for economic
   development in the Industrial Area
- Bus routes are important and more consideration needs to be given to linking Pottery
   Bank into the public transport system

Walker Councillors David Wood (Walker Ward) and John Stokel-Walker (Walker Ward)
submitted almost identical letters raising the same 25 points. Councillor George Douglas
(Walker Ward) submitted a shorter letter raising points 1 to 13 only.

1. In addition to the points below all Councillors stated their disappointment that
   amendments they had proposed to the consultation documents prior to their release
   had not been made.
2. I object to perfectly good socially rented “family housing” and formerly rented
   property which has been acquired under the right to buy being proposed to be
   demolished to make way for housing where the tenure mix is proposed to be overall
   80% for sale and only 20% socially rented
3. Since the proposals were first introduced, the housing market has changed
   dramatically and more and more people in the area are unable, due to personal and
   financial circumstances, to purchase properties.
4. Many people rely on the benefit system or tax credits for their income making them
   reliant on the socially rented sector. Also there are number of residents who because
   of level of their income are unable to attract a mortgage from conventional mortgage
   lenders
5. What are needed in the area are more „affordable‟ rented properties which are not
   catered for under the current proposals.
6. I hold regular advice surgeries and over the past 2 years the number of residents
   asking me for assistance in housing issues has increased dramatically leading me to
   believe that current plans have not followed trends within the housing market.
7. Within the (HMR) Pathfinder initiative there has been a change of stance with a
    move being made towards refurbishment of properties rather than wholesale
    demolition and there are now instances throughout the country, especially in Inner
    London, of the tenure mix being 50%/50% (purchase and rented)
8. I feel that the consequences of large scale demolition as proposed would have a
    major financial affect on „Your Homes Newcastle‟ who have not, as far as I
    understand, had any direct involvement with the current process.
9. Within the consultation documents it is stated that unless specific options are chosen
    then new primary school provision will not happen. I find this to be quite disturbing as
    this has never been mentioned to date and indeed, nowhere else in the city is
    primary school provision dependent on either house sales or land sales
10. I find it quite disconcerting that before the consultation process had even ended a
    discussion took place at the Walker Riverside Project Board (the board which was
    set up to oversee the regeneration project), views were sought of members of the
    board and a representative of Bridging NewcastleGateshead (HMR Pathfinder)
    stated that unless option 3 was chosen then there would be no funding forthcoming.
    This could undoubtedly have affected the views of other representatives of the
    board.
11. I feel the consultation documents are misleading specifically where they give the
    impression that under different options there will be money invested in the area.
    What they do not say is that the large majority of this finance is the amount of money
    people will use to buy properties. The document seems to suggest that this finance
    will be invested in the area in services and facilities
12. I am disappointed that neither I, nor my colleagues have been consulted as a „focus
    group‟ or „interested party‟ despite receiving assurances that we would be
13. I support option 1 because, whilst still attracting new family housing to the area there
    would be no further demolition of „family housing‟ and there is currently finance
    available to improve the existing housing through Your Homes Newcastle.
14. Within option 1 the documents state other facilities will not be available. This is not
    the case because if 700 new homes were created, along with refurbishment of
    existing housing then there would be the demand for local services and I am sure
    that those services would be delivered by entrepreneurial sorts of people and
    organisations. If this is not the case then is the local authority, through the
    consultation documents, suggesting that there would not be any central funding for
    the residents of Walker although there would be for the rest of the city
Further comments have been included under the relevant neighbourhood sections.


Political organisations

Walker Councillors, Byker Councillors, Walker Labour Party, Newcastle upon Tyne East
and Wallsend Labour Party

-   I support option 1 as I am against demolition of houses that are sound and have
    years of life in them (repeated in Churchwalk response)
-   Why are you only spending £2 million in Option 1?
-   Who decided what to spend the money on?
-   All the existing houses will be energy efficient following ALMO and KeepWarm
    Initiative.
-   How can a mere 200 homes difference between Option 1 and 2 deliver a school.
-   All of these (listed below) should be delivered under option 1 with the amounts of
    money the City Council will get from the developers.
    - Riverside improvements
    - Improvements to Walker and Station Roads
    - The best quality streets and housing
    - Improved bus service
    - Leisure facilities
    - Shopping Centre
    - New community resource centre

				
DOCUMENT INFO