Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Highgate Village, North Road 271 bus stand
Consultation Report July 2018
2
Contents
Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 3
Summary of issues raised during consultation ......................................................... 3
Next steps ................................................................................................................ 4
1. About the proposals ............................................................................................ 5
2. About the consultation ........................................................................................ 7
3. About the respondents ...................................................................................... 11
4. Summary of all consultation responses ............................................................ 12
5. Next steps ......................................................................................................... 28
Appendix A: Consultation questions .......................................................................... 30
Appendix B: Consultation materials .......................................................................... 31
Appendix C: Letter distribution area .......................................................................... 35
Appendix D: All public comments received ............................................................... 36
Appendix E: List of stakeholders consulted ............................................................... 38
3
Executive summary
This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation
on the following scheme: Highgate Village, North Road – 271 bus stand.
Between Monday 1 February and Sunday 20 March 2016 we consulted on proposals
for possible changes to the stopping arrangements of bus route 271 in Highgate
Village. The proposal involved changes to layout of North Road and relocation of the
Highgate Village bus stand to North Road.
We received 260 responses to the consultation. The level of support or opposition for
each section of our proposal was as follows:
271 to terminate at North Road, rather than the bus stand in Highgate Village:
47 per cent support, 42 per cent opposition
Installation of a new mini-roundabout so bus routes 214 and 271 can turn
safely on North Road: 43 per cent support, 33 per cent opposition
Widening the pavement on North Road and a new straight ahead pelican
crossing: 47 per cent support and 25 per cent opposition
We also received a petition submitted in two parts on 22 March 2016 and 10 May
2016. In total the petitions contained 1,829 signatures objecting to these proposals.
The main themes raised during consultation are highlighted below, with detailed
analysis from page 11.
Summary of issues raised during consultation
Positive comments, supporting the proposals included:
Proposals would improve safety
Moving the terminus would improve Highgate Village
There would be better connectivity between bus routes in the village
Comments made that were not in support of the proposals included:
Concern that the proposals would increase congestion
Concern that the 271 would no longer stop in Highgate Village
Concern that extra buses may impact the safety of pupils from St Michael’s Church of England Primary School and Highgate School
4
Next steps
We have reviewed comments made during the consultation and have set out our
response to the main issues raised. We have revisited the initial proposals, and
simplified our design, taking into account representations expressed by the public
and stakeholders.
We will no longer be installing the new mini-roundabout, or associated pavement
buildouts on North Road, and the existing two-lane road layout will remain.
Instead, we would like to remove the large tree at the corner of Castle Yard and
North Road, and raise the existing roundabout. Bus routes 214 and 271 will turn at
the Castle Yard roundabout, before going to stand at stop Z1 outside Highgate
School.
We will continue to make the pedestrian crossing outside Highgate School straight
across, to ensure that pupils and other pedestrians can safely cross the road.
We will not now install a bus shelter at bus stop L. The existing bus shelter at bus
stop Z1 will be relocated closer to its stop.
In response to concerns that the 271 would no longer stop in Highgate Village, we
can confirm the arrangements will be:
Last stop: ‘Bus Stop L – North Road’
Stand and first stop: ‘Bus stop Z1 – Highgate School/Hampstead Lane’
Route 271 would also serve: ‘Bus Stop C – South Grove’
Having taken all the responses into account we would like to progress the scheme
subject to funding being secured.
5
1. About the proposals
1.1 Introduction
During February and March 2016 we consulted on possible changes to the stopping arrangements of route 271 in Highgate Village. The consultation ran for seven weeks from 1 February to 20 March 2016.
1.2 Purpose
Following requests from stakeholders we had been investigating how we could
remove the bus stand from South Grove in the centre of Highgate Village. We
proposed a number of changes to the layout of North Road, which meant that route
271 could terminate on North Road, instead of the current stand in the village.
Our aim was to make sure bus stops were accessible, ensuring people could board
the bus without needing to take a step up or down. Currently the bus stand in the
village is not fully accessible. We looked at improving the existing stand, but there
village was limited space in this area. However, by extending the existing bus stand
on North Road used by route 214 we could create an accessible terminus for the
271. The proposals did not affect route 214.
1.3 Detailed description
Our proposals included:
Changing bus stops ‘L’ and ‘Z1’ on North Road to allow the 271 route to
terminate on North Road rather than at the bus stand in Highgate Village
Widening the pavement on North Road and realigning the existing pelican
crossing to make it easier for pedestrians to cross the road
Installing a new mini-roundabout outside the Red Lion and Sun pub and
widening the central reservation. Both the 214 and 271 would turn at this
location rather than the mini-roundabout at the junction with Castle Yard
1.3.1 Relocating the bus stand
We proposed to extend bus stop ‘L’ on North Road, used by routes 143, 214 and
603. This would become the last stop for the 271, and improve bus links for people
going on to the other routes. The 271 would then turn at a new mini-roundabout and
wait at the extended bus stop ‘Z1’ along with the 214. The current 271 bus stand in
Highgate Village would no longer be used.
6
1.3.2 Changes to North Road layout
Our proposals also included reducing the number of traffic lanes on North Road from
two to one. This gave us an opportunity to widen the pavements and central
reservation, and realign the pedestrian crossing so it was straight across. These
changes would make it easier for pedestrians to get around, and by planting eight
new semi-mature trees we aimed to help create a better sense of place.
We also proposed to install a new mini-roundabout outside the Red Lion and Sun
pub. This not only provided a safer place for the 271 and 214 to turn, but it would
help to slow traffic down creating a safer environment for pedestrians and vehicles.
There would have been no impact on the number of parking spaces available. While
the proposed roundabout would mean two spaces were lost on the northbound side
of the road, we were proposing to add two additional echelon parking spaces.
We designed these proposals to help calm traffic on North Road. However, our initial
research indicated that there would not be any noticeable delays for any users.
7
2. About the consultation
2.1 Purpose
The objectives of the consultation were:
To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the proposals and allow them to respond
To understand the level of support or opposition for the change/s for the proposals
To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were not previously aware
To understand concerns and objections
To allow respondents to make suggestions
2.2 Potential outcomes
The potential outcomes of the consultation were:
Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to proceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation
Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the proposals in response to issues raised and proceed with a revised scheme
Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the scheme
Our conclusion and next steps are set out in Section 4.
2.3 Who we consulted
The public consultation intended to seek the views of people who live near to the
existing and proposed bus stand, as well current users of the 271 and those who
might potentially use the service.
We also consulted stakeholders including Haringey and Camden Council, traffic
police, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members and local
interest groups. A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix E and a
summary of their responses is given in Section 4.
8
2.4 Dates and duration
The consutlation took place for a period of seven weeks from Monday 1 February to
Sunday 20 March 2016. This represented a one-week extension of our standard six
week consultation period. Granted at the request of our stakeholders, to allow
additional time for responses.
2.5 What we asked
We asked respondents to let us know if they used bus route 271. We then asked
specific questions about the proposals. We also asked for general comments and for
the respondents views on the quality of our consultation.
A copy of these questions can be found in Appendix A: Consultation Questions.
2.6 Methods of responding
People were invited to respond to our consultation by completion of an online survey,
by email, by telephone or in writing via the use of our Freepost address.
2.7 Consultation materials and publicity We publicised the consultation online. We also emailed customers and relevant
stakeholders, and wrote to properties in the area. Copies of consultation materials
can be found in Appendix B: Consultation Materials.
2.7.1 Website
We created a dedicated web page to host the consultation on our website at
consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-271.
The web page explained the background to the scheme, and included a map with
information outlining the proposed changes. We invited people to respond by
answering a number of specific questions about the scheme, and included space for
people to enter any other general comments about the proposal.
2.7.2 Letters
To raise awareness of the consultation we sent letters with a copy of the map to
properties within a 400 metre radius of North Road. A copy of the letter and map is
shown in Appendix B, and a map of the distribution area can be found in Appendix
C.
9
2.7.3 Emails to public
We also sent an email to approximately 700 registered Oyster Card holders who
regularly use route 271 or route 214 in Highgate.
2.7.4 Emails to stakeholders
We sent 243 emails to stakeholders, including Haringey and Camden Councils,
traffic police, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, London Assembly
members, ward councillors and local interest groups. A list of the stakeholders we
consulted is shown in Appendix E: List of stakeholders consulted.
2.7.5 Press and media activity
A press release advertising the consultation was sent to the local press, and the
local paper, the Ham & High, covered this story in early February 2016. Local
stakeholders also prepared updates for their websites and social media accounts
directing people to our consultation webpage.
2.7.6 Meetings with stakeholders
We met with members of the Highgate Society, local Councillors and Haringey
borough officers over a two year period, with the first meeting in December 2014 and
then throughout 2015 until consultation started in February 2016. We addressed
concerns regarding school children crossing North Road and Castle Yard, the speed
of traffic and road safety. Our preliminary designs were prepared and agreed by all
parties as a good basis to commence consultation.
2.7.7 Focus group
Following concerns expressed by residents and local stakeholders, a small focus
group was organised with representatives from TfL to discuss our proposals in more
detail. The focus group took place at Highgate School on 16 March 2016, and was
chaired by Councillor Bob Hare (ward Councillor for Highgate). The purpose of the
session was to discuss the proposals, and understand feedback from selection of
local stakeholders.
Attendees included:
Haringey Council Officers
Highgate ward councillors (Haringey Council)
Highgate Society
Highgate Neighbourhood Forum
10
Highgate School
North Road residents
North Road businesses
2.7.8 Other meetings
We met with St. Michael’s Church of England Primary School on 19 September
2016.
2.8 Ensuring the consultation was accessible to all
When planning how to run our consultations we look at a number of different
influencing factors.
We considered the demographics for the areas the routes serve and how best to
provide information about the consultation to them. A range of methods to publicise
the consultation were developed. See Appendix B: Consultation materials.
Whilst most of the consultation activity was focused on our web page, we are also
able to provide printed material to those requesting it, and speak to people about the
proposals on the telephone or by email.
We also attended a focus group with a selection of local representatives, as
referenced in paragraph 2.7.7 and described in section 4.5.
2.9 Analysis of consultation responses
The responses to this consultation were examined internally by our consultation
team. Respondents could provide comments on the scheme overall. These have
been reviewed and coded into themes. Unstructured responses have been reviewed
and coded using the same framework as derived.
11
3. About the respondents
3.1 Number of respondents
In total we received 260 responses. Of these, 249 responses (96 per cent) were from
members of the public and 11 (four per cent) were from Stakeholders. Table 1 below
shows the breakdown with percentages of the respondents.
Table 1
Respondents Total %
Public responses 249 96%
Stakeholder responses 11 4%
Total 260 100%
3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation
We asked members of the public how they found out about the consultation. The
majority, 57 respondents (23 per cent) stated that they received a letter from TfL, 24
(10 per cent) stated that they received an email from TfL, 19 (eight per cent) read
about it in the press, 16 (six per cent) found out through the TfL website while a
further 16 (six per cent) found out through social media.
There were 46 individuals (10 per cent) who selected “Other” as an option. The most
common means specified by respondents in this category was “Word of mouth” with
18 instances; followed by “via the Highgate Neighbourhood Forum” with 11
instances, and “Highgate Society website” with five instances. Seventy-one
respondents (29 per cent) did not answer this question. Table 2 below gives a
breakdown of the responses.
Table 2
How respondents heard Total %
Letter 57 23%
Email 24 10%
Read about it in the press 19 8%
Saw it on the TfL website 16 6%
Social media 16 6%
Other 46 18%
Not answered 71 29%
Total 249 100%
12
4. Summary of all consultation responses
4.1 Understanding the respondent
To help our understanding of those who replied and their thoughts on the proposals,
we asked a number of questions:
Do you currently use route 271?
A total of 180 individuals responded to this question. The majority of respondents,
145 (58 per cent), answered “yes”. Thirty-five respondents (14 per cent) answered
“no”. Sixty-nine respondents (28 per cent) did not answer this question.
Figure 1 below shows the breakdown.
Figure 1
Yes No Not Answered
Number of responses 145 35 69
Percentage of all (%) 58% 14% 28%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Nu
mb
er
of
res
po
nse
s
Do you currently use route 271?
13
Do you agree with having the 271 terminate at North Road, rather than the bus
stand in Highgate Village?
A total of 236 individuals responded to this question. The majority of respondents,
117 (47 per cent), answered “yes”. One hundred and four respondents (42 per cent)
answered “no”. Seven respondents (three per cent) answered “not sure”; eight
respondents (three per cent) answered “no opinion”. Thirteen respondents (five per
cent) did not answer this question.
Figure 2 below shows the breakdown.
Figure 2
Yes No Not sureNo
opinionNot
answered
Number of responses 117 104 7 8 13
Percentage of all (%) 47% 42% 3% 3% 5%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Nu
mb
er
of
res
po
ns
es
Do you agree with having the 271 terminate at North Road, rather than the bus stand in Highgate Village?
14
Do you agree with installing a new mini-roundabout so routes 214 and 271 can
turn safely on North Road?
A total of 206 individuals responded to this question. The majority of respondents,
107 (43 per cent), answered “yes”. Eighty-three respondents (33 per cent) answered
“no”. Ten respondents (four per cent) answered “not sure”; six respondents (two per
cent) answered “no opinion”. Forty-three respondents (17 per cent) did not answer
this question.
Figure 3 below shows the breakdown.
Figure 3
Yes No Not sureNo
opinionNot
answered
Number of responses 107 83 10 6 43
Percentage of all (%) 43% 33% 4% 2% 17%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Nu
mb
er
of
res
po
ns
es
Do you agree with installing a new mini-roundabout so routes 214 and 271 can turn safely on North Road?
15
Do you agree with us widening the pavement on North Road, and making the
crossing a straight-ahead so it is easier for pedestrians to cross the road?
A total of 200 individuals responded to this question. The majority of respondents,
118 (47 per cent), answered “yes”. Sixty-three respondents (25 per cent) answered
“no”. Fourteen respondents (six per cent) answered “not sure”; five respondents
(two per cent) answered “no opinion”. Forty-nine respondents (20 per cent) did not
answer this question.
Figure 4 below shows the breakdown.
Figure 4
Yes No Not sureNo
opinionNot
Answered
Number of responses 118 63 14 5 49
Percentage of all (%) 47% 25% 6% 2% 20%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Nu
mb
er
of
res
po
nse
s
Do you agree with us widening the pavement on North Road, and making the crossing a straight ahead so it is easier for
pedestrians to cross the road?
16
4.2 Issues commonly raised
Respondents also had the opportunity to give us comments in their own words.
Two hundred and thirty-three people (94 per cent) provided extra comments or had
suggestions about the proposals. Their comments fell into several main themes. For
the purpose of this report, we have categorised the themes and outlined them below.
The full list of comments concerning these proposals can be found in Appendix D: All
public comments received.
4.2.1 Current issues
Table 3 below shows the top five comments made in relation to the current terminus
for the 271. These ranged from problems with the existing bus stand, to problems
already experienced on North Road.
Table 3
Concerns or issues with current situation Number of comments
North Road disrupted by school traffic 24
The existing bus stand in Highgate Village is unsafe 22
The existing bus stand causes congestion in the village 22
There are already multiple 214 buses at the existing stand on North Road
13
North Road already functions as one lane due to parked cars 6
17
4.2.2 Positive comments about the proposals
Many of the positive comments about the proposals supported the move of the 271
terminus from the village to share the 214 terminus on North Road. Many remarked
that the proposals would improve safety, and remove an eyesore from the village.
There were some comments regarding the better connectivity between routes that
serve Archway. Table 4 below shows the top five positive comments made:
Table 4
4.2.3 Concerns
There were a few issues raised about the proposals, including those highlighting concerns with potential impacts to North Road. Table 5 below shows the top five common concerns: Table 5
Positive comments about the proposals Number of comments
Support for moving the 271 to North Road and sharing the 214 terminus
85
Proposals will improve safety 42
Moving the terminus would improve Highgate Village 33
There would be better connectivity between bus routes in the village
27
Support for 271 to continue stopping in Highgate Village 14
Concerns about the proposals Number of comments
Concern that proposal will increase congestion 75
Concern that the 271 will no longer stop in Highgate Village 38
Concern that extra buses may impact safety of pupils from St Michaels and Highgate School
37
Negative impact on residents who live on North Road (noise or air pollution)
35
Safety of buses turning at mini-roundabouts 34
18
4.2.4 Suggestions
There were also a number of suggestions as to how we could look to change or improve our proposals. Table 6 below shows the top five suggestions. Table 6
Suggested changes Number of comments
The route should be extended further than Highgate 16
The 271 bus should stand at Wellington Gyratory 13
The 271 should use the Castle Yard roundabout to turn, rather that implement a new mini-roundabout
10
The 271 bus could stand at another stop in the village 4
A shelter should be considered for passengers who are waiting for the bus
2
19
4.3 Summary of stakeholder responses
This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. We
sometimes have to condense detailed responses into brief summaries. The full
stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes.
Local authorities & statutory bodies
Councillor Sian Berry, Camden Council: responded as a ward councillor for Highgate in Camden. Cllr Berry supported the move of the stand, and its removal from the village.
Cllr Berry raised some concerns about access to the new stop on foot, particularly for those where residents were less mobile. Because of this concern, Cllr Berry requested that TfL should consider new and improved crossings to ensure it was easy for people to access the stops. A well-lit shelter at the new stand was also requested.
Greater London Authority
Caroline Pidgeon, London Assembly Liberal Democrats: The London Assembly Liberal Democrats broadly support the proposals, and feel that the existing bus stand is not fit for purpose.
It was felt that moving the shelter to North Road made sense, and would create a smoother flow of traffic in Highgate Village. Removing the bus stand would also mean there was more space available for community events.
They were aware of local concerns regarding the new mini-roundabout, and requested that TfL look at using the existing roundabout at Castle Yard, or continuing the route to Wellington Gyratory.
It was clear that the primary consideration for TfL should be making sure the safety
of pupils at St Michael’s School and Highgate School is maintained and improved.
They also asked TfL to take into account needs of wheelchair users and sensory-
impaired people ensuring that physical features, such as pavement differentiation or
dropped kerbs, were maintained for visually impaired.
20
Transport and road user groups
Haringey Cycling Campaign (HCC): supported moving the bus stand from Highgate
Village to North Road. There were some concerns raised over the width of the road,
and the impact this might have on cyclists. As such, they requested this should not
be less than 4.5m wide.
HCC welcomed the principle of more cycle parking, however they asked for this to
be provided in the centre of Highgate Village in the space that would freed up by the
current bus stand.
London Travelwatch: fully support the proposals and commented that they solve a long running area of concern.
Local interest groups
Highgate Society: representing 1,400 members, 750 of whom live in the N6 postal code, split between Camden and Haringey. The society has campaigned for the bus stand to be moved from the village for a number of years, and their response takes into account arguments put forward by members and residents at two public meetings and also ongoing discussions with Highgate Neighbourhood Forum, Highgate School and St Michaels Primary School. While the preference of the Highgate Society is for the bus stand to be at Wellington
Gyratory, they strongly support the current proposals to relocate the bus stand to
North Road.
Their response included a number of issues including:
1. Congestion – the Society does not think the proposal will increase congestion,
but would like further clarification and evidence from TfL as to why this won’t
be an issue
2. Mini-roundabout – whether this could be redesign to allow buses to do a U-
turn in this location, rather than needing a roundabout
3. Build-outs – requested that TfL provide clarification on road widths, and to
explain why these are build outs are necessary. They asked if these are not
seen to be necessary then can they be removed
4. Environment – the Society accepts that buses will stand further away from
residential properties than they do now. However, they expressed some
concerns about the impact on the garden of the Red Lion and Sun. They
requested that TfL look into why multiple 214s use this stand, and remarked
that bus often leave their engines running
21
5. Castle Yard roundabout – the Society do not support the pavement build out
at Castle Yard, believing this would remove a valued left filter and reduce
vehicle capacity.
The response also commented on universal support for redesigning the pedestrian
crossing outside Highgate School. There were concerns raised about where coaches
might be able stand, and potential noise affecting classrooms. Overall, they felt the
scheme would provide benefits to both schools.
Reassurance was requested on how TfL plans to deal with toilet arrangements for
drivers, potential conflicts between buses and residents accessing driveways, and
deliveries to businesses on North Road.
Highgate Conservation Area Advisory Committee (CAAC): supported the proposals, but would like to see the roundabout at Castle Yard removed and a ‘give way’ junction implemented. CAAC believe the Castle Yard roundabout would now be obsolete and removing it would lessen the issue of having multiple roundabouts in a short stretch of road.
Highgate School: had a number of comments on the proposal, and were positive about the improved road safety measure for staff and pupils. In particular, they supported the straight crossing, as this would make it easier, quicker and safer for pupils to cross. There was a concern that more buses would be sitting with engines on directly
outside classrooms, which could be noisy and distracting. There were some
concerns raised about safety of pupils using the stop at night, or quieter times of the
day as North Road is quieter than the village.
The school recognised that parents often use North Road for drop-off and pick-up.
Despite their efforts to encourage walking or public transport, a number of pupils still
came to school by car. There is no dedicated drop-off area, and the School were
worried that narrowing the road to one traffic lane might cause serious congestion
issues. However, the school did reference that outside of school drop off and pick up
times, vehicles did tend to speed. Staff had repeatedly raised the issue of cars
speeding, so the school would welcome any measures that improve road safety.
Lastly, the school mentioned the problems caused by the 214 turning at the Castle
Yard roundabout. Many pupils use the zebra crossings here on a regular basis, and
both schools have crossing staff to make sure pupils are safe. The school were
pleased that the bus might no longer need to use this roundabout. However, they
accepted Castle Yard might need to be used, and requested that the roundabout
should be re-engineered to make it easier for bus drivers to make the turn.
22
Highgate Neighbourhood Forum: fully supports the proposal, explaining that it
achieves many of their aims.
The Forum asked TfL to consider:
1. Roundabout – redesign this so it is a U-turn facility, and to move this further south so it is away from the Red Lion and Sun pub. The Forum noted that they would be disappointed if any feature of the proposed design were to be watered down
2. Shelter – they felt a shelter was not necessary on the west side (next to residential properties) and that facilities on the east side should be discussed with the school
3. Bus stops – to be shortened and moved away from classrooms on Highgate School
4. Bike racks – for these to be removed and placed on the existing pavement, and the buildout area only be slightly raised.
The Forum had a number of concerns about existing behavioural issues, including
engines being left on, and drivers smoking.
They also requested clarification over who owned the land under the 271 terminus,
and if the markings on the road in the village will be changed to reflect proposals.
North Road Residents Group: Residents of North Road and North Hill arranged a
meeting on 24 February 2016 to understand local feeling about the consultation. This
was attended by approximately 10 local residents, and included representation from
Cllr Bob Hare and Cllr Clive Carter as well as Richard Webber from the Highgate
Society and Todd Lindsay from Highgate School. Minutes of the meeting were
forwarded to TfL for inclusion in the consultation, and the key points are summarised
below.
Concerns expressed included:
1. Consultation and engagement – residents felt they had not received
notification of the proposal, and wanted a more detailed drawing. Concern
was expressed that local stakeholders such as Highgate Neighbourhood
Forum had not sought views of North Road and North Hill residents prior to
the consultation
23
2. Congestion – residents were concerned that congestion would increase if the
road were only a single traffic lane. It was felt that this would exacerbate
existing issues with parents picking up or dropping off pupils. There was a
concern that residents and businesses would be impacted negatively as it
would be difficult to received deliveries. It was noted this was especially
concerning for the Red Lion and Sun pub, as they receive a delivery every
Monday morning at 9am for 45 minutes
3. Air and noise pollution – there was a worry that if traffic increased on the road,
then air quality might suffer. It was commented that existing buses often rev
engines at night, and this would only worsen if additional buses were to
terminate on North Road
4. Impact on businesses – it was seen that by removing the terminus from
Highgate Village, there may be an adverse impact on footfall and trade. Any
potential future benefit, such as market stalls, would not outweigh this
concern. Both the petrol station and Red Lion and Sun expressed concern
that they would not be able to receive deliveries, and that their business would
suffer. The potential impact of buses turning outside the pubs beer garden
was also mentioned
5. Mini-roundabout – there were concerns that adding another mini-roundabout
would lead to more accidents, and there were concerns about how buses
would manoeuvre safely around these
6. Road safety – some concerns over the existing pedestrian crossing, wanted
the scheme to be proactive about road safety
7. Cycle lanes – it was noted that the proposals didn’t include provision for cycle
lanes
8. Visual impact – concerns that there would be a detrimental impact to residents
on North Road, especially as the current stand is in a more commercial area.
Combined with the coaches for Highgate school, and other routes, residents
felt that the proposals would lead to North Road becoming a bus depot
9. Cost – residents felt the scheme was not a beneficial use of funding
10. Emergency services – concern that emergency service vehicles would not be
able to use North Road
The minutes note that one resident did agree with the proposals, feeling that it would
be more convenient and that slowing traffic would be beneficial. However, the
general consensus of this meeting was that the bus should stay in the Village or be
extended to either Wellington Gyratory or East Finchley.
24
St Michael’s Church of England Primary School: The chair of governors wrote to TfL
regarding the proposals, and any potential for the 271 to turn at Castle Yard, directly
outside the school.
The school raised no concern with the original proposal, but wanted to clarify several
points if TfL took the decision to use Castle Yard.
Their primary concern was safety and wellbeing of pupils, visitors and teachers.
Many pupils and visitors arrive on foot, and use the zebra crossings at Castle Yard
roundabout. The area is also especially busy around school drop-off and pick-up
times, and lunchtime when Highgate School pupils often access the site. St
Michael’s were concerned the addition of the 271 would worsen safety for their
pupils. They requested that TfL provide assurances that safety for pupils at St
Michaels and Highgate School is maintained, and that consideration is given to how
that safety will be maintained outside of school hours.
There was a concern that additional buses along North Road would worsen air
quality, and a request that TfL consider implementing hybrid or low-emission engines
on route 271.
St Michaels School also asked for clarification on other complimentary safety
measures, such as ramped access to the roundabout, retaining the width of the
footways, including more signage, and keeping the fencing in front of the school.
West Haringey Bus Watch: broadly supported the current proposals to rationalise the terminus and stopping arranges on North Road. In 2010 West Haringey Bus Watch promoted the idea to extend the 271 to North Road, but this was not taken forward by TfL. While they support the scheme in principle, there were also a number of issues and
requests raised. In order of priority these were:
1. The current echelon parking should be converted to median parking, this
would create 50 spaces as opposed to 32, and allow for some short stay
parking as well as maintaining the existing ‘residents only’
2. Bus stops should be sited closer to the South roundabout
3. Introduce kerbside ‘peak-hour only’ bus lanes on both sides of North Road,
this would allow for safer cycling route, and could also provide space for
domestic deliveries to take place
4. Locate new central raised roundabout opposite the petrol filling station
5. Include shared space scheme around bus stops
25
6. Plant six mature trees in median parking strip, plus controlled parking zone
provision
The West Haringey Bus Watch response was also presented to Haringey Transport
Forum on 8 March 2016.
4.4 Petitions and campaigns
One petition was received, as per paragraph 4.4.1 below.
4.4.1 Petition submitted by local residents and businesses of North Road
We received a petition submitted in two parts on 22 March 2016 and 10 May 2016
from Sally Nichol and David Causer of North Street. In total the petitions contained
1,829 signatures objecting to the proposals.
The petition opposed our proposals for the following reasons as cited:
Increased congestion
Damage to local businesses
Increased noise and air pollution
Slowing emergency vehicle response times
Some specific elements of the scheme where mentioned, these were:
New mini-roundabout outside Red Lion and Sun Pub
Central reservation in North Road
Widening pavements on North Road
Reducing North Road to single traffic lane
The number of signatures on the petition has not been included in our total of
responses received. This petition has been included in the analysis of the
consultation and the issues raised in it will have been answered in the accompanying
‘Response to issues raised’ document. We only include the number of completed
questionnaires received in our final analysed figures.
4.5 Summary of comments from the focus group
Following concerns expressed by residents and local stakeholders, a small focus
group was organised with representatives from TfL to discuss the proposal in more
detail. The focus group took place at Highgate School, on 16 March 2016, and was
chaired by Councillor Bob Hare (ward Councillor for Highgate).
26
Attendees included:
Haringey Council Officers
Highgate ward councillors (Haringey Council)
Highgate Society
Highgate Neighbourhood Forum
Highgate School
North Road residents
North Road businesses
The purpose of the session was to discuss the proposals, and understand feedback
from selection of local stakeholders.
At the session, we explained that the existing bus stand was not accessible, and that
there had been a local ambition to see the stand relocated away from South Grove.
Our project team outlined what options had been explored in the past to relocate the
terminus, and some of the issues associated with these other solutions. Issues
encountered included lack of space on Highgate High Street, reduction in parking on
adjacent roads, and a high cost implication from extending the route. The
assessment led the team to explore the current proposal, which involved the 271
sharing the existing bus stand on North Road.
The project team went through the proposals in detail, explaining the rationale
behind them. Discussion then focussed around five key areas:
Congestion and impact on road layout
Vehicle speed on North Road
Impact of reducing the width of North Road carriageway
Negative impact of extending bus stop L
Impact on environment (historic setting as well as air and noise pollution)
Introducing trees into median strip would detract from boulevard feel of the
road
Consideration to materials when extending historic crossovers
Noise from engines
Double decker buses unsightly
Safety
Straight ahead crossing safer for pupils
Concern for passengers safety as North Road is quiet and less well lit
27
Impact on businesses
Vehicle access to petrol station both for customers and tanker deliveries
Servicing and deliveries to Red Lion and Sun
Loss of car parking spaces directly outside of Red Lion and Sun
Perceived negative impact on trade for businesses on North Road
Further issue of negative impact on trade in the village by reducing potential
footfall
Existing roundabout at Castle Yard
Issue with 214 turning at Castle Yard roundabout
Potential for 271 to also turn at Castle Yard
Request to raise Castle Yard roundabout to slow speed of drivers
Left hand filter for those heading southbound and exiting on to Castle Yard
4.6 Comments on the consultation
Thirty-five respondents (14 per cent) provided a comment on the quality of the
consultation and associated materials. The main topics were:
Twenty-two respondents (62 per cent of those that commented) made neutral
or positive comments about the materials, with views such as “okay”,
“adequate”, “fine”, “clear” and “excellent”
Nine respondents (26 per cent of those that commented) said the consultation
was not publicised enough, that they (or someone they knew) did not receive
adequate or timely information, and that the map provided was not clear or
informative
28
5. Next steps
We received many detailed responses from the local community. These responses
highlighted a number of benefits our proposal to move the bus stand could bring, and
also raised a few issues we needed to consider further.
There is clearly a desire amongst the local community to see the bus stand moved
from the centre of the village. However, there were also some concerns raised about
the extent of our original proposal.
We do have a responsibility to create an accessible bus stand, and after taking into
account the views expressed during consultation we have continued to explore ways
to move the 271 bus stand to North Road.
We have now revisited the initial proposals, and simplified the design taking into
account representations expressed by the public and stakeholders.
We will no longer be installing the new mini-roundabout, or associated pavement
buildouts on North Road. A two-lane road layout will remain.
Instead, we would like to remove the large tree at the corner of Castle Yard and
North Road, and raise the existing roundabout. Both the 214 and 271 will turn at the
Castle Yard roundabout, before going to stand at stop Z1 outside Highgate School.
We will continue to make the pedestrian crossing outside Highgate School straight
across, to ensure that pupils and other pedestrians and can safely cross the road.
As ‘Bus Stop L’ will be the last stop for route 271, we will not now install a bus shelter
at this location. The existing bus shelter by stop Z1 will be moved closer to the stop.
We will not now install a bus shelter at bus stop L. The existing bus shelter at bus
stop Z1 will be relocated closer to its stop
5.1 Stopping arrangements for the 271
In response to concerns that the 271 would no longer stop in Highgate Village, we
can confirm the arrangements will be:
Last stop: ‘Bus Stop L – North Road’
Stand and first stop: ‘Bus stop Z1 – Highgate School/Hampstead Lane’
Route 271 would also serve: ‘Bus Stop C – South Grove’
29
Map
30
Appendix A: Consultation questions
Questions about our proposals
All questions were optional
Do you currently use route 271? Yes, No, Not answered
Do you agree with having the 271 terminate at North Road, rather than the
bus stand in Highgate Village? Yes, No, Not sure, No opinion, Not answered
Do you agree with us widening the pavement on North Road, and making the
crossing a straight ahead so it is easier for pedestrians to cross the road?
Yes, No, Not sure, No opinion, Not answered
Do you agree with installing a new mini-roundabout so routes 214 and 271
can turn safely on North Road? Yes, No, Not sure, No opinion, Not answered
Please let us know your views about our proposals (a free text area was
provided for comments)
Questions about the respondent
All questions were optional:
What is your name?
What is your email address?
Please provide us with your postcode
If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group,
please provide us with the name
How did you hear about this consultation? Letter, Email, Read about it in the
press, Saw it on the TfL website, Social media, Other, Not answered
Please tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation (for
example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have
received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.) (A free text
area was provided for comments)
31
Appendix B: Consultation materials
Letter
32
Map
33
Web page
34
35
Appendix C: Letter distribution area
36
Appendix D: All public comments received
No. of comments
Comments in support of the proposals
Support: relocating the bus stand to North Road 85
Support: the proposals in general 81
Would improve safety 42
Would improve Highgate Village 33
Removes eyesore from the village 28
Better connectivity between bus routes 27
Support: relocating the bus stand (but not to North Road) 18
271 will still stop in village 14
271 should share 214 terminus 8
A straight ahead crossing would be safer for pupils 7
Improved accessibility for disabled people 7
New trees 6
Would improve look of North Road 6
Calming traffic on North Road 4
Support: straight across crossing 4
Support: new roundabout outside Red Lion and sun 2
Comments not in support of the proposals
Oppose proposals in general 72
Increase congestion 55
Oppose relocating the bus stand 34
Oppose new mini-roundabout 20
Scheme will provide little benefit to passengers 6
Oppose bus turning at Castle yard roundabout 5
Loss of parking bays 4
No need for extra trees or planting 3
Oppose bus shelter on North Road 1
Concerns about the proposals
Proposal will increase congestion 75
Bus will not stop in Highgate Village 38
Safety of children at St Michaels and Highgate School 37
Impact on residential amenity 35
Safety of buses turning at roundabout 34
Increased air pollution 31
Too many mini-roundabouts close together 26
Deliveries and access to businesses on North Road 25
Access to and from driveways on North Road 19
Safety at Castle Yard roundabout 16
Engine idling 15
Impact on historic setting of North Road 14
37
No. of comments
Impact on trade in Highgate Village 13
Highgate Society and Forum not representative 10
Loss of parking bays 10
Emergency access 8
Bus driver behaviour 5
Cycle safety 5
Safety of North Road at night 4
Canopy at 83 Highgate High Street 3
Need for shelter or seating at bus stops 2
Bike rack unsightly 1
Comments on current conditions in the area
Disruption from school traffic 24
Existing 271 bus stand is unsafe 22
Existing bus stand causes congestion in village 22
School traffic 19
Multiple 214s already at existing stand 13
North Road already congested 13
North Road functions as one lane 6
Pavements already wide enough 6
Existing crossing is fine 5
Village bus stand is historic 5
Difficulty parking on North Road 4
Vehicles speed on North Road 4
Pavements are not wide enough 3
Suggestions
Extend route further than Highgate 16
Bus should stand at Wellington Gyratory 13
271 should use Castle Yard roundabout 10
Other comments – not related to proposals 7
Stand the bus at different bus stop in the village 4
A shelter needed for waiting passengers 2
Wider footways needed 2
271 should not stop on Northbound section of North Road (just the Southbound)
1
Change roundabouts to T junctions 1
Install a raised crossing 1
Install a segregated cycle lane 1
Locate mini-roundabout elsewhere on North Road 1
More parking needed 1
Place pedestrian crossing closer to Highgate Village 1
Preserve notice board in village 1
U-turn for buses on North Road 1
38
Appendix E – List of stakeholders consulted
Local Authorities and Statutory Bodies:
London TravelWatch
Cllr Clair Kober Leader of the Council, Haringey Council
Cllr Jennifer Mann Mayor, Haringey Council
Cllr Adam Jogee Chair Environment and Community Safety Panel, Haringey Council
Cllr Clive Carter Highgate Ward, Haringey Council
Cllr Bob Hare Highgate Ward, Haringey Council
Cllr Liz Morris Highgate Ward, Haringey Council
Cllr Phil Jones Cabinet member for Regeneration, Transport and Planning, Camden Council
Cllr Sian Berry Highgate Ward, Camden Council
Cllr Sally Grimson Highgate Ward, Camden Council
Cllr Oliver Lewis Highgate Ward, Camden Council
London Borough of Haringey
London Borough of Camden
Government departments, parliamentary bodies and politicians
Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP Secretary of State for Transport
Susan Kramer MP Minister of State, Department of Transport
Claire Perry MP Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Transport
Keir Starmer MP Holborn and St Pancras
Catherine West MP Hornsey and Wood Green
Greater London Authority
Gareth Bacon AM
Andrew Boff AM
Tom Copley AM
Roger Evans AM
Darren Johnson AM
Stephen Knight AM
Joanne McCartney AM
Caroline Pidgeon AM
Valerie Shawcross AM
Richard Tracey AM
Fiona Twycross AM
Nick Waterman AM
39
Transport and road user groups
AA Motoring Trust
Association of British Drivers
Association of Car Fleet Operators
British Motorcyclists Federation
Campaign for Better Transport
Camden Safer Transport Team
CTC, the national cycling charity
Freight Transport Association
Green Flag Group
London Cycling Campaign (Haringey)
Motorcycle Action Group
Motorcycle Industry Association
Road Haulage Association
West Hampstead Amenity and Transport
Local interest groups
Camden Society
Highgate Neighbourhood Forum
Highgate School
Highgate Society
Highgate West Hill Residents Association
Living Streets
Pond Square Residents Association
St Michael’s Church of England Primary School
Police and health Authorities
London Ambulance Service
London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
Metropolitan Police
NHS CCG Camden
NHS CCG Central London
Other stakeholders
Action on Hearing Loss
Age Concern London
Age UK
Alzheimer’s Society
British Dyslexia Association
40
BT
Canal and River Trust (London)
Disability Alliance
Disability Rights UK
Disabled Persons Transport Committee
EDF Energy
Guide Dogs for the Blind Association
Joint Mobility Unit
Licenced Taxi Drivers Association
Living Streets
London Councils
London Older People’s Strategy Group
MIND
National Children’s Bureau
National Grid
RMT Union
RNIB
Royal Mail
Sense
Stroke Association
Thames Water
Unite the Union
![Final Major Project - Highgate Cemetery [Brief]](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/568c4d071a28ab4916a267f8/final-major-project-highgate-cemetery-brief.jpg)
