Hexham Town Car Parking
Car Parking in Hexham Town
No More Reports, Please, Just Action
Central Tynedale Community Forum
Report on Open Meeting 27 May 2010
Over the last years a series of reports have been commissioned and published relating to the nature of the Hexham town centre, in particular the Market Place. It has become evident that the singular blockage to any real progress in developing the historic market place is the availability of car parking spaces within it, giving obvious good accessibility to many shops. In addition, strong and principled views expressed by the current Mayor of Hexham about County Council owned parking spaces adjacent to the Abbey have been in conflict with the Abbey’s ambitious plans to develop a heritage/visitor centre attached to the Abbey.
Within this context, the CTCF offered this opportunity to interested parties and the general population of Hexham and the surrounding area to air views on Hexham town centre parking with ensuing discussion in groups and in plenary that was designed to establish areas of agreement and diminish the extent to which car parking was felt to be a blockage to future joint planning.
Summary conclusions
The open meeting endorsed emphatically the recommendations contained in the January 2010 report on Hexham Car Parking. Additional detail was added as follows:
• Loosing Hill and Gilesgate car parks should be treated differently, with long-stay to remain in Gilesgate given proximity to residences;
• any loss of parking spaces in the Market Place must be offset but not exclusively by considering car parks in the Abbey grounds;
• effective signage to all car parks is necessary, including the non-Council-owned Euro/M&S car park;
• to be fully effective, greater differentiation of lengths of stay, including more short-stay in particular in proximity of market place, must be rigorously enforced.
Overall conclusions
In addressing the recommendations of the January 2010 report, two groups were formed to agree expected levels of impact on access by visitors to the town centre shops (footfall) and register a degree of priority for each one. From this, high levels of consensus emerged, with a clear desire to see more differentiation of parking periods with shorter stay periods especially close to the Market Place and in Beaumont Street. Medium stay would be available in Loosing Hill, a section of Gilesgate (some of which should remain long-stay for the use of residents) and the Euro/M&S car parks, with long-stay (e.g. day permits) restricted to sections of the main Wentworth car park.
Firm enforcement of the diversified parking regulations should then be a priority.
Signage to all car parks should be made very evident and helpful, to enable visitors to park appropriately without first entering the town centre to seek (in most cases in vain) a very central parking space. Improving access subsequently from the car parks to the centre should be functional rather than cosmetic.
Finally debate broached the development of the market place itself, with discussion moving towards investigating the potential for re-designing the market place as a ‘shared space’, in which pedestrians would have priority but which would give access to cars also. This underlined the very strong consensus across participants that the Hexham market place is an undervalued feature, bringing together almost uniquely religious, social and commercial heritages and able to serve each of these more attractively. The market place may also be re-defined to include parts of its two main spines, Beaumont and Market Streets.
Feedback from Discussion Group 1
Part 1: Prioritise the Recommendations from the Jan 2010 Report on Hexham Town Centre Parking
| Recommendation | Impact | Priority | Further considerations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Improve signage to Wentworth Car Park (largest car park) reducing traffic flow into town centre | Yes | High | Wentworth signage completed. Signage to other car parks should be addressed, including the Euro car park (although not Council controlled), with carefully considered wording, position and impact (to avoid town centre) |
| Install CCTV and improve lighting and environment in Wentworth car park | Slight | Low | Unnecessary, although attention should be given to winter later afternoon periods. |
| Improve pedestrian route from Wentworth to town centre, including signage, lighting and public art | Slight | Medium | Some renovation has taken place, including signage. Handrail along long slope needs attention, and uneveness of surface. General improvement possible and necessary. Vacant cafe is currently eyesore. |
| Improve access from Euro Car Parks carpark (behind Ropery) to town centre | Yes | High | This should be a very necessary part of the plans (to be considered) re existing bus station redevelopment |
| Enhancement of the public realm throughout the town: signage, lighting, paving, street furniture | Yes | High | Very important. A consistent upgrade is very desirable. However, priority should be addressing existing uneveness of paving/pavements. |
| Change Loosing Hill & Gilesgate car parks to short-stay, promoting higher vehicle turnover, with long stay restricted to areas of the Wentworth car park | Yes, with caveats | High | Differentiate. Loosing Hill to become short-stay, with sections of the Wentworth car park available to permit holders. Also, reducing access to hospital staff. Gilesgate to remain long and short, to benefit of Market Street residents. |
| Review parking permit regulations, restricting their use in certain locations (e.g. Loosing Hill/Gilesgate) | Yes, with caveats | High | Again, differentiate (see above). More detailed investigation is necessary. Daytime parking by town centre workers also impacts negatively on immediately adjacent residential areas: action necessary. |
Part 2: Wider improvements to the Town Centre
How can Hexham’s unique town centre, especially the Market Place, with its imposing architecture and heritage, better serve the town’s commercial and community interests?
| Proposal 1 |
Enforcement of revised parking regulations must be rigorous. Especially on Beaumont St (with shorter-stay than currently), as this could in itself off-set reduced or no parking in Market Place. Proposed short-stay areas will be very important, again off-setting any overall reduction in places. Enforcement of blue badge parking must also be robust. |
| Proposal 2 | Total pedestrianisation of Market Place should be unnecessary. Elimination of traffic is an extreme solution. Alternatives should be investigated, including ‘shared space’ variations, with e.g. possible restrictions on times for vehicular access, and restrictions on direction, purposes and/or speed. Market Place should be more than a car park and must contribute to overall attraction of a unique space. |
| Proposal 3 | Clearer, more effective definition and location of long- and short-stay parking and drop-off. These must be designed to maximise both footfall (economic interests) and visual attractiveness of Hexham’s features, including entrances to Sele, market place generally, east facade of Abbey and also first section of Market St (attractive but seemingly frequently overlooked in plans). Differentiation of increased disabled parking (long/short stay) and its robust enforcement must also be pursued. |
Feedback from Discussion Group 2
Part 1: Prioritise the Recommendations from the Jan 2010 Report on Hexham Town Centre Parking
| Recommendation | Impact | Priority | Further considerations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Review parking permit regulations, restricting their use in certain locations (e.g. Loosing Hill, Gilesgate) | Yes, but needs consideration |
High | Residents of Gilesgate and Market Street use the Gilesgate car park. It was felt that we are lucky to still have a large proportion of traditional shops on the ground floor with residences above. It was felt strongly that the use of this car park by people living in that area had not been recognised by the report. Loosing Hill does not have the same pressures and we were all in agreement that it should be changed asap to short stay only. We also felt work could be done between the council and the hospital to ensure greater use of hospital car parking |
| Reduce length of stay on key streets, e.g. Beaumont St, from 2 to 1 hour | Yes | High | Enforcement. This was a popular suggestion but needs enforcement. |
| Periodically review parking charges to ensure that on-street parking is more expensive than off-street | Yes | High | There was concern that parking charges would be hiked by this recommendation. The agreement was “not more expensive, just more difference.” |
| Improve enforcement of parking and waiting, especially on-street | Yes | High | The most important message to come through my group. Enforcement. We should be very careful not to point our fingers at the present traffic warden/s. There may be many reasons enforcement is lacking and it’s very unlikely to simply be the acts of one or two traffic wardens. |
| Off-set any loss of parking spaces in pedestrianisation of Market Place possibly by making use of existing car park in Abbey grounds | Yes, but no agreement | High | The Market Place was the can of worms, many views warning of the dangers of the Abbey car park being close to a school. Some felt it would be detrimental to our beautiful abbey. Removing street furniture and making it a more shared space area (NOT PEDESTRIANISED) was popular and should include parts of Beaumont and Market St. |
| Provide additional blue badge parking | No | Low | Enforcement of existing, anecdotal evidence of abuse given by many of the group. |
| With local businesses offer cheaper or free parking linked to purchases | No | Medium | No level ground. Blyth has free parking; Hexham charges. |
Part 2: Wider Improvements to the Town Centre
How can Hexham’s unique town centre, especially the Market Place, with its imposing architecture and heritage, better serve the town’s commercial and community interests?
| Proposal 1 | Shared space. Do not stop anyone from doing anything. Don’t close the roads or make them one way. Make drivers realise and think the pedestrian has right of way in the areas in and around the market place, slow the traffic down and remove signs and lines. |
| Proposal 2 | Enforcement of parking. Tighten licensing and planning, there was a feeling that there is a lack of cohesion between these bodies and the public; the possibility of a bookmakers in a prime spot next to a pub which already attracts drinkers standing outside is not in anybody’s interest and will have a negative impact on our beautiful town centre. We must strive to keep the balance between the residences, the shops and the traffic. It is a combination of these that has made the Market Place into the area we care for today. |
| Proposal 3 | Look back before moving forward. History can tell us a lot about how the Market place worked in the past and this is generally a good starting point for making changes today. |
Next Steps
This report containing overall summary conclusions and the feedback from the two working groups will be presented to
• all individual Hexham residents attending the open meeting
• all Hexham groups and organisations represented at the open meeting.
It will be on the agenda of the forthcoming meetings of
• the NCC West Area Partnership
• the NCC West Area Committee
• Hexham Town Council
• the NCC officer group tasked with overseeing Hexham town centre developments.
Members of the Central Tynedale Community Forum will offer their availability to represent this report in person and energetically to each body. Madelaine Rourke, the NCC West Area Regeneration Officer, has expressed her gratitude for the collective guidance that the open meeting and this report provide.
Follow-up
A number of pertinent themes now offer themselves to the CTCF as subjects of forthcoming open meetings. These include: the definition and practical design of a ‘shared space’ in the wider Hexham market place, the synergy between this and proposals for a renovated bus station and south commercial zone, monitoring of NCC progress through the priorities now established within the January 2010 report recommendations. The CTCF Steering Group will make its intentions clear in due course.
*****************************************************************
Synopsis of 27 May 2010 open meeting arrangements
Direct representative inputs were made on behalf of the following Hexham groups and organisations after invitation.
| Hexham Abbey Hexham Independent Traders Hexham Business Forum Hexham Civic Society In a personal capacity |
Peter Standfield Gail List Sandy Rutherford (Hexham Courant) Tim Tatman Cllr Terry Robson |
Madelaine Rourke addressed the meeting as the West Area Regeneration Officer in whose remit the January 2010 report into car parking in Hexham sits.
The meeting was chaired by Phillip Clark, the CTCF Steering Group Chair, and the scope of the meeting, its context and overall objectives were presented by CTCF Steering Group member Ian Lauriston. The two working groups were facilitated by CTCF Steering Group members Jason Robinson-Gay and Dave Clegg.
After notification of the meeting via the Hexham Courant, the Hexham Community Partnership web-site, and a display in the entrance to the Queen’s Hall, Hexham, the open meeting was attended by 34 residents of Hexham and surrounding villages.