Improving Community Engagement: Learning from Acorn Road

*Improving Community

Engagement:Learning from Acorn Road

a review of the Acorn Road improvement plans and consultation process, proposing future best practice for positive community discussion and engagement in

the public realm

This report has been researched and written byBryony Simcox

from June 2015 to September 2015commissioned by the

Jesmond Residents Associationwith the support of Newcastle City Council

Bryony Simcox obtained a first class honours degree in Architecturefrom Newcastle University in 2015. She has worked for the

Landscape, Planning and Architecture department as a researcher,exploring ‘Inspirational Participation’ and facilitating co-design and

conversations about positive changes in the urban realm.

Contents_-------------------------------------------------------------

Preface from the chair of the JRA 5 Executive Summary 6

1 Introduction: Learning from the Past p.10

1.1 Report Objectives 12

1.2 Jesmond demography and Acorn Road 14

stakeholders

1.3 History of Acorn Road proposals and consultation 18

2 Interviews: Learning from People p.32

2.1 Interview Objectives 34

2.2 Nine Conversations (Steven, Ruth, Hugh, Bobbie,

Alona, Robert, Jon, Heather and Ken) 36

3 Conclusion: Learning for the Future p.44

3.1 Interview themes: process and problems 46

3.2 Suggestions for improvement 52

3.3 Conclusion 58

IMPROVING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Too often consultation is seen to be a simple choice between whether a project should or should not go ahead. The reality is nearly always more complex. Involving and engaging communities on the things that make a big difference to their surrounding and their lives is essential. It helps us to adapt and refine our plans so they better meet the needs of local people. There are lots of examples across the city where our plans have been significantly improved by what people have told us about the local situation. It provides an invaluable alternative perspective that would be impossible to glean from an office in the Civic Centre.

We don’t always get it right. We want to learn how to make consultation more effective which is why we have been pleased to contribute to this research. It is an excellent piece of work which offers many helpful insights on how to do things differently, and how to do things better.

Steve ParkAssistant Director Policy, Communication and PerformanceNewcastle City Council

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Preface by Chair of JRA_-------------------------------------------------------------

Why a review?By necessity the Newcastle council carries out many consultations in relation to planning procedures, and most residents will have experienced being asked on some occasion about changes in the environment (usually roads) in their neighbourhood.

The Jesmond Residents’ Association as part of its function of representing the residents of Jesmond, responds to the majority of major consultations and also ensures that they are circulated on our mailing list.

We are well aware of the wide scepticism over these consultations, by those (undoubtedly a minority) who take an interest in planning. However we also understand the difficulties facing the council in conducting thorough consultations in a way that allows meaningful response. There are a number of levels in which consultation can be carried out: from simply inviting comments on an already agreed proposal, to ensuring full engagement from the community by requesting conceptual suggestions at an early stage in the process; it is much more common for the former to be the format than the latter. In the Acorn Rd consultation, the council made great efforts to listen to the community’s views. Yet there was still acrimony, uncertainty and outright opposition from some to the changes being proposed.

The JRA is of the view that important lessons can be learned from this process, and we suggested to the Council that a review be carried out with their backing. Steve Park kindly agreed to this and we were delighted to be able to work with Bryony Simcox from the Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, a senior student who already has experience of this kind of work and who developed the methodology in discussion with the JRA committee.We hope to continue to work with the council, using the recommendations of this fine piece of work, to engage the Jesmond community more fully in future planning exercises which affect the built environment for everyone. Tony Waterston


Executive Summary_-------------------------------------------------------------

Cities are for citizens and the streets belong to the community that use themUrban design, often led by designers and engineers, and funded by the Council and local Government, affects most those who use the urban fabric on a day-to-day basis. Consultation is an opportunity to inform local residents of changes, and gather their viewpoints on a proposal on the understanding that their opinions will be listened to and will influence the proposal.

History of the consultationPlans for a scheme to improve Acorn Road span back to the 1960s. The ‘Cycle City Ambition Fund’ package won by Newcastle City Council in 2013 made alterations to the road financially feasible, and the design and consultation process began. Many locals supported proposals for change to varying degrees, but it became apparent that the Public Consultation of September 2013 was imperfect, and didn’t provide what many residents hoped would have been a chance to vocalise their concerns. The complicated process of design development and further community consultation (including the submission of a counter-campaign and petition) led to delays, increased council spending and, most importantly, confusion and frustration amongst the community.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Outcome of the consultationThe Public Consultation for Acorn Road was conducted from the 1st to 21st September 2014, and the views of local residents and businesses were requested on two illustrations for redesign, via a leaflet describing the options for change with a feedback form for comments and request to choose a preferred option, distributed to every household in the North Jesmond ward around the 18th August 2014. Views could also be expressed via www.letstalknewcastle.co.uk, by email to [email protected], or by attendance at one of three street events (all of which were detailed on the leaflets circulated).

The outcome of the consultation showed that the largest single vote share in favour of Illustration 1 (preferred for the perceived benefits to pedestrians and cyclists, the creation of a safety-enhanced environment, benefits to the local economy and reduced traffic and congestion). An analysis of the consultation results released in October 2014 used data splits to explore the characteristics of the consultation responses. It revealed that Illustration 2 proved significantly more popular with residents and businesses within 200 metres of Acorn Road, attracting 61% of the vote share. These respondents felt that this option would preserve the vitality of the area, and they opposed Illustration 1 - a one-way traffic design with its perceived bias in favour of cyclists.

Following the public consultation period, a campaign for an amended Option 2 was put forward, with some shopkeepers collecting signatures of customers and residents. A counter-campaign was also launched in support of the first Illustration. The Council then modified Illustration 1 so as to decrease the number of car parking spaces lost to one. The final design was presented to a working group who oversaw the last detailed changes before its submission to the Regulatory and Appeals Sub-Committee. This design was finally approved by the council in July 2015.

How the study was carried outDocumentation and information from the Council, local media sources and the Jesmond Residents Association was gathered in order to compile a comprehensive history of the Acorn Road improvement scheme. This included minutes from meetings held with Sustrans, local residents and councillors, as well as the formal


results from the public consultation and all of the responses gathered from the Let’s Talk forum.

Bryony Simcox then interviewed nine individuals selected as representatives of key stakeholder groups and parties involved in the scheme - including a mum of 3 and keen cyclist, a carer for an elderly disabled resident who drives through necessity, an engagement officer from the City Council, and a university student who is enthusiastic to see the integration of all short and long-term residents. These in-depth and personal conversations looked at Acorn Road and the consultation process, exploring how the interviewees use the street and there involvement with the improvements. The key themes that emerged in the interviews expose the many varied uses and experiences of Acorn Road, helping to establish what did and didn’t work in the consultation process and leading to the concluding recommendations for the future.

Talking to local residents, council workers, traders and other key stakeholders has afforded in-depth accounts of the scheme and Council’s consultationAcross the nine interviews, a series of critical or supporting themes emerged. Firstly, there was a lack of clarity over the flexibility of the scheme - whether the road improvements were definitely going ahead, or whether the entire scheme was up for debate. Both parking and cycling were also particularly contentious topics, with cuts to parking being the key concern for many, who saw access to the shops by car as integral to the economic wellbeing of the area. There were mixed views about the various methods of communication - online, face-to-face and postal. Many interviewees agreed that at the start of the consultation process in September 2014, the presentation of the scheme as two separate proposals caused polarisation and the opportunity to ‘vote’ one way or another, seeing the two illustrations as the start of major disagreements. Finally, the issue of inclusion emerged and there was clear frustration that major interest groups in Jesmond seemed to have not been taken into consideration: namely the ward of South Jesmond, the ‘transient’ student population, traders and older residents, many of whom are ‘hard to reach’ and have mobility issues.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Conclusions and recommendations for future consultationThe report builds on suggestions from the interviews with a series of realisable recommendations as part of a vision for future engagement. The key proposals for improved engagement in public realm projects are: explaining the bigger picture; making the expectations realistic; clarity of roles; clarity of information on a single proposal; early involvement of community stakeholder groups; building on community activities. Future projects may not be identical to the situation on Acorn Road, but there are lessons to be learnt about building a successful conversation between designers, long-term residents, families, traders, the Council, and all road user groups. The engagement must both offer information and listen to responses. This needs to be a clear, two-way process that provides people not only with context but also an understanding of a vision for the city, allowing positive and sensitive discussion to take place.

Bryony Simcox


1Learning from the Past

“The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life.”

- Jane Addams

1 LEARNING FROM THE PAST

Cons

ultatio

n Pa

mph

let

source

: Au

thor


1.1 Report Objectives_-------------------------------------------------------------

• Establish the consultation approach taken• Contextualise the Acorn Road proposals within a

wider geographical and historical setting• Explore the ‘voices’ of Jesmond and key

stakeholders in the project, and their views on both the proposals and the consultation process

• Propose improvements for future consultation

This report sets out to review the Acorn Road street improvement plans and consultation process, proposing future best practice for successful community discussion about changes in the public realm. It aims to present in-depth views of stakeholders about their involvement with the process, and ultimately question how future urban alterations can be made a less undignified process and instead become a celebration of community streetscape improvement.

The first chapter Learning from the Past begins by analysing the demography of Jesmond and establishes the key players in the road improvement scheme. This chapter paints a picture of the scheme in its entirety, looking at the proposed changes to Acorn Road in a wider historical context, establishing what happened and when, and the motivations behind the proposed street changes themselves.

Learning from People presents a series of in-depth conversations with stakeholders about Acorn Road and the consultation process, exploring how they use the street and were their involvement with the improvements. The key themes that emerged in the interviews expose the many varied uses and experiences of Acorn Road and help to establish what did and didn’t work in the consultation process. This section also questions interviewees on how they could have been better consulted and how they imagine an improved discussion about Acorn Road.


Finally, Learning for the Future draws on interviewees’ suggestions for future engagement, proposing new or altered ways of to discuss and communicate changes in the urban realm. This concluding chapter aims to set out a clearer consultation process, talking about who needs to be involved, what needs to be done, and when.

Challenging Perceptions is a holistic and accessible document that exposes the real humans designing, using and changing the streets for the better. It offers an impartial summary of the Acorn Road improvement scheme, acting as a valuable collation of events as well as a resource for future consultation.

Why review Acorn Road?Although there are numerous examples of street improvement schemes across Newcastle currently in-progress, the particular case of Acorn Road faced a very strong response (both for and against) from the community, as well as a cycle of suspicion and support for changes spanning back almost five decades. The consultation process saw the emergence of pressure groups and the use of emotion-based rather than evidence-based persuasive tactics. There was evident distrust and scepticism over the scheme from the start.

This report attempts to tackle some of these issues and examine the logic behind some of the scepticism and hesitation over change, with the hope of improving cohesion between residents, funding bodies, shop owners, council members and road users.

Cars o

n Ac

orn

Road

, take

n 16

th A

ugus

t 20

15so

urce

: Au

thor


1.2 Jesmond demography and Acorn Road stakeholders_-------------------------------------------------------------

Acorn Road is situated in the ward of North Jesmond, at right angles to Osborne Road and a 25 minute walk from the city centre.

Aeria

l vie

w of J

esmon

d, w

ith b

oth

Wes

t Je

smon

d an

d Je

smon

d metro stops

and

Aco

rn R

oad.

source

: Go

ogle M

aps an

d Au

thor


Who lives in Jesmond?Jesmond is divided into two wards, split along Fern Avenue and Buston Terrace, although most residents see this divide as solely administrative, and instead view Jesmond as one large collective area. According to the Office of National Statistics, there are 10,849 residents in South Jesmond and 10,813 residents in North Jesmond. Examining the census information for North Jesmond, the ward within which Acorn Road lies and home to 3668 households, it becomes apparent that there is a large student population accounting for over half of the residents, as well as almost 40% one-person households (split 50/50 between those aged under 65 or those over).

All inform

ation

from c

ensu

s take

n 27

March

201

1, p

erce

ntag

es rou

nded

to

neares

t wh

ole

numbe

r.

North

Jes

mon

d

South

Jesm

ond


Who uses Acorn Road?Acorn Road and its immediate surroundings (St George’s Terrace, and junction with Osborne Road) hosts a range of shops, ranging from everyday amenities to luxury goods, and includes:

SupermarketsCafes and small eateriesBanksEstate, Letting and Travel AgentsClothing and giftsEveryday amenitiesOpticians and hairdressers

The interviews showed that the supermarkets and everyday-amenity shops were particularly valued by students and single-person households who were able to walk and buy their necessary goods from Acorn Road, especially if they didn’t own a car. The luxury goods companies have an extensive customer base, which includes many online shoppers and people who drive from other areas in Newcastle to visit and shop there.

Shop

s on

Aco

rn R

oad, tak

en 1

6th

Augu

st 2

015

source

: Au

thor


Who are the interest groups and key stakeholders?Acorn Road shops depend not only on residents living in Jesmond but also on those living further afield. The Council attempted to address the varying user groups through representatives at the working group. The interviewees in Chapter 2, Learning from People, were selected because either they fall into at least one of the categories of people affected by the proposed changes, or were involved in the decision making process. This report attempts to reveal the complex and interweaving daily activities on Acorn Road by studying those involved with the street:

Residents (represented by local associations such as the Larkspur/Sanderson/Mistletoe Residents Association or the JRA)Families (some with children attending West Jesmond Primary School and Central Newcastle High School amongst others)Students (from both Newcastle and Northumbria University)Cyclists (including campaign groups such as the Newcastle Cycling Campaign)Disabled users and carers (including elderly residents with mobility difficulties, many living in sheltered accommodation, and pupils attending the Percy Hedley College)Businesses (traders along the road, as well as their landlords or agents)Sustrans (a charity enabling people to travel by foot, bike or public transport, that works with communities and policy makers such as the City Council)Newcastle City Council (with involvement from various departments including Investment & Development, Traffic & Management, and Consultations and Community Engagement)


1.3 History of Acorn Road proposals and consultation_-------------------------------------------------------------

Why change Acorn Road?Over many years of interest and planning, there has been an attempt by some to improve the experience of Acorn Road, the hub of Jesmond’s social and economic life, in terms of both safety and enjoyment in response to concerns expressed by residents, traders and local councillors. These plans for change have faced adaptation, scrutiny and continual re-evaluation as they have progressed to fruition, as is the case with many public realm developments which concern and affect such a wide range of people. The following summary tracks the history of the development proposals in order to clarify the interaction and engagement between all those involved including major interest groups and stakeholders.

BackgroundAcorn Road was originally a public footpath between Friday Fields Lane (now St George’s Terrace) and the village of Jesmond near St Mary’s Chapel. In 1875 William Temple, a builder, bought 52 acres of land for building houses and his daughter, a botanist, suggested that the streets be given botanical names. Between 1899 and 1906 the first shops were built on the North side of Acorn Road, and by 1968 there were 30 businesses including 3 bakers, 2 newsagents, 4 grocers, 3 dry cleaners, 2 drapers, 2 butchers and 2 banks plus numerous other individual shops. (Information provided by Alan Morgan, city guide, at the 2013 Jesmond Festival).


2012

2013

2014

2015

OCT 2013 - FEB 2015

‘Process of Informal Engagement’

Sustrans’ Preparation, Inception, and Initial Designs Stage from Oct ‘13 until May 2014.

From September 2014 Newcastle City Council started the process to take conceptual ideas to the detailed design stage, and engagement activity from here was led solely by NCC officers.

FEB 2014 ONWARDS

‘Process of Statutory Consultation’

Community group begin to meet to discuss Acorn Road improvements

ongoing

£5.7m Cycle City Ambition Fund awardedAug

Public events and meetings with residents, Sustrans and councilors

Oct

Public “street design workshop”March

Sessions presenting one-way designMay

Public consultation with two illustrationsSept

Consultation results publishedOct*

Working group explores detailed designNov ‘14 - Feb ‘15

Work on-site scheduled to beginAug


1963City Planning Officer Wilfred Burns conceived the ‘Local Plan for Jesmond’ for the City Council which was approved by the Council in 1963. This Town Planning document proposed both a development plan for the whole of Jesmond, as well as specific radical changes to the Acorn Road shopping area, embodying the following principles:

• ‘the creation of pedestrian streets and spaces• the extension of shopping frontages to consolidate the

existing provisions and provide continuous elevations• the provision of adequate rear service and parking areas

and traffic circulation well segregated from pedestrians and the residential area

• the maintenance of a ‘live’ shopping area throughout all stages of development

• the closure of streets and alteration of the street pattern to allow better use of available space by building over existing streets’[Local Plan for Jesmond, Wilfred Burns, published 1966]

Much of the proposals for traffic management, road alterations and housing and trading development within this Local Plan remained speculative and were never carried out, owing to community opposition.

Impres

sion

of the

prop

osed

196

6 de

velopm

ent,

Acorn

Road

look

ing

towa

rds St. G

eorge’s Te

rrac

e


2012From 2012 ongoing, a community group led by Transition Jesmond met and examined ways to improve Acorn Road, based on previous discussions about change, and existing concerns such as difficulties in parking and driving up the street (at this stage the main call from traders was for more parking, whilst others proposed full pedestrianisation), as well as difficulties from the point of view of pedestrians in using the pavements and crossing the road.

The group carried out four surveys of the street directed at traders, traffic flows, street users and modes of transport. The results of these surveys, as well as research for Department for Transport (MVA, 2010), informed a design proposal by Neil Murphy (of Beyond Green) which used the concept of ‘shared space’ - an option that aimed to satisfy the needs of both drivers and pedestrians.

Photom

ontage

of the

prop

osed

201

2 ‘sh

ared

spa

ce’ s

chem

e on

Aco

rn R

oad


‘We (the Acorn Road Improvement Group) attempted to reach an innovative solution which would benefit the majority of Acorn Road users whilst being in tune with modern thinking about street design and environmental sustainability.’[Acorn Road: Becoming A Great Street, Tony Waterston, Transition Jesmond, 26.2.13]

Acorn Road Improvement Group Street Survey Conclusions:• In terms of access, people think that improvements for pedestrians

(65% saying “extremely important” or “fairly important”), cyclists (55%) and car parking (51%) are important.

• In terms of quality of experience, people think that reduction of traffic (73% saying “extremely important” or “fairly important”), better conditions for pedestrians (72%), better disabled access (72%) and environmental improvements (70%) and sufficient provision of parking within walking distance (66%) are important.

23rd May 2013Transition Jesmond hosted a meeting as part of the Community Festival, aiming to promote public discussion about the proposals developed by the Acorn Road Improvement Group. Over 40 people attended the meeting, and a wide spectrum of views were aired by the audience, which included a fair majority who were keen to see benefits such as traffic speed management and improved appearance, but remained anxious about the impact of a one-way street or reducing parking on the whole area. It was agreed to proceed with incremental change whilst keeping in place the possibility of trialling more holistic measures as part of a wider vision for the future of Jesmond.

Cyclist on

Aco

rn R

oad, tak

en 1

6th

Augu

st 2

015

source

: Au

thor


£350,000 funding for Acorn RoadWhen the Department for Transport’s ‘Cycling City Ambition Fund’ Phase 1 awarded £5.7m to Newcastle City Council, Acorn Road was selected as an area for investment due to the studies which had already been carried out, satisfying the ‘Routes to Retail’ component along with several other areas in the city. Up to £350,000 was allocated to transform Acorn Road into a cycle-friendly shopping area, involving changes to the road layout to reduce traffic and improve the environment for people walking or cycling.

The aim was to include Acorn Road in a city-wide project with community involvement supporting sustainable transport:

‘Phase 1 of the CCAF set the direction for a transformational long-term cycle strategy for Newcastle by aiming for mass participation, and supporting city centre regeneration, housing growth, public health and access to employment and services.’[Newcastle City Council Website, <http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-transport/cycling/newcastle-fit-cycling-cycle-city-ambition-fund-bid>]

21st October 2013A final meeting of the Acorn Road Improvement Group was held with local residents and councillors, as well as three staff from Sustrans, the UK charity promoting sustainable travel. This marked the start of Sustrans’ involvement as a result of the funding awarded. The meeting considered the key topics of potential extra car parking, forming a retailer association, landscaping and greening corners, traffic calming, cycle parking and pollution monitoring.

source

: ww

w.ne

wcas

tle.gov

.uk


In addition to these measures discussed by the Acorn Road Improvement Group, Sustrans offered examples of ‘shared space’ schemes, and there was a discussion about the development of design ideas combining the Cycle City project with a locally initiated Traffic Management scheme.

October - November 2013This period marked a stage described by Sustrans as ‘Refining the Brief, Understanding Residents and Business Aspirations’. A series of meetings with local councillors, the Jesmond Residents Association, and the general public were held to present and discuss loose proposals and ideas for the street development, which included the main public meeting at Jesmond Cricket Club on 29th November.

The Residents Association (JRA) and Sustrans hosted an evening of information and debate open to the public, asking stimulating questions such as:

‘What can we take from what’s been done elsewhere, what works and what doesn’t? What are the benefits of shared space, and if so where? How can we slow traffic where there are large numbers of pedestrians? What needs fixing so that more local people can walk & cycle to the retail area?’[Newcastle Cycling Campaign Website <http://newcycling.org/jesmond-routes-retail/>]

Street designer Paola Spivach presented images and examples from across the country where strategies for the public realm had been enacted, explaining their successes.

Acorn

Road

Ra

tiona

le -

Explan

ation

of Preferred

Design

, NC

C an

d Su

strans

, March

201

4


January - March 2014Sustrans conducted a “Retail Survey” to gather responses from business on the street, and drew from the results of both this and the discussions held in the October-November engagement period to produce street designs for the Council with Paola Spivach:

‘The options are based on previous consultations with businesses and residents in the area. Working with our partners Sustrans, a number of public events were held to help us form our plans.’ [Improvements to Acorn Road - Cycle Friendly Shopping Area, Newcastle City Council Consultation Pamphlet]

Sustrans’ Acorn Road Retail Survey Conclusions:• There is a marked tendency for retailers to overestimate the

number of their customers coming by car and underestimate the numbers walking even when presented with the results of a shopper’s survey

• The designer should be asked to consider a one-way system provided sufficient traffic calming is introduced

• The majority of traders are positive about improved public realm, particularly measures which ‘green’ the street[Acorn Road Stages of Engagement by Sustrans and Newcastle City Council]

8th March 2014A ‘public design street workshop’ was held on Acorn Road by Sustrans to reveal the first proposal for the road, followed up by two sessions in Jesmond Library as well as online where designs were posted on Sustrans’ ‘DIY Streets’ blog:

‘Saturday 8th March will be a great opportunity to bring as many local people as possible down to Acorn Road to look at some design ideas that have been developed for the streets around the shopping area and to chat through the opportunities and challenges ahead.’[Retail Areas Project Newsletter, Sustrans, February 2014]

Site observation at this stage:‘Traffic congestion and narrow and cluttered pavements discourage people to talk and linger along Acorn Road, compromising the potentials of the street as a vibrant hub and successful retail area.’


Design opportunities at this stage:‘One-way traffic allows for improvements of pedestrian provisions, and, at the same time, retains as much parking as possible. The use of standard raised junctions could be a missed opportunity for making the street special, whereas a one-level carriage way arrangement could help enhance the character of the retail area. Pavements could run continuously along the whole street, and the junction with Larkspur Terrace could become the heart of the street.’[Acorn Road Rationale - Explanation of Preferred Design, Newcastle City Council and Sustrans, March 2014]

‘The overwhelming majority of verbal and written comments received by Sustrans (on 8th March) were positive regarding the design solution presented which involved a one-way arrangement on Acorn Road. Ward Councillors reported significant nervousness regarding a one-way from residents living in proximity to Acorn Road and requested that further work was undertaken to analyse and compare a two-way versus one-way arrangement. The JRA failed to reach a consensus view on the designs.’[Acorn Road Stages of Engagement by Sustrans and Newcastle City Council]

April 2014Major concerns emerged over the proposal unveiled in March by Sustrans, with the North Jesmond Liberal Democrats Focus Newsletter claiming that ‘the North Jesmond councillors were astonished that, despite all the warnings they had given about opposition to a one-way street, Sustrans failed to produce any alternative plan’ - stating; ‘we think that a one-way system will lead to increased congestion on St. George’s Terrace and Mistletoe Road’.[North Jesmond Focus, Edited by Peter Breakey, April 2014]

Libe

ral De

moc

rats N

ewsletter,

April 2

014


10th May 2014Sustrans hosted a ‘design workshop’ at the Jesmond Festival Fair, followed by sessions in Jesmond Library, presenting a summary of the design process so far and with two designs; the one-way arrangement and a new two-way option. Following this, Sustrans reported the feedback to Newcastle Council, with an overwhelming majority of people supporting a one-way solution and accepting to ‘give something up’ in order to achieve better pedestrian provision on the street.

September 2014‘From September 2014, building on the previous engagement, Newcastle City Council started the process to take the conceptual ideas and illustrations to the detailed design stage, and from this point the engagement activity was led solely by NCC officers.’ [Acorn Road Stages of Engagement by Sustrans and Newcastle City Council]

Following requests from North Jesmond councillors, two illustrations of cycle-friendly shopping area improvements to Acorn Road were presented to the community for public consultation, in the form

Improv

emen

ts to

Acorn

Road

- Cy

cle

Friend

ly S

hopp

ing

Area

, Ne

wcas

tle C

ity

Coun

cil Co

nsultatio

n Pa

mph

let


of a flyer sent out to every household and business in North Jesmond. The survey was distributed to North Jesmond residents only following a vote by all four Liberal Democrat councillors (3 in North and one in South) to exclude South Jesmond.

‘The aim of this public consultation was to present two illustrations of potential cycle-friendly shopping area improvements to Acorn Road, North Jesmond to the public, giving them a clear indication of the perceived benefi ts of each. The ultimate objective was to establish a public preference for one of the two illustrations, together with a clear understanding of views on both illustrations, with which to shape future development.’[Improvements to Acorn Road - Results of a Public Consultation, Newcastle City Council, October 2014]

Feedback from the consultation period came in the form of:• a paper survey form (distributed to every household in North

Jesmond, 382 views were received via these self-completion feedback forms)

• three street events (these events saw the City Council’s ‘Let’s Talk’ gazebo with maps and illustrations on display situated on the corner of Larkspur Street and Acorn Road on Tuesday 9 September 2014 8am to 12pm, Wednesday 10 September 2014 12 to 4pm, Thursday 11 September 4 to 8pm)

• Let’s Talk Newcastle forum (330 views were received from 163 individuals)

• direct email (79 emails received by the Council directly)

An analysis of ALL 624 responses received within the consultation period reveals that Illustration 1 received 48% of the vote share, with Illustration 2 receiving 31%, 13% preferring ‘no change’ and 8% not stating a clear preference.

Drilling down further to examine the effect of geographical residence on views, reveals that those within 200 metres of Acorn Road were

An analysis of ALL 624 responses received within the consultation period reveals that Illustration 1 received 48% of the vote share, with Illustration 2 receiving 31%, 13% preferring ‘no change’ and 8% not stating a clear preference.

Table

take

n fro

m Improv

emen

ts to

Acorn

Road

- R

esults o

f a

Public C

onsu

ltatio

n, N

ewca

stle C

ity C

ounc

il, O

ctob

er 2

014


far more likely to vote for Illustration 2 (61%) than Illustration 1 (22%). The opposite is true for those living outside of 200m of Acorn Road. Among this group 54% vote for Illustration 1, with 34% opting for Illustration 2.

‘The nature of comments was extremely mixed, in that some respondents chose to write generally about their experiences of the Acorn Road and North Jesmond area. Others specifically complimented the overall ethos or specific details of one Illustration, highlighting perceived benefits, advantages and envisaged results, whilst others chose to generally or specifically criticise the Illustration which they did not vote for.’[Improvements to Acorn Road - Results of a Public Consultation, Newcastle City Council, October 2014]

October 2014 - January 2015Although Illustration 1, a one-way street with widened pavements, safer crossings and 20mph speed limit, received the largest single vote share of 48% overall, a petition was lodged due to a concern for loss of parking spaces. This petition was heavily politicised and involved counter-campaign posters on Acorn Road itself, something which Steve Parks, Assistant Director of Policy and Communication at Newcastle City Council went on to describe as ‘megaphone diplomacy’ - whoever shouts the loudest is heard the most.

Artic

le from the

New

castle C

hron

icle. N

ovem

ber 20

14


‘We are opposed to the Option 1 proposal which has not properly taken into account the very serious impact on traders and residents of changing the road to a one-way system and taking away 10 parking spaces, which is around one third of the existing parking. We support an amended Option 2, modified to keep the provision of parking much closer to the existing provision. This is clearly possible.’[A petition from residents, traders and landlords in North Jesmond]

Throughout the same period, a working group ‘made up of representatives of local businesses, residents, the disability forum, Sustrans and the Council’ was set up by the Council to assist in the production of a detailed design, on the understanding that they would expected to feed back to the residents, groups, businesses or organisations that they were representing. A senior council officer also met with various concerned business and Acorn Road property owners separately to directly address their concerns.

In response to the campaign and the working group comments, the Council progressed Illustration 1 with alterations to reduce parking spaces lost as part of the detailed design process, continuing to inform local residents through a series of letters delivered in North Jesmond.

February 2015The working group met to look at the altered final design one last time, and the drawing was then displayed for the rest of the month for public viewing in Jesmond Library. Following this, a detailed design was put in place in order to progress the necessary Traffic Regulation Orders required, which were then formally advertised on Acorn Road and in the local press.

7th July 2015Objections to the Acorn Road proposals were heard at a Regulatory and Appeals Sub-Committee, and a Delegated Decision was made on the 7th July to finally proceed with the scheme through to delivery and construction.


SummaryBuilding on existing community interest in improving features of Acorn Road, the scheme led by Newcastle City Council and Sustrans began in August 2013 at the ‘Preparation Stage’. With ‘Practical Completion’ originally intended to occur by 24th September 2014 according to the original CCAF detail plan, the entire project has taken much longer than anticipated, and construction is yet to begin at the time of writing. The process of ‘informal engagement’ consisted of activities to ‘inform, involve and engage people’ running from October 2013 until February 2015. The intention was that the traders would be invited to gatherings, informed of planned changes, considered in the alterations, and visited and communicated with at various points by both NCC officers and engineers:

‘Traders from Acorn Road were invited to gatherings, activities and specifically the working group, every effort has been made to ensure they were involved in the engagement activity and informed of the design process for the improvements to Acorn Road.’[Acorn Road Stages of Engagement by Sustrans and Newcastle City Council]

The following chapter questions the true involvement of residents and traders and looks at the interactions of change-makers and stakeholders through a series of personal stories and engaged conversations.

Visu

alisation

from a

men

ded

design

source

: ww

w.ne

wcas

tle.gov

.uk/

acornrd


2Learning from People

“The word citizen has to do with cities, and the ideal city is organized around citizenship - around participation in public life.”

- Rebecca Solnit

2 LEARNING FROM PEOPLE

Stev

en in

his sh

op, Ac

orn

Hardwa

reso

urce

: Au

thor


2.1 Interview Objectives_-------------------------------------------------------------

• How do you currently use Acorn Road?• What has your experience of the consultation

process been?• How do you imagine a visionary scenario of

Acorn Road?• How could you have been better engaged with/

consulted/invited into discussion?

Nine interviewees were selected after consultation with the JRA committee as representing the key stakeholders in the consultation process (as described on page 13). They are community members, Council workers, traders and representatives of key groups, but not necessarily individual voices that have been heard before.

Pede

stria

ns o

n Ac

orn

Road

source

: Au

thor


Nine interviews, lasting from 25 minutes to 2 hours, were conducted during June and July to explore the personal experience of how the Acorn Road scheme developed and how the consultation process worked. Most meetings occurred face-to-face on or near Acorn Road, in coffee shops, places of work and homes nearby, as well as in the Council offices and others on the phone. This holistic approach of conducting a dialogue allowed the interviewees to explore their memories of the Acorn Road scheme and formulate some suggestions for the future.

The four questions (above) acted as a starting point for a conversation looking at current experience of firstly the road and then the consultation process itself, and then turning to an ‘ideal scenario’, again for Acorn Road and and then the engagement. These ‘interviews’ then evolved depending on the interviewee’s stance and experience, leading to a series of loose themes such as experience of Acorn Road, existing problems observed, involvement with the consultation, viewpoint on the proposed changes and opinions on improved community inclusion and improved engagement.

It is recommended that the full interviews are read in order to understand fully the conversations which took place and the viewpoint of each interviewee.The full interview documents can be accessed at:

www.jesmondresidents.org/sustainability.html


2.2 Nine Conversations_-------------------------------------------------------------

Steven“The lifeblood of Jesmond is the Acorn Road shops - so really if the street’s going to be changed, it’s the shopowners who need to be spoken to first.”

Steven has run the DIY and homeware business Acorn Hardware for 15 years, and sees the shops on Acorn Road as the lifeblood of Jesmond. Steven supported most of the proposal, with the parking element being the linchpin problem as many customers drive in from further afield or need their cars to load heavy and large goods. Steven felt that traders were hugely under-consulted in the scheme, and that it was the pressure from the shopkeepers grouping together to complain, legal involvement from some landlords and the petition against Illustration 1 that led to the Council taking opinions on board and resolving the scheme’s cuts to parking spaces.

Although praising later engagement with the traders from the Council at the delivery phase, Steven attributed the frustration of residents and traders to a lack of information provided during design development phase. As well as fair communication through bodies such as the JRA, Steven suggested consultation with shopkeepers and landlords at an earlier stage in the design and greater clarity in the plan to avoid the emergence of an accrimonious debate within the community.

Ruth“The Council’s role is very much to hear what people want. Then in turn we’ve got a legal responsibility to work out what is enforceable. We (the Council) simply have to maintain certain laws and standards. It becomes very hard to meet everyone’s needs - we have to be realistic, and present elements that satisfy everyone somehow, not just those who shout the loudest.”

Ruth works as a ‘Communities Facilitator’ for Newcastle City Council, and was involved with the Acorn Road scheme during the


consultation phase. She felt that this engagement was the best that the Council could do, and that using a mixed range of consultation methods together (such as posted letters as well as the Let’s Talk website) remains the most effective approach. Ruth reiterated that the Council’s main role is to inform and facilitate impartial design conversations, whilst working within constraints such as legal responsibilities. She went on to describe the smaller local groups and stakeholders in the scheme, whose responsibility it was to impart information fairly to the community. Ruth identified that a lot of the friction may have emerged through poor connections and information exchange between Council, key stakeholders or groups, the entire Jesmond population and users of Acorn Road.

In the case of Acorn Road, Ruth established that many pro-change locals made the assumption that the scheme would go ahead without much need for vocal backing of the project, and that most of those consulted did in fact support the full one-way, improved walking and cycling design from the start. Ruth felt that any public realm scheme will never fully satisfy all those involved, but that an improved tolerance towards and perception of the Council is required by the public in order allow a ‘best scenario’ design to be more easily found, accepting compromises for the sake of a wider vision.

Ruth in

her offic

e in the

Civic

Centre

source

: Au

thor


Hugh“A lot of people’s fears came from those first figures of so many parking spaces lost, which really hiked up people’s antagonism. Then when the reviewed proposal had only 1 space lost, the frustration of many, and especially traders, really dissipated.”

Hugh has been a resident on Larkspur Terrace for almost 40 years and is the chairperson of the Larkspur/Sanderson/Mistletoe Resident’s Association. He has seen the scheme evolve back from the start, and was critical of the 2012 scheme for its displacement of parking (onto roads such as his own). Although generally in favour of the changes, the safety of the contraflow cycling is a cause for concern for Hugh, and he claimed there needed to be more diligence in information provided, such as survey evidence of present Acorn Road safety. Some Larkspur Residents expressed direct concern to the Council via email, demanding quantitative evidence and “robust studies” for improved safety performance, going on to submit Freedom of Information Requests.

Hugh understood the mixed opinions that emerge with any scheme like this that affects so many, but would have liked to have seen more neutrality from Council workers facilitating the engagement, especially at the street gazebo. Hugh proposed a series of large discussions at the start, interim and conclusion of the process with a different dynamic, clearly establishing who the road is for, who the road affects, and the priorities for change. A future structure whereby local groups and users with different skill sets and expertise are more intelligently connected was Hugh’s vision, which he felt would contribute to small, steady and respectful change on Acorn Road, getting everyone on board from the offset.

Bobbie“I didn’t have a problem with the two illustrations, but the Council didn’t seem to allow you to do was say ‘Option 1 but with lots more parking’ - it seemed overly simplified and led me to not vote for the first illustration as a standalone idea.”

Bobbie has been a South Jesmond resident for around 38 years, and is the secretary of the Jesmond Community Forum. She drives


to Acorn Road of necessity, taking her disabled husband out to the shops and cafes, she sees Acorn Road as unsustainable in the long term as it is, and belives it could be improved for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. Bobbie favoured a one-way system - but only as part of a coherent plan encompassing the surrounding area, to avoid difficulties of displaced traffic, such as tailbacks on St George’s Terrace to Mistletoe Road. Bobbie also felt that contraflow cycling would both be unsafe and a concern to people including Jesmond’s elderly community.

As a South Jesmond resident, Bobbie felt unclear as to whether her views would actually be considered, and explained confusion around the two illustrations and the ‘vote’-based system. She saw the online forum as a place where views became increasingly polarised, allowing extreme ideas of key groups to emerge whilst individual or hard-to-reach voices remained unheard. Bobbie urged for more communication with the Elder’s Council throughout the early consultation stage as a means to expose the views and desires of the elderly population, and Bobbie desired an overall focus on safety rather than aesthetic appeal within the design.

Alona“The debate surrounding the Acorn Road scheme became so negative, that it was really just a wasted opportunity to have a meaningful discussion about what people generally wanted. There was no democracy, it just became people shouting and confronting each other.”

“I wasn’t scared that the shops would all shut, after living abroad for 12 years of my life I’ve seen how other cities manage, creating greener, people-friendly spaces.”

Alona is a mum of 3, living on Sanderson Road, and using the road daily to walk her children to school and cycle back from work. Alona makes uses of most of the amenities on the street, but sees the number of cars and the parking situation as dangerous both as a pedestrian and cyclist, as well as for her child who would like to meet friends on Acorn Road. With experience of living abroad, Alona has seen how other cities create people-friendly spaces and supported the one-way proposal with the greening and improved pavement.


Alona responded to the design illustrations on the flyer through the ‘Let’s Talk’ website as well as attending the street gazebo Her frustration was directed at the counter-campaign, feeling as though it became politicised and falsely claimed to represent views of local residents. Alona acknowledged that community groups are useful conduits for information and engagement across the community, but that they cannot be the only way of getting information out because. She feels they do not engage everyone, instead encouraging the Council to remain a neutral facilitator for the discussion, whilst also delivering more information explaining the scheme through the flyer delivered. Finally, Alona championed community cohesion and making use of residents’ energy and skills to engage with the project in the future.

Robert“A lot of students ended up signing the opposition petition because they hadn’t even been engaged by the Council, and they bought into the sense of ‘fight’, believing they were part of a positive community energy without researching the Acorn Road improvement proposals objectively.”

Robert is a recently graduated student from Newcastle University who has lived in North Jesmond for three years. Rob travels to and through Acorn Road on foot and said that the density of cars on the

Robe

rt in the

OCC

coffee

shop

on

St. G

eorge’s Te

rrac

e.so

urce

: Au

thor


street not only makes crossing more dangerous, but also walking less enjoyable. Rob first came across the Acorn Road scheme at the start of September 2014, when he received the illustrated flyer from the Council through his door, and supported the idea of engaging with clear illustrations, as well as supporting the one-way proposal. Rob was keen to point out that the consultation period in September entirely missed the opportunity to connect with the majority of students. Flyers were sent and information circulated before university students had arrived in the area, resulting in many of the ‘transient population’ actually suppoting the counter-campaign before understanding the scheme.

Rob explained that it wasn’t clear whether the illustration flyer was the start of a dialogue with the public, or whether it was building on an existing conversation. He advocated a clearer preface explaining the scheme’s history for those only entering the conversation at the start of the ‘informal consultation’ in September 2014. As well as clarifying the purpose of the consultation (was it to gather general opinions or seek a final decision), and the method of consultation (vote versus opinion poll), Rob requested clarification of the role of the Council in a scheme such as this - whether it is to promote and encourage the changes, on behalf of the Government’s cycling agenda or to maintain a neutral perspective with its cycling agenda, or if in fact the Council are coming from a neutral perspective, acting only as impartial facilitators who need to identify stakeholders and host a conversation between opposing interest groups.

Jon“We knew the scheme illustrations weren’t final designs and we hadn’t done any proper assessments, which is why we called them ‘illustrations’ and not options.”

“People’s expectation of the amount of analysis that we at the Council would spend in investigating what is such a simple and small piece of work is out of proportion.”

“We have gone through every angle of the design on Acorn Road, we’ve talked to the Disability Forum, we’ve had blind people walking up and down the street, we’ve talked about tactile edging on the shared space.”


Jon is one of the most senior transport officers in the City working for Newcastle Council, and worked on the bid for the Cycle City Ambition Funding package. At the time, Jon was running all of the city’s major transport projects, and so it fell to him to take Acorn Road and a number of other schemes forward. The Council commissioned Sustrans to take on the engagement process, with the intention that people didn’t see it as the Council turning up and imposing a solution. As a senior traffic engineer, Jon was working within the constraints of ‘design objectives’ put in place to secure financing through ‘funding objectives’, which included a cycling focus.

Many issues emerged prior to the main consultation period in September 2014, such as disagreement amongst Councilors about who should be consulted at all. Jon explained that the illustrations put to consultation were only ever concept illustrations, and that he was reticent to include a second option, especially as it wasn’t likely to fulfill the funding criteria anyway. The second option was eventually included in the flyer sent to North Jesmond residents, and it is this multiple choice complication that Jon cites as both dividing and confusing the community.

Jon wanted to respond to the true desires of Jesmond as a community, and made every attempt to connect with residents as well as working to resolve the varying needs of the community (including Disability Forum, and shopkeepers). However, there was an expectation gap between the resources that the Council had available to commit and what some residents requested. Jon explained that it wasn’t appropriate to do things such as a full economic assessment, given the length of Acorn Road and the scale of the proposed changes. He advocated a simplified consultation, taking a single concept and modifying on request - an iterative process of collecting comments and negotiating a design, rather than just facilitating a debate.

HeatherHeather lives in South Jesmond, and walks to Acorn Road regularly for food and other daily amenities. Heather mentioned both irresponsible driving and a lack of integration with the local student body as two existing issues that need addressing - perhaps through schemes like this. Although supporting the one-way illustration,


Heather insisted that information including the rationale and measured information behind decisions should be more widely accessible to local residents (she only found out about the scheme through a friend).

Heather recognised the conflicting interest groups using Acorn Road but also the need for more clarity over who they are and what their needs are, with a better platform for discussion (as opposed to a fixed voting consultation system). She was keen for reassurance that the Council were taking on board the opinions of the local residents, in the hope that well-informed, responsible conversations could take place, in whicg people accept the compromises and restraints required for an option that best suits the community as a whole.

Ken“It really came to head when the scheme had advanced so much and South Jesmond suddenly realised that they had never had a say in it - which led in turn to people being totally negative about everything to do with the scheme because they and shop owners on Acorn Road hadn’t at all been consulted”

Ken has lived in Jesmond (in the ward of South Jesmond) since 2009 and is actively involved in issues surrounding the community. He became involved with the scheme after realising that along with other SJ residents, he hadn’t been consulted in the plans for change. Ken contacted and met with Council at various points, imparting their responses to neighbours, friends and other residents. He sees Acorn Road as unique, in that outside visitors come because of the shops, and thinks that designs were based on schemes in different cities, which didn’t necessarily apply to the characteristics of Acorn Road.

The lack of economic analysis and communication with shopkeepers and South Jesmond residents were Ken’s major concerns. Ken championed an approach of inclusion from the start, representing the entire community (South and North) and retaining neutrality rather than allowing a conflict of interests in who represented the residents. Overall, Ken stressed that designs need to remain as first-drafts until full consultation with the community, slowly resolving through collaboration and communication with local residents.


3Learning for the Future

“First life, then spaces, then buildings – the other way around never works.”

- Jan Gehl

3 LEARNING FOR THE FUTURE

Jesm

ond

Commun

ity F

estiv

al p

arad

e on

Aco

rn R

oad

in 2

014

source

: Olwyn

Hoc

king


3.1 Interview themes: process and problems_-------------------------------------------------------------

Across the nine interviews undertaken, a series of themes emerged where several interviewees either shared an opinion or spoke about a part of the Acorn Road scheme and consultation process that they wanted to criticise or, in some cases, they wanted to support:

• Design flexibility• Parking• Cycling• Consultation illustrations• Online and street gazebo• Inclusion

It is important to understand these key dialogues about the scheme in order to make suggestions for improving future consultations. An understanding of the problems experienced by interviewees can contibute to the creation of an effective framework for engagement between Council, residents, traders and other stakeholders.

Acorn

Road

, take

n 16

th A

ugus

t 20

15so

urce

: Au

thor


Flexibility A major issue was the lack of clarity over whether this scheme would definitely go ahead (with or without stakeholder approval), if there was the opportunity to ‘vote’ against the scheme. This ambiguity led to the consultation becoming a platform for people to discuss where the money could be spent elsewhere, whether it should be spent at all and other wider issues, rather than seeking opinions about the specific proposed scheme. Conversely, when the two illustrations were pitched together, people assumed there was no flexibility at all, and they being asked to choose between fairly finalised designs.

Ruth: “The public think that we (the Council) have made a decision already, and we need to challenge these perceptions and remind people that we’re here to help them create a better future.”Robert: “The flyer I received didn’t read like a conversation-starter, but instead like a finalised rubber stamp thing before it went to approval. I didn’t think there was room for opposition here, and so I can see how the counter-campaign acted so strongly, because they thought that final street changes had all been decided.”

ParkingThe linchpin of people’s concerns with Illustration 1 stemmed from cuts to parking, with the specific number of ’10 spaces’ fuelling the start of the counter-campaign and a push for an amended Illustration 2. Locals generally felt that pressure via means such as the petition was needed for the Council to change the parking arrangements.

Steven: “The Council have listened to what we want to do, in terms of road, pavement, railings, seating at the working group, but it happened so much later than the initial consultation, and we were only really listened to after so much objection against the parking loss. A landlord even got their legal team involved with the scheme - although this legal pressure was quite a heavy-handed approach, I think it worked and pressure really was needed to change the Council’s plans.”Ruth: “Parking is always almost a sub-text for a lot of other things, it becomes a topic to latch onto.”


CyclingAt the heart of the Acorn Road scheme was the focus on cycling, which became a sticking point for many people. This was in part due to the proposed contraflow cycling scheme which raised safety concerns, but also the idea of cycling ‘to’ Acorn Road versus cycling ‘though’ it. The ‘Routes to Retail’ title led some to believe that funding should focus on the areas actually connected to Acorn Road. The residents consulted who regularly cycled were keen to see the cycling scheme rolled out and were generally more supportive of the Cycle City Ambition vision.

Hugh was in favour of shared spaces but continued to have fears about cycle awareness: “we’re not geared up in this country to watch out for and look for bikes, in the meantime we’ve got a big transition period as pedestrians need to be more cycle aware.” Jon: “The thing about the funding for this particular package of work is that it’s part of the Cycle City Ambition Fund, and so the whole objective is ultimately to raise cycling levels. On top of this, the reason we included the retail element was to provide public realm uplift along with sustainable journeys to and from a particular area.”Ken: “As a driver you will not be expecting a bike to be coming in the opposite direction.”When asked about people’s concerns with the contraflow cycling, Jon responded “We trust each other to walk along the pavement and get along, and we trust each other to drive along the road and get along. Somehow because people are on two wheels they’re seen as a danger to everyone else, but an increase in cycle provision is something that we are all going to have to get used to.”Robert: “If you build a cycle lane, people will use it. Habit follows the provisions. Building a cycle culture and a joy in lingering in the public realm will only stem from actually changing the street.”

Consultation IllustrationsIt was confirmed during most of the interviews that when the consultation process began at the start of September 2014, the presentation of the scheme as two proposals caused polarisation and the opportunity to ‘vote’ one way or another. Retrospectively, most interviewees commented that not only did the choice of two


options create almost ‘for’ and ‘against’ groups, but that it made the choice seem more finalised than it would have been had there been an opportunity to disseminate a single scheme.

Alona: “It was very much portrayed that there was option one and option two, never suggest your own ideas and let’s have a discussion about it.”Ken felt that the Council survey was “a rigged way of asking, which made it very difficult to make any other points. They (the Council) could get the answer they wanted by the way it was phrased”Jon tried to demystify the two illustrations put out to the public: “Certain local Councilors were adamant that we proposed several options, although I didn’t think the second option would be able to meet the objectives, especially when the one-way option was favoured and it gave us the road space we were looking for. We came back a few months later and were criticised for ‘promising’ another option, so I agreed to add in a second illustration, but explained that we probably wouldn’t even be able to deliver it through the Cycle City funding anyway, as it probably wasn’t going to increase public realm utility, do enough to make Acorn Road a hugely more attractive area, or increase any more cycling trips.”

Online and street gazeboThere were mixed views about the consultation methods, which in fact support the Council’s stance of using a variety of tools (website, street events, emails and posted letters). Whilst everyone was positive about at least receiving a printed version of the scheme, some felt that the gazebo attendants should have had more technical knowledge about the scheme, and there was a confusion as to whether the Council were promoting the scheme or acting as impartial facilitators at the street stand. The ‘Let’s Talk’ forum was praised as an easy way to respond to the consultation for some interviewees, but some felt the lack of face-to-face contact due to it being online allowed polarisation and arguments to form more easily.

Bobbie criticised the use of the Let’s Talk forum: “Using the online platform was contentious, because people with an ideological view used it to write some quite inflammatory comments, and I think the


Let’s Talk forum polarised views where that wasn’t necessary. There were some extreme ideas about pedestrianisation suiting disabled people, and in that case there was a danger of using misinformation to push an opinion.”Ruth: “When we’re engaging as the Council, we can use lots of different methods and I wouldn’t want to use just one method on its own. Something like the Let’s Talk website comes in as part of a package, but the face-to face stuff works well as you get feedback instantly.”Alona supported the use of digital methods to both provide information and a platform for debate, saying: “people can be honest on the Let’s Talk website, because it’s non-attributable.”

InclusionThrough talking with local residents, there was a clear sense of frustration that major interest groups in Jesmond seemed to have not been taken into consideration, namely: the ward of South Jesmond, the ‘transient’ student population, traders and older residents, many of whom are ‘hard to reach’ and have mobility issues. Talking about the student population with locals exposed a variety of views over who has the ‘right’ to the urban realm and who deserves a say in local decisions - Steve felt that anyone who uses the street has a say, Jon was keen for equal right amongst all, Hugh would like a weighting based on proximity of house to the road, and a few other residents were happy for the inclusion of students in exchange for an increased respect for the upkeep of the area.

Bobbie felt that certain groups weren’t consulted properly at all: “I don’t think there was the correct consultation with the Elder’s Council or the Alzheimer’s Society either, especially when we’re trying to make Jesmond a dementia-friendly community.”Ruth: “The consideration of one group of people may actually be contradictory to a group of another - such as how the Dementia-awareness group are keen to avoid tactile paving because of the confusion it causes, and yet this is essential (at a legal level) for the Disability Forum and the visually-impaired that they represent!As Council workers, we’ve got so many eggs in one basket that we’re trying to balance, and it’s really hard to save one without breaking


another, I think you’re always going to be disappointing somebody.”Rob pointed out that information (including the flyers) was sent out before university students had arrived in the area: “it was over and done with before people had an opportunity to see the plans and comment on them, it just needed to be a month later on and thousands of students would have engaged.” Jon: The Council couldn’t consult in the pre-election period due to the resignation of a local Councillor, and so the timing of consulting in the summer holiday break was unfortunate in that “the Council could only consult with those who some believe are the ‘true’ residents of Jesmond, rather than the transient population, who some believe have no right to make choices over the public realm.”Bobbie: “As a resident of South Jesmond, it was never clear what weight, if any, my opinions would have. It wasn’t absolutely certain who the eventual ‘opinion polls’ represented - households, or members of households, or certain areas only.”Hugh: “the political frictions between North and South certainly affected the process”

The

Let’s

Talk Ne

wcas

tle w

ebsite

source

: (<http://w

ww.le

tstalkne

wcas

tle.co.uk

>)


3.2 Suggestions for improvement_-------------------------------------------------------------

The following themes emerged as a result of in-depth conversations with the interviewees, who not only spoke about problems with the Acorn Road consultation, but complemented their criticisms with proposals or ideas about how things could have been done differently. As well as offering a vision for future engagement and consultation, these suggestions are meant to be fully feasible.

‘10 Lessons in More Engaging Citizen Engagement’ by Vancouver urbanists Brent Toderian and Jillian Glover examines ways to increase civic participation:Map Your Assets – Community Asset Mapping involves informing policies and activities through the creation of a ‘map’ of the community’s resources. The process is intended to mobilize a community to focus on what matters most by identifying and using its assets.Walk the Talk – The “walkshop” is a moving conversation, educated and stimulated by looking around. Typically on foot or bike, walkshops allow community members and planners to better understand their neighbourhood together; to document community assets; and to showcase and discuss new and ongoing initiatives.

[<http://www.planetizen.com/node/67656>]

Vanc

ouve

r ‘W

alksho

p’ sou

rec: V

anco

uver P

ublic

Spa

ce N

etwo

rk(< h

ttps://

www.flick

r.com

/pho

tos/

vanc

ouve

rpub

licsp

ace/

>)


Explaining the bigger pictureThe discussion surrounding Acorn Road dates back before 2012 and involved meetings, engagement and public consultation, all of which were led by different people and presented in different ways. A semi-structured conversation whereby those consulted are first given the remit of the road improvement scheme requires clear and consistent background information before any questions or choices about an actual design are put to the public. Background information would provide a history of the road and motivations for change, to avoid a misinformed or mislead discussion at later stages.

Hugh: “In an ideal world, the Council would call for a consultation about an area, first establishing what people actually want to be changed before they put in funding bids. This large discussion at the start of the process would more clearly establish the parameters involved. And there’s certainly a different dynamic when you actually talk face-to-face”

Making the expectations realisticIn order to avoid the misunderstandings that became so apparent amongst those affected by this scheme, the project constraints and limitations (such as Council resource, project budget, and funding criteria) should always need to be clearly explained. There was a divide between what many local stakeholders believed the Council could provide and what the Council were actually capable of providing. This lead to requests for detailed research such as traffic safety and economic studies that Jon Higgins from the Council explained were impractical for the size of project.

‘Participatory Budget’ – Linking top-down and bottom-up in a creative way, Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo allocated 5% of the city hall budget to be used until 2020 for citizens to vote on design ideas in the city such as a project to create vegetation walls that would “improve biodiversity” and a scheme to introduce “learning gardens” in primary schools. Supporters say the vote is a chance for those critical of public spending to participate in a new way, reengaging with local politics and affording them a sense of ownership.

[<http://bit.ly/guardianparticipatorybudget>] May

or A

nne

Hida

lgo

souc

e: S

teph

ane

Mah

e/Re

uters


Clarity of rolesThe Council’s role was evidently unclear among those interviewed - were they acting as an impartial facilitator or were they acting as instigators of change? There was also confusion over the purpose of the consultation itself - was the public consultation part of an open conversation to gather general opinions or was it a vote to make a final decision? Both Ruth and Jon from the Council explained that they had a role to encourage the scheme as part of the Government’s wider targets, but also a responsibility to act as neutrally as possible within the consultation, thus the role of the Council is two-fold. This description of the Council workers’ roles needed to be explained more clearly, as well as the fact that the consultation was never intended to be a vote - confusion which almost wholly stemmed from the presentation of two illustrations. There could also be a genuine attempt to work with community stakeholders who wish to see positive change coming about.

Ruth: “It would have been a good idea right at the beginning to be much clearer on what people’s roles were and exactly what influence they were going to have.”Robert: “If in fact the Council were coming from a neutral perspective, acting only as impartial facilitators, then they needed to identify positive stakeholders (such as student groups, residents associations, and shopkeepers committees) to carry forward a pro-campaign with one voice in advance of putting the scheme forward for public consultation.”

Sizing Up Parking Space

One Parking space is 18m2 (220 ft2).

6m (20 ft) 3m (11 ft)

That’s equivalent to...

10 Bicycles 5 Motorbikes 2 Rickshaws

3 Office Cubicles

1 Small Studio in

Paris

Lunch with15 Friends

1 Low Income Housing Unit

in India

Infographics – Clear graphic c o m m u n i c a t i o n has the advantage of imparting information quickly and effectively. Facts alone do not necessarily change opinions or attract attention, wheras data about transport and safety figures can be creatively displayed as in this illustration about opportunity costs.

‘Sizing Up Pa

rking Sp

ace’ sou

rce: In

stitu

te fo

r Trans

porta

tion

and

Deve

lopm

ent Po

licy

(< h

ttps://

www.itd

p.org>

)


Clarity of information on a single proposalThe consultation flyer posted out in September 2014 presented two illustrations, complete with a table of facts including the project cost. Interviewees criticised the publication of these two ideas with such technical information, whilst asking for more information about the scheme as a whole. For many, the posted flyer was their first introduction to the project, and many commented that it read as two final ideas that needed to be voted for. Better information would manifest itself as a clear explanation of who (see Clarity of Roles) and what (a more detailed explanation of the project to date and the scheme rationale), and be presented in an accessible, appealing way - through infographics and illustrations of other schemes.

Jon: “The idea of taking a single concept and modifying on request would seem to work better than giving people multiple options which actually just creates confusion, and in the case of Acorn Road, divided the community. As the Council, just keeping the consultation simple by saying ‘this is what we’re thinking of doing, what do you think?’ has proven to work better - we should make a single proposal based on what we think as experts, and then pitch it to the public. People feedback by commenting on the design, which becomes the start of an iterative process whereby we collect the comments and negotiate the design.”

Early involvement of community stakeholder groupsThe working group meetings held from November 2014 onwards were praised for attempting to talk to key stakeholder groups, and although not all groups were consulted, it provided an opportunity for users (such as the Disability Forum) to explain specific requirements and uses of Acorn Road. However, these structured meetings could have been held earlier, drawing together representatives from all groups: the wards of North and South Jesmond, elderly residents, people with disabilities and their carers, traders, families, and the large student body. The views of each key group could then have been presented in September 2014 in the public consultation flyer, with the aim that the public would better appreciate the needs of the wider community because they have been explicitly explained,.This may avoid the sense that the scheme has been a top-down intervention forced only by the Council.


Alona: “The Council do have to be neutral, but I’d like to see if we can avoid having a pro-and counter-campaign, instead host a mature discussion which is mediated by the Council.”Heather: “If it was stated more clearly from the start who uses the road, and what their conflicting interests were and why, we would know we were looking for a best proposal that attempts to best satisfy conflicting interests” - for example “I would really like to see students recognise that we’re all part of the same community”

Building on community activitiesIn order to dispel the mis-conception amongst many that the Acorn Road improvement scheme was a Council-imposed, non Jesmond-specific project, people needed to see that the design truly stemmed from the community, and that it is part of a wider vision for the area. Rob talked about continuous incremental change such as front garden tidy-up days to spark conscientiousness amongst students; constant collective efforts that would help to ameliorate issues of cohesion amongst residents. Alona mentioned street parties run by residents associations and families to gather new student residents together and build a mutual respect for the locale. Hugh also had a personal vision for the area, and across a few years has “put in a proposal to ‘green up’ Acorn Road at two corners”, a design idea that could be implemented within the wider scheme from Sustrans and include things like bike stands and planting herbs, salads and seeds, perhaps with maintenance from local schools (part of Hugh’s idea to “form coalitions and connect agendas”) - “I’m interested in having a visual unity for the scheme - drawing together Sustrans’ ideas, and some of the local-led deign elements like the raised beds I’m proposing”. Hugh described a future structure whereby local groups and users with different skill sets and expertise are more intelligently connected: “There are lots of different local strands going on, and it’d be great if someone could bring these things together so there was a synergy between active bodies, and we could all join up”.

Alona: “Illustrating the community ownership of the scheme in the flyer delivered would have been really useful, because there totally is a latent energy for people to actually engage with project and take charge of its maintenance if they realised that it wasn’t just coming from the Council without the support and history of locals.”


‘Online Public Participation Platforms’ are on the rise, developed by urban designers and local governments mainly in the U.S. to improve the public participation experience:Online platform for community discussion – In addition to meaningful face-to-face discussions and real-life conversations about urban realm changes, the internet is growing as a tool to connect and consult. Expanding intelligent online consultation allows a wider group to make their voices heard. mySidewalk aims to enrich inhabitants’ civic identity and experience by managing civic information into one continuous feed, allowing organisations to start gathering relevant feedback from local residents, and residents to share their ideas and shed light on local issues. The key to this platform is personalised, local content, working on the principles:• Exchange ideas with people who share your local interests.• Weigh in when community leaders want public input on new projects.• Be informed of new initiatives, announcements, and events near you.My Sidewalk is developed from MindMixer, a public participation tool for US community initiatives, which “allows participants to share their ideas on city policy and development-related topics; give feedback; and comment on or “second” other’s ideas, thus promoting the most popular ideas to the top of the list. MindMixer pages are meant to not only facilitate participation, but actively encourage it by using graphic interfaces and game theory elements to making the experience engaging and rewarding.” Features such assurvey capabilities and photo sharing to respond to questions or comments demonstrate the adaptive nature and increasingly expansive list of online public participation resource features.

[<http://wiseeconomy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Online-Engagement-Platforms-White-Paper-WEW-NWPE-11-09-12.pdf>]

souc

e: < h

ttps://

mysidew

alk.c

om>


3.3 Conclusion_-------------------------------------------------------------

As suggested by Steve Park in the introduction of this report, consultation should never be seen as a choice between whether a project should go ahead or not. Instead consultation can provide an opportunity for a rich discussion with a city’s citizens, a multi-way process between those in the city’s traditional decision-making roles and those who use the city, in turn sharing the power to shape public space amongst the community as well as the Council.

This report proposes an improvement to the process centred on clarification, pragmatism, and information. Although facts and measurements help support a case or argument, change and mutual understanding must also grow from more comprehensive engagement. Taking an empathetic approach can be criticised for being emotion-driven, yet allows us to have a vision for the future.

It is worth remembering that the Acorn Road improvement scheme is not a standalone scheme, but part of a vision that spans from local neighbourhood to the city and beyond, to the planet as a whole.

Global issues must be addressed and we all have a stake in them, and with transportation now accounting for more than 15% of manmade carbon emissions globally, it is imperative that this factor be considered when talking about improved infrastructure for ‘active transport’ - walking and cycling. In this sense, government guidelines are shaped by global change, and citizens have a responsibility to appreciate the Council’s direction towards transport that is healthier for the environment and people alike.

In contrast to the world’s population of 6 billion inhabitants, Jesmond is home to just over 20,000 residents, and people certainly matter on a micro scale because we all have a sensitivity to where we live. For many, Acorn Road is a back yard, a corner shop, a trading post and an important daily route, and it is the responsibility of the Council and bureaucrats to understand that any alterations to someone’s local area is ultimately a personal matter.


Ultimately, while truly participatory and engaging methods of consultation can result in difficult conversations and interactions, they also help to build a web of connected people all working together to improve the public realm. We can learn from our experiences and move towards an imaginative, successful future both for Acorn Road and for the process of consultation .

A review of the Acorn Road improvement plans and consultation process, proposing future best practice for positive community discussion and consultation for changes in the public realm

Improving Community Engagement: Learning from Acorn Road

Documents

Transcript of Improving Community Engagement: Learning from Acorn Road