Heaton LTN - The Big Questions
Note: This is the second of two posts about the Heaton LTN trials. If you’d prefer to read them in order, you can find the first one here.
I don’t want to shy away from the difficult questions in the debate about the Heaton LTN trials. From my many conversations with residents, I think there are four.
Was the original design of the Heaton LTN scheme fit for purpose?
Might the scheme have been “saved” by modifying it part way through the trial?
Was the Option 1/Option 2 consultation genuine?
Will the Council follow-through on its promise to try again?
These are difficult questions because:
they can’t be answered only by “facts”, but also involve judgement
there are information gaps that are unlikely to be filled in until later
there are powerful alternative narratives in circulation, most I think stemming from a misunderstanding of the relevant legal frameworks or from a feeling of loss - others, in my view, from a desire to rewrite history for electoral gain. I hope to tackle some of these alternative narratives in this post.
1. Was the original design of the Heaton LTN scheme fit for purpose?
What I know
The design of the scheme was developed by officers at the Council in close collaboration with all ward Councillors, both Labour and Liberal Democrat, over a period of about a year. At every stage of the process, the scheme progressed with the unanimous approval of all ward Councillors. (see full timeline below).
The scheme design was circulated in November 2021 to all residents in the local area, who were invited to give their feedback on the scheme. The design made it clear that the LTN was not going to be closed to all through-traffic, but explained how it was hoped that the measures taken would dissuade most drivers from “rat-running”.
A report on this initial consultation exercise was published in January 2022, summarising the feedback received. The report noted some concerns about possible rat-running as a result of the changes, but general positive support for the scheme as a whole.
Following the consultation, the scheme design was finalised and published in September 2022, with the changes scheduled to be made on 24 October 2022. Again, the final scheme and communication to residents was approved by all ward Councillors. The communication made it clear that the scheme was a trial, that there would be a consultation period for six months until 23 April 2023, that the consultation results together with data collected during the trial would be used to make a final decision on whether to make the changes permanent or not, and that this final decision had to be taken within 18 months of the scheme going in.
What I think now, based on everything I know
I think that the scheme design was careful, considered and collaborative. There was cross-party support for the scheme at every stage, and every key decision and communication was signed off by all local Councillors – Labour and Lib Dem alike (I was in hospital during the initial consultation, but would have approved them).
I am very disappointed that the Lib Dems are now trying to re-write history to win an election, calling the LTN a “Labour Council-designed […] leaky scheme” [1] which was badly handled “from start to finish”. [2] As I explain in this post, there are legitimate questions to be answered, but the design of the scheme, the initial consultation and the implementation were collaborative and had cross-party support throughout. At no point did the Lib Dems oppose the design or complain about the way things were being done. This attempt to distance themselves from the scheme now that it’s seen to have “failed” will have damaged trust in a way that will be hard to rebuild.
It is, however, legitimate to ask whether the Council (and the Councillors who, like me, supported the scheme) should have been able to predict at the outset that the design of the scheme would lead to the unsustainable and dangerous level of rat-running that we have seen, and which has been central in the decision not to make the scheme permanent.
It doesn’t appear, from the initial consultation report, that this was a widespread view. Most residents supported the proposals, and it seems that there were only a few concerns about rat-running mentioned.
That doesn’t mean that an expert assessment made of the design with full knowledge of relevant research into driver behaviour and other similar schemes, and with an full understanding of the benefits and challenges of using an Experimental Traffic Order (ETRO) as the legal mechanism for the trial, might not have raised serious concerns. I don’t know what external scrutiny was invited into the scheme design, so I don’t know whether the Council should have been able to predict that it would have the serious negative unintended consequences seen.
This is a question to which it should be possible to reach an answer in any future “lessons learned” exercise, and I will be asking independent Chair of the Council’s Audit Committee to consider asking specifically that this question be tackled in a future audit review, along with questions (2) and (3) below.
[edit 21 April] In the meantime, I’ve reached out to those with genuine expertise in this area to see whether it’s possible to get some answers, or partial answers, to these questions now, rather than later.
2. Might the scheme have been “saved” by modifying it part way through the trial?
What I know
The scheme was implemented under a legal mechanism introduced in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 [3] called an Experimental Traffic Order (ETRO). The legislation allows the officer responsible for the scheme to:
“modify or suspend the operation of the order or any provision of it if it appears to him essential -
a) in the interests of the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic,
b) in the interests of providing suitable and adequate on-street parking facilities, or
c) for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which any road affected by the order runs.”
The legislation then goes on to say that the power to make modifications:
“… does not extend to making additions to the order or to designating additional on-street parking places for which charges are made; but subject to that the modifications may be of any description.”
This final restriction on making “additions” severely limits any ability to make major changes, and would certainly prevent any fundamental change to the original design, such as closing the LTN area to through traffic.
The closure and crossing at the Wandsworth Road/Mowbray Street/Heaton Park Road junction was not a modification to the ETRO that set up the trial scheme, but was made under a separate permanent Traffic Regulation Order subject to a separate consultation process.
Early on in the scheme’s operation, as the problems with rat-running in the back lanes became evident, the initial response from Council officers and Councillors (including Lib Dem Councillors) was that some early displacement onto other roads within the scheme had been anticipated, but that it was hoped that the amount of this would reduce as drivers settled on alternative routes.
By March 2023, traffic monitoring data [4] shared with ward Councillors showed the scale of the problem, with an average of 735 cars/day using the most badly affected back lane (Cardigan-Wandsworth West). Additional monitoring equipment was installed at this point to gather more detailed data, which was shared in June 2023.
Several suggestions were made by residents and Councillors during this period about how this rat-running might be deterred, including additional blocking off of access to back lanes (which presumably would not have been a permitted modification), or the addition of speed bumps, which Council officers explained in a meeting with all Councillors would pose significant technical challenges (eg, relating to drainage) and believed might reduce the speed, but not the volume of back lane traffic.
By September 2023, Officers had collated the additional monitoring data, which confirmed the volumes of back lane traffic, and told ward Councillors that they were beginning work on a number of possible options to re-design the scheme to reduce rat-running (this would become the Option 1/Option 2 consultation that took place early in 2024, see below).
At the same time, Officers clarified by email to all ward Councillors that:
the restriction that modifications to an ETRO cannot include “additions”
no modifications can be made after 12 months of the scheme beginning, as a further six months’ consultation period is still required following the modification as all consultation must be completed within the original 18-month time limit.
What I think now, based on everything I know
In September 2023, it should have been clear to Officers and all ward Councillors, including myself, that there was no prospect of modifications being made to the ETRO that would resolve the back lane rat-running problem. Apparently minor changes, such as blocking off a back lane entrance or introducing speed bumps, would be technically challenging and unlikely to deal with the fundamental problem – those drivers determined to use the LTN area as a through-route would have simply chosen new rat-runs.
A more drastic change, removing all through-routes, would undoubtedly have stopped rat-running. But it would not have been permissible as a modification to the scheme, nor would there have been time to carry out sufficient consultation to implement it as a new ETRO.
With hindsight, I believe that we should at this point have communicated all of this to residents. We should have collectively (Council and Councillors, both Labour and Lib Dem) explained that the problems with rat running were seriously undermining the scheme, and perhaps admitted that despite our hopes, the decision to implement a trial scheme which allowed entry/exit onto both Heaton Road and Heaton Park Road had turned out to be unsuccessful.
I believe that we should have explained that we were going to have to return to the drawing board, at the same time as restating our shared commitment to the safer streets project and coming up with new options which would address the problems with the initial trial.
I write all this with the benefit of hindsight (and with a lot of sighted assistance to go through the many, many emails from this period). I can see why we continued to hope that somehow things would work out – maybe the legal team would find a way to extend the ETRO, maybe there would be a sudden drop-off in back lane rat running. My suspicion is that, as so often happens with major projects, we were all so attached to a positive outcome, that we were reluctant to accept that the project had not been successful.
[edit 21 April] As with Question 2, I’m hoping to get some expert thoughts in the coming days on the more technical element of this question - given the ETRO rules, broader consultation requirements, technical considerations, timings, etc - what realistic opportunities were there, if any, to tackle the rat-running issue within the lifetime of the ETRO?
3. Was the Option 1/Option 2 consultation genuine?
What I know
The first draft of the options that would be consulted on in early 2024 were first shared with all ward Councillors in November 2023, and then followed up with a second draft in December 2023. At that time, Council officers were clear in an email to all ward Councillors that:
“timescales are tight unfortunately and it is correct that the current Experimental Order will end during the pre-election period. We have previously discussed that any further interventions would need to be implemented as a new proposal. This is because the powers relating to modifying Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders do not apply to adding to them. Having said that, there is still time to have some conversations with stakeholders and residents about the way forward and develop a new scheme in advance of the Experimental Order ending.”
The options for consultation were finalised in January 2024 and presented to residents at three meetings in February 2024. My recollection is that it was not made clear in the publicity for these meetings, or at the meetings themselves, that the consultation could not inform a continuation or modification of the existing trial layout, but would in effect be a new version of the scheme, following the withdrawal of the existing trial.
What I think now, based on everything I know
This is where I feel we made our biggest communication error. Again, I write with hindsight, but reviewing all the information that was available to us at the time, I believe that we should have ensured that the communication about the consultation was crystal clear – that we were consulting residents about a potential follow-up scheme, not on changes to the existing scheme.
I’ll go further. It is clear to me now, though it didn’t seem clear I think to any of us then, that by January 2024 there was no prospect of the trial scheme being made permanent because of the rat-running problems, and that the best thing to do would have been to make the formal decision then, rather than waiting until the 18-month deadline made it impossible to delay further.
I know that decision would still have upset some people, especially those living in the Heaton Park View area whose physical environment had been so much improved by the changes. And I don’t know that we would have been able to maintain the cross-party consensus that had held through the design stages of the scheme and most of the implementation period.
Complicating things further, it would have meant the scheme coming out at the same time as the Jesmond scheme, and I suspect it would have been difficult to tease out the differences in the rationale for the decision.
But it would have been open and honest, and it would have meant the decision being taken before the sensitive pre-election period when it would have been subject to more public and political scrutiny.
I honestly don’t believe that this was a calculated political decision – from where I stand, the timing of the eventual decision has been far more politically damaging than a decision back in January would have been.
4. Will the Council follow-through on its promise to try again?
What I know
The Council has said that the results of the Option 1/Option 2 consultation “will be analysed in more detail and will be used to develop a revised proposal that we will consult on in detail this summer”. I have already met with the Council’s Labour leadership to make the case strongly that this promise must be kept.
What I think now, based on everything I know
We have a responsibility to protect our climate and our environment for future generations. We can’t just wait for other people to make global changes. We have to make those changes in our homes, streets and communities. I hoped that the Heaton Low Traffic Neighbourhood trial would be a winning example of this kind of local change.
I’m disappointed that the scheme hasn’t worked the way that we all wished for, and you may already have read my previous post about the current scheme. But it’s important that we don’t give up. If re-elected, I intend to keep working through the Labour administration to bring new proposals back, not just one day, but soon.
In the meantime, there are things that can be done now. A “lessons learned” exercise should be run with local residents to ensure these are captured while the experience of the scheme is fresh in our memories. Perhaps a proper representative poll of the community could be run to get a reliable picture of local attitudes to the scheme. And we need to begin now building a stronger coalition of advocates for change.
[edit 21 April] I’ve deleted a sentence in the previous paragraph saying that “A zebra crossing should be built over Heaton Park View from the junction with Stannington Grove to provide safe entry to the park.” I’ve had helpful feedback already from people who think this would be a waste of time and money, which might distract from the main focus on follow-up to the LTN. That seems like a strong argument, so I’ll drop that thought for now… happy to hear feedback on this or anything else in this blog at any time!
There is also work to be done to review and improve Council processes, especially around consultation, where our current practices feel old fashioned and impressionistic, and where I think we place too little emphasis on ensuring that the voices of all, including disabled people, young people and less affluent residents, are fully heard.
On the LTN itself, we need to prove that safer streets can be popular enough to work. That includes learning from examples elsewhere in the country where sufficient acceptance has been demonstrated. It means rebuilding the cross-party political will that existed until very recently.
If you’re a Lib Dem voter, you might want to ask your representatives to focus more on working collaboratively to make sure the Heaton LTN doesn’t end here, and less on political point scoring.
If you’re usually a Labour voter, I ask you to put your faith in me, even if you’re feeling angry about the loss of the scheme. Ouseburn ward needs a Labour councillor committed to the principles of net-zero, lower pollution and sustainable transport, who will keep speaking up for these values and the ward within the Labour group and the Council.
The Lib Dems need to embrace more grown-up and honest politics. As I’ve explained above, they now call the LTN a “Labour Council-designed […] leaky scheme” which was badly handled “from start to finish”. In fact, they were consulted on and approved every single design and communication from initial consultation in November 2021 to implementation in October 2022. This crude attempt to re-write history for electoral advantage fractures the broad community alliance needed to make meaningful change.
Labour needs the courage to correct, improve and finish what we started.
Timeline
Jun 2021: Initial Council Cabinet report proposing the schemes: https://democracy.newcastle.gov.uk/documents/s172247/Transport%20Changes%20Neighbourhoods.pdf
Nov 2021: Leaflet distributed to all local residents (approved by all ward Counillors): https://tinyurl.com/ltn-consult-leaflet
Jan 2022: Report on intial consultation post-leaflet issued (approved by all ward Councillors): https://tinyurl.com/ltn-consult-report
Mar 2022: Traffic monitoring report on back lane use shared with all ward Councillors: https://tinyurl.com/hltn-back-lanes
Sep 2022: Formal decision to implement the ETRO: https://democracy.newcastle.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=12221
Sep 2022: Report supporting formal decision: https://democracy.newcastle.gov.uk/documents/s185671/Report.pdf
Sep 2022: Leaflet distributed to all local residents (approved by all ward Counillors): https://tinyurl.com/ltn-implementation-leaflet
Oct 2022: Follow-up Council Cabinet report as the schemes were implemented: https://democracy.newcastle.gov.uk/documents/s172247/Transport%20Changes%20Neighbourhoods.pdf
24 Oct 2022: Trial scheme begins
Mar 2023: Traffic monitoring data shared with ward Councillors shows higher than expected back lane traffic - additional detailed monitoring started: https://tinyurl.com/hltn-back-lanes
Jun 2023: Additonal traffic monitoring data confirms back lane traffic volumes
Aug 2023: Detailed report following initial six-month consultation period: https://democracy.newcastle.gov.uk/documents/s200075/Safe%20Heaton%20Trials%20-%20Public%20Consultation%20Feedback%20-%20August%202023.pdf
Sep 2023: Council officers clarify to all ward Councillors that a scheme modification cannot include “additions” and must be in place within 12 months of the start of the scheme (for the Heaton LTN, by 23 October 2023)
Nov 2023: First draft of Option1/Option 2 paper shared with all ward Councillors
Dec 2023: Revised draft of Option1/Option 2 paper shared with all ward Councillors
Dec 2023: Council officers confirm to all ward Councillors that the Option1/Option 2 consultation cannot result in a modification to the existing trial, but can only inform future phases
Feb 2023: “Phase 2” document (option 1 and option 2), shared with residents: https://www.newcastle.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Adele/Engagement%20Boards%20for%20Heaton%20LTN%20V5%20-%20A4%20-%20Online%20Version.pdf
Feb 2024: Option 1/Option 2 consultation exercise carried out as in-person drop-in meetings and email responses, shared with local residents only
10 Apr 2024: Formal decision not to make ETRO permanent: https://democracy.newcastle.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=13308
References
Ouseburn Focus No 110, Spring 2024, “Your say coming on Heaton Traffic Measures”: https://tinyurl.com/hltn-ld-focus
Letter to Residents (undated), “Removal of the Heaton Low Traffic Measures”: https://tinyurl.com/hltn-ld-letter
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Setion 9 “Experimental traffic orders”: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/9
Traffic monitoring report on back lane use shared with all ward Councillors in March 2022: https://tinyurl.com/hltn-back-lanes