Page header graphic
   
6 TRANSPORT
 
T1 Traffic Generation – General
T2 Road Proposals – Justification
T3 Road Proposals – Corridors of Interest
T4 Road Proposals – Design and Route
T5 Public Transport
T6 Transport Interchange at Carrville
T7 Park and Ride
T8 Traffic Management
T9 Movement of Freight
T10 Parking – General Provision
T11 City Centre Parking – Overall Strategy
T12 City Centre Parking – Management of Off-Street Car Parks
T13 City Centre Parking – New Sites
T14 City Centre Parking – Public Use of Private Non-Residential Car Parks
T15 Parking in Residential Areas
T16 Coach Parking
T17 Storage of Caravans
T18 Taxi Ranks
T19 Cycling – Development of Cycle Routes
T20 Cycling – Provision of Cycle Parking
T21 Safeguarding the Needs of Walkers
  INTRODUCTION
6.1 This Chapter is concerned with the interrelationship of land use and transport within the District. As such it covers all modes of travel. Whilst Durham County Council is the Highway Authority with responsibility for most transportation and highway proposals, trunk roads and motorways are the responsibility of the Highways Agency. The City Council recognises the importance of working with the County Council towards developing an integrated approach towards transportation and planning in order that great improvements can be made to safety and amenity whilst allowing the efficient movement of people and goods. An efficient transport system is vital for economic wellbeing and the quality of life.
6.2 The Transport Policies of the Plan are influenced by a number of recent studies into various aspects of traffic and transport within Durham City. Initiatives by Central Government seeking to integrate land use and transport have also been taken into account as has the content of the provisional Local Transport Plan for County Durham.
  GENERAL BACKGROUND
  Traffic
6.3 Durham lies at the hub of the road network within the County. The A1(M) passes through the City providing a north/south link with the national road network. Other roads provide direct connections between the City and Sunderland (A690); Hartlepool (A181); Teesside (A177); Consett (A691); Crook (A690); Darlington (A167) and Chester-le-Street (A167).
6.4 A traffic survey carried out in 1996 indicated that 15% of all traffic movement within Durham City was classified as through traffic, 27% was internally generated traffic and 58% was from traffic movement either into or out of the urban area. These movement patterns lead to severe problems of congestion, by standards experienced in County Durham, along the A690, A691 and A177 where they converge in the City Centre at the Elvet and Millburngate river crossings. Traffic flows at these points are amongst the highest in the County. The A690 'Through Road' adjacent to the City Centre carries volumes of traffic comparable to the A1(M) and left unchanged, the general growth in traffic volumes from 1996 is forecast to increase by some 9% to the year 2001 and 18% to 2006.
6.5 The A167 through Durham is also becoming increasingly congested and gives rise to severe problems at peak periods, particularly between Sniperley and Lowes Barn. The announcement by the Department of Transport in 1994 that the A167 Durham City Western By-Pass had been withdrawn from the National Trunk Road Programme has resulted in a deterioration of conditions on this strategic road for both residents and users. The Witton Gilbert By-Pass was opened in October 1996 and planning permission has been granted for the A688 Wheatley Hill-Bowburn link road. This scheme will be included in the provisional Local Transport Plan and will be subject to a review of all major highway schemes prior to the submission of the full Local Transport Plan in July 2000.
6.6 In 1991 65% of all households within the District had access to one or more vehicles. However 35% of households had no car and for a significant number this represents a manifestation of social exclusion.
  Public Transport
6.7 The District with it radial road pattern and central location within the County, is well served by public transport. Durham Railway Station is situated on the East Coast Main Line and Great North Eastern Railway, Virgin Cross Country and Northern Spirit provide passenger services to many parts of the country. There is an extensive bus network providing both local services and direct links with the major centres within the Region. The District is also served by the national network of bus services, providing a daily connection to over 25 towns and cities throughout Britain. The City of Durham is also recognised as an important destination for tourists, many of whom arrive by coach on day visits.
  Parking
6.8 Both the Durham City Travel Study undertaken by Colin Buchanan and Partners commissioned by Durham County Council (April 1997) and the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Study undertaken by RTA Associates commissioned by the City Council (November 1997) identified the main issues relating to parking as being:
 
  • current lack of demand management, resulting in limited scope for reduced traffic growth
  • intense competition for free on-street parking spaces between residents, commuters and students
  • free on-street parking encouraging non-residents to bring private cars into the City Centre rather than considering alternative modes of transport
  • limited highway space being used for parked vehicles rather than being available for pedestrians, cycling or bus facilities
  • lack of adequate, convenient long-stay parking for visitors
  • a large amount of private non-residential (PNR) off-street parking in central and off-centre locations
  • inadequate enforcement of existing traffic regulation orders resulting in congestion in sensitive areas such as the Market Place and Claypath.
6.9 The Car Parking Survey carried out in 1998 identified approximately 1,700 on-street parking spaces and 1,800 off-street parking spaces available within the City Centre and its immediate environs which were available to the public. In addition there were also approximately 1,700 private non-residential parking spaces in this area, the majority being under the control of either the University, various Government Departments, rail companies or Durham County Council.
6.10 The problems of integrating additional car parking facilities into the historic environment, the difficulties of securing suitable accesses which would not exacerbate congestion on approach roads, the need to safeguard the amenity of residential areas adjoining the City Centre and the high costs involved in constructing new multi-storey car parks, reduces the scope for additional car parking provision in the City Centre. The introduction of parking restraint during Plan period will, therefore, be fundamental in implementing demand management with regard to parking.
6.11 The Council's present policy is to set the charges in its own car parks within the core of the City Centre which give preference to shoppers and visitors (i.e. short stay parking) as opposed to commuters (i.e. long stay parking). In this way, the Millburngate and Prince Bishops multi-storey car parks, together with the Walkergate car park are designated primarily for short stay parking whilst Framwelgate Peth and The Sands car parks are designated primarily for long stay parking.
6.12 Pressure for parking has meant that people living in the residential areas close to the City Centre suffer from indiscriminate on-street parking, especially by commuters, causing inconvenience and loss of amenity for residents in these areas.
6.13 Lorry parking is generally not perceived as a problem in the District. The Council supports the view that the driver or firm operating the lorry should be responsible for providing an off-site operating base.
  Walking and Cycling
6.14 The City of Durham presents excellent opportunities for walking both within the urban and rural areas. The City Centre is compact and attractive and very high volumes have been recorded in the pedestrianised areas. There are, however, significant problems for pedestrians within the City, particularly as a result of high traffic flows along the main arterial routes.
6.15 Cycling use in the City appears relatively low (particularly for a University town) but there is some evidence of suppressed demand and a potential growth in cycle use amongst University students. Future growth in cycling is constrained by road layout, traffic volumes, topography and lack of cycle access to the core area of the City. The National Cycle Network Route through the City Centre will be complete during 1999.
  Access for Disabled Persons
6.16 Pedestrians with disabilities experience greater problems with difficult conditions and lack of formal road crossings than other pedestrians. Non-vehicular access to the Cathedral area is very difficult because of a combination of topography, narrow footways and traffic/pedestrian conflict. Whilst disabled people have retained vehicular access to parts of the City Centre restricted to most general traffic, they experience parking shortages and can also be the cause of some congestion at critical locations. The considerable pressure on on-street parking also causes difficulties for both residents and visitors with disabilities. The recent installation of pedestrian tables in Saddler Street and the Market Place and the introduction of a shop mobility scheme have improved conditions for pedestrians with disabilities in the City Centre.
  Impact of the University
6.17 A significant number of student-owned vehicles contribute to the on-street parking problem in Durham during term time. The University policy is to try to discourage students from bringing their cars to the City, but can only be done as a voluntary code of practise with consequently limited effect. They issue permits, including visitor permits, for access to University areas and a type of permit is required by undergraduates who bring their cars to the City. This latter permit specifically requests that permit holders refrain from parking in the area bounded by Church Street, Whinney Hill and Stockton Road but unfortunately the University has limited means to enforce it.
  Travel to School
6.18 Travel to school by private vehicles accounts for a significant amount of congestion in term time and the Plan recognises that alternative modes of travel need to be provided for in order to alleviate this problem.
  Travel to Work
6.19 One of the major sources of traffic congestion is caused by people travelling to work. The County Durham Local Transport Plan seeks to address this issue by encouraging the preparation of Greentravel Plans for major employers and significant trip generating uses within the County. Although often seen as primarily an environmental initiative, travel plans have much wider benefits for organisations. Reduced travel and car parking yield economic benefits through reduced costs and better utilisation of land, and improvements to access by alternatives to the car can be used to tackle problems of social exclusion. The Local Transport Plan has identified Durham County Council's Headquarters at Aykley Heads as a priority location for the creation of a Greentravel Plan.
  TRANSPORT STRATEGY
6.20 Reconciling the often conflicting relationship between transport and environmental protection is a vital issue in an historic City such as Durham. In line with the recommendations contained in the Government White Paper on 'A New Deal for Transport - Better for Everyone' published in July 1998, the City Council and County Council will prepare an integrated transport strategy for Durham City and its immediate environs, the primary objective of which is to seek the provision of an effective transport system which meets future economic and social needs in an environmentally friendly and sustainable manner. There will be a phased introduction of this strategy as part of the implementation of the Local Transport Plan for County Durham. A key element of the Plan and Strategy is a Package for Durham City which seeks to address transport issues specific to the City.
6.21 Durham's travel and transport problems reflect the national situation but are exacerbated by its historic character, its location on a strategic river crossing and its role as a regional centre for economic, educational and cultural purposes. The rapid growth in the ownership and use of cars has expanded the travel catchment of the City, while the growth of the University and expansion of tourism have contributed to local travel demand. This has been compounded by the lack of investment in attractive alternatives to car usage, in particular a reliable and reasonably priced public transport system. In developing a transport strategy for the District the following two specific issues need to be taken into account:
 
  • the attractiveness of the City given its role in helping to achieve the regeneration of the wider area which means that there is a need to cater for continued commuting needs to and from the City from surrounding settlements
  • the historic and cultural significance of Durham City is recognised internationally: in order to conserve this historic environment it is essential that future issues of accessibility and the environmental impact of transport are dealt with through an integrated land use and transportation strategy
6.22 The major transport issues which the strategy must address are:
 
  • Walking is attractive in many parts of central Durham, but many pedestrian links to various locations could be substantially improved.
  • Cycling facilities and cycling's image in the eyes of local travellers are poor - the City is also hilly and roads and footpaths are often narrow and busy.
  • People with Disabilities encounter problems in accessing various central areas, and general pressure for on-street parking reduces these opportunities for them, while provision on public transport is minimal.
  • Parking is a problem in central Durham, with residents, commuters and students competing for scarce (free) on-street spaces while some off-street (paid) car parks have spare capacity. Intense parking demand results in dangerous and obstructive parking, affecting residents, the mobility impaired and bus services. The current situation also does little to discourage private car journeys to the City Centre.
  • Safety is a concern for all road users, with radial routes and some specific locations for pedestrians being particularly problem areas, while road accident trends appear to be moving contrary to government targets.
  • Bus services have had a relatively poor image, and their market is largely 'captive' travellers without access to cars - however in general bus patronage appears to be stable rather than rapidly decreasing.
  • Congestion is primarily in the peak hours, but is intense at particular locations and affects bus service speed and reliability.
  • Traffic volumes are high, particularly on the Through Road and main radial routes - 58% of the vehicle trips are travelling to/from the Durham City area, and 15% are 'through' (1996 Traffic Survey).
6.23 The strategy consists of a 'package' of different measures aimed at the best use of scarce resources, maximum efficiency, encouraging responsible car use and the provision of alternative modes of travel. Both the City Council and County Council recognise that the successful implementation of the strategy requires 'partnership' with the involvement of local public transport providers, employers, local interest groups and property developers.
6.24 The key elements of the proposed strategy are:
 
  • Providing for disabled people, cyclists and pedestrians
  • Using parking control to manage the demand for car travel
  • Provision of alternatives to the car
  • Fostering attitudinal change to car use
  • Reducing the impact of vehicular traffic on the environment
6.25 Many of these elements are inter-related, and policies aimed at implementing one, help to achieve others.
  LOCAL PLAN OBJECTIVES
6.26 The Council's objectives for transport to be pursued through the Policies and Proposals contained in this Chapter of the Plan, are:
 
  • To reduce the dependency on the private motor car.
  • To make the most effective use of existing transport network as a means of travel and in the location of new development.
  • To minimise the impact of any new road proposals on the environment.
  • To develop an integrated transport system.
  • To reduce the volume and impact of traffic and parking within the City Centre.
  • To support the maintenance and improvement of public transport throughout the District.
  • To improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists within the District.
  • To minimise the impact of heavy goods vehicles on the environment and local communities.
  • To minimise the adverse impact of traffic and parking on residential areas.
  • To promote road safety.
6.27 In seeking to achieve these aims, the Council recognises the importance of working in conjunction with the County Council and other agencies with a responsibility for transport related functions.
   
  POLICIES
  GENERAL
 
POLICY T1 THE COUNCIL WILL NOT GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD GENERATE TRAFFIC WHICH WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO HIGHWAY SAFETY AND/OR HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AFFECT ON THE AMENITY OF OCCUPIERS OF NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY.
  Justification
6.28 Traffic generated by a development is one of the most important considerations in determining a planning application. The Council will not allow any proposal which would generate traffic having a significant adverse effect on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring property and/or would be harmful to highway safety.
  ROAD PROPOSALS
 
POLICY T2 THE COUNCIL WILL ONLY SUPPORT NEW ROAD PROPOSALS AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES WHICH DO NOT MATERIALLY CONFLICT WITH OTHER POLICIES OF THE PLAN AND:
  1. RELIEVE PRESSURE FROM "THROUGH TRAFFIC" ON THE CITY CENTRE; AND/OR
  2. FACILITATE INWARD INVESTMENT AND ECONOMIC PROSPERITY; AND/OR
  3. REMOVE THROUGH TRAFFIC FROM RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS; AND/OR
  4. IMPROVE ROAD SAFETY STANDARDS; AND/OR
  5. HAVE MINIMUM ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT; AND/OR
  6. ASSIST PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND CYCLING PROVISION.
  Justification
6.29 Priority has to be to make the most efficient use of existing roads by maintaining and managing their capacity. Increasing road capacity through new construction schemes should only be proposed after options such as traffic management or public transport solutions have been fully examined. This advice is endorsed in the Government's White Paper on the Future of Transport (1998) which states that all plausible options need to be considered before a new road is built. Targeted improvements to existing roads, as part of a whole package which may include transport measures, will be encouraged.
6.30 Notwithstanding this, however, new road proposals and road improvement schemes may be necessary during the Plan period in order to either upgrade the highway network within the City or facilitate economic investment or improve road safety. The need for new road proposals should be balanced with the other Objectives and Policies of the Plan.
   
 
POLICY T3 LAND WILL BE SAFEGUARDED FOR THE FOLLOWING NEW ROAD SCHEMES:
  a) A691 DURHAM NORTHERN BY-PASS, STAGE 2
  b) B6300 BROWNEY LANE IMPROVEMENT
  c) A182 HETTON BY-PASS
  WITHIN THE CORRIDOR OF INTEREST FOR EACH SCHEME SHOWN ON THE PROPOSALS MAP DEVELOPMENT WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED IF IT DOES NOT PREJUDICE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHEME.
  Justification
  a) A690 Durham Northern By-Pass Stage 2
6.31 This road proposal, which is specifically included in Policy 31 of the Durham County Structure Plan (1999) will complete the link from Pity Me (Arnison/Mercia Centre) to the A1(M) at Carrville. The road is important in both strategic terms to assist economic regeneration in North-West Durham and in local terms to alleviate the environmental problems resulting from East/West traffic through the City Centre. As such it will provide an additional river crossing to the congested Millburngate Bridge thereby enabling possible improvements for other modes of travel to take place during the Plan period as part of an integrated transport strategy for Durham City.
6.32 The scheme was one of six appraised using the New Approach to Appraisal (NATA) as part of the preparation of the Local Transport Plan for County Durham (2001-2006). Due to the perceived large negative environmental impact it would have upon the valley of the River Wear, it was afforded a low score and hence it has not been identified as one of the two major highway schemes in the final Plan. Despite this, however, the City Council continues to support the need in principle for the completion of the Northern By-Pass on the evidence currently available. It further acknowledges that a full Traffic Assessment will be required at the detailed planning stage to justify the need for the road in view of its environmental impact
  b) B6300 Browney Lane Improvement
6.33 This minor road scheme would improve links between the A690 and A167. It would also substantially improve access to the Meadowfield Industrial Estate from the west, remove through traffic from Browney and improve traffic conditions along the A690 between Meadowfield and Nevilles Cross. The Browney Lane Improvement is not specifically identified in the Local Transport Plan for County Durham. It is anticipated that it will be progressed through local route management initiatives.
  c) A182 Hetton By-Pass
6.34 Policy HA28.2 of the City of Sunderland Unitary Development Plan identifies the line of the Hetton By-Pass. This will provide a single carriageway by-pass of both Hetton-le-Hole and Easington Lane between the present A182 junction at Snippersgate and the A690/B1284 junction at Rainton Bridge. At its southern end, it will link with Durham County Council's proposed East Durham Link Road to the A19. A short section of the Hetton By-Pass, south west of Easington Lane, falls within the City of Durham and has been identified on the Proposals Map of the City of Durham Local Plan in order to ensure consistency between the two Authorities.
   
 
POLICY T4 IN ASSESSING THE ROUTE AND DESIGN OF NEW ROAD PROPOSALS AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES THE COUNCIL WILL ONLY SUPPORT THOSE SCHEMES WHICH:
  1. AVOID THE PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL SEVERANCE OF COMMUNITIES; AND
  2. AVOID HARMFUL IMPACT UPON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY; AND
  3. AVOID HARMFUL IMPACT UPON THE NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT; AND
  4. MAKE SAFE AND PROPER PROVISION FOR THE MOVEMENT OF PEDESTRIANS, CYCLISTS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT; AND
  5. ACHIEVE CO-ORDINATION IN THE APPEARANCE OF SIGNAGE, LIGHTING COLUMNS AND OTHER HIGHWAY FURNITURE AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE DESIGN OF THE ROAD; AND
  6. AVOID SCHEMES WHICH WILL HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE WATER ENVIRONMENT IN TERMS OF FLOODING AND POLLUTION.
  Justification
6.35 Any new road proposal or road improvement scheme which is justified in accordance with the criteria set out in Policy T2 should be routed and/or designed in such a way that they are assimilated into their surroundings with the minimum of disturbance. In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, the County Council in its capacity as Highway Authority, will be expected to undertake and publish environmental assessments of all major road schemes in order to ensure that their full impact can be evaluated before they proceed.
  PUBLIC TRANSPORT
 
POLICY T5 THE COUNCIL WILL ENCOURAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO ASSIST PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICES WITHIN THE DISTRICT BY A COMBINATION OF MEASURES WHICH MAY INCLUDE:
  1. THE USE OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SCHEMES IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY T8;
  2. INVESTIGATING THE PROVISION OF A PARK AND RIDE SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY T7;
  3. THE PROVISION OF SUITABLE FACILITIES FOR USERS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT;
  4. IMPROVEMENTS FOR PASSENGERS AT DURHAM RAILWAY STATION AND DURHAM BUS STATION;
  5. SUPPORTING THE RE-OPENING OF THE LEAMSIDE RAILWAY LINE FOR PASSENGER SERVICES;
  6. ENSURING THAT NEW DEVELOPMENTS CAN BE CONVENIENTLY AND EFFICIENTLY SERVICED BY PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY Q2.
  7. INVESTIGATING THE PROVISION OF A MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE AT CARRVILLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY T6.
  Justification
6.36 Reliance upon transport by private vehicles is unsustainable. The Council will, therefore, encourage greater use of public transport because it has significant environmental benefits by providing an alternative to use of the private car.
6.37 The Council will, therefore, support traffic management schemes aimed at affording priority to public transport services. The possibility of introducing park and ride facilities will be investigated during the Plan period as part of a package of proposals aimed at dissuading car commuters, long stay parking and encouraging a switch to alternative modes of travel.
6.38 The provision of adequate facilities for users of public transport will be encouraged. Bus shelters should be well designed and maintained and provide information on services. Bus stops should be sited in accessible locations with well lit and direct footpath links.
6.39 Whilst the Bus Station is well used and centrally located, its facilities are both unattractive and inadequate, particularly those relating to passenger waiting and information, and will do little to increase future bus patronage if not improved. Recent improvements have been made to the facilities for passengers at Durham Railway Station and further work is to be undertaken in order to provide a new entrance, ticket offices and waiting/refreshment facilities. Pedestrian access to and from the Railway Station is constrained by its distance (approximately 400-500 metres), its location on a hill above the City Centre. A regular bus service is provided between the Bus Station and the Railway Station, although its usage would be enhanced by greater publicity and signage at both locations.
6.40 The Leamside Line between Ferryhill and Heworth was taken out of regular use in July 1991. A study commissioned by a consortium of local authorities, including the Council, indicated that there is significant potential for re-opening the line for passenger services, particularly between Durham and Tyneside via Washington. The Council supports the findings of this Study and would encourage the provision of this service during the Plan period. Policy 33 of the County Structure Plan (1999) also supports the reinstatement of the Leamside line for passenger services. Railtrack has indicated that it intends to open the line for freight services in 2003.
6.41 A new passenger station would certainly be required in the Belmont/Carrville area in accordance with Policy T6. In the longer term, new stations could perhaps serve the West Rainton/Leamside area, the Sherburn area and the Bowburn/Shincliffe area. No specific sites have been identified in the Plan for these proposals since detailed feasibility and impact studies will need to be carried out before a final decision is reached on this matter. It is unlikely that such a decision will be forthcoming until after the current Plan period.
  TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE
 
POLICY T6 THE CITY COUNCIL, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COUNTY COUNCIL AND OTHER APPROPRIATE BODIES, WILL SEEK THE PROVISION OF A MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE ON 4 HECTARES OF LAND AT CARRVILLE AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSALS MAP.
  NO OTHER USE WILL BE PERMITTED ON THIS SITE.
  Justification
6.42 Policy 34 of the County Structure Plan (1999) identifies the need for a transport inter-change east of Durham City in conjunction with proposals for the reuse of the Leamside line. The construction of such a Parkway at Carrville would greatly enhance the potential of the Leamside line for commuting to and from Tyneside and would also serve as a park and ride location for the City in accordance with the development of an integrated transport system referred to in Policies T5 and T7. As such it would allow inter-modal changes between rail, coach, car and cycle to take place.
6.43 The site at Carrville, occupying 4ha of land, is contained by the A1(M), the A690 and the embankment of the former Frankland Junction railway line. Due to the environmental sensitivity of this location outside the settlement boundary of Durham City, surrounded by the proposed Green Belt and included within the Area of High Landscape Value, it is not considered suitable for any other use.
  PARK AND RIDE
 
POLICY T7 THE COUNCIL, IN CONJUNCTION WITH DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL, WILL INVESTIGATE THE PROVISION OF A PARK AND RIDE SYSTEM WHICH SEEKS TO:
  1. RELOCATE COMMUTER PARKING FROM THE CITY CENTRE AND EMPLOYMENT AREAS TO PARK AND RIDE SITES;
  2. PROVIDE AN ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO CITY CENTRE PARKING FOR BOTH LONG AND SHORT-STAY NON-COMMUTER TRIPS;
  3. REDUCE TRAFFIC FLOWS TO AND/OR THROUGH THE CITY CENTRE;
  4. ENHANCE THE IMAGE OF BUS-BASED TRAVEL AND PROVIDE EXPRESS SERVICE FOR USE BY PARK AND RIDE USERS.
  THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS, AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSALS MAP, HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED FOR DEVELOPMENT AS POSSIBLE PARK AND RIDE SITES DURING THE PLAN PERIOD. THESE SITES WILL BE SUBJECT TO A DETAILED LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT TO ENSURE THAT THEIR DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE SATISFACTORILY ASSIMILATED INTO THE LANDSCAPE.
  a) CARRVILLE (IN ASSOCIATION WITH POLICY T6); AND
  b) SNIPERLEY AREA (ADJOINING SNIPERLEY GROVE); AND
  c) SOUTH ROAD (HOWLANDS FARM OR MOUNT OSWALD).
  Justification
6.44 The Durham City Travel Study identified Park and Ride as one means of reducing traffic congestion and pressure for parking in the City Centre during the Plan period. It is, however, only one element of an overall integrated transport strategy that includes complementary measures such as traffic management proposals, parking restraint policy, residents parking schemes, bus priority measures and promotion of walking and cycling.
6.45 Park and Ride can only be introduced successfully if there is a significant switch from private car to buses. Research into park and ride schemes indicates that attractiveness as measured by cost, convenience, time, comfort and safety are the key factors influencing the motorist's decision to use the facility. It is important, therefore, that for any park and ride scheme to be successful:
 
  • the cost of park and ride should be substantially less than long stay public parking in the City Centre;
  • the bus operators must offer a rapid, frequent and reliable service in comfortable vehicles with low floor easy access and space for prams, wheelchairs and shopping trolleys;
  • the park and ride site should offer high quality facilities (e.g. shelter, toilets, information and telephone), and include good security, lighting and visibility;
  • the park and ride sites must offer commodious facilities for passengers with mobility difficulties (ie flush kerbs, wide reserved parking spaces and easy access onto buses);
  • the park and ride site must be well sign-posted from the main approach roads.
6.46 The development of a Park and Ride system for Durham City is embodied in both the Durham County Structure Plan (Policy 51) and the Local Transport Plan for County Durham 2001 -2006. The areas currently being considered for possible development as Park and Ride sites during the plan period are Carrville, Sniperley and South Road (two alternative sites). If approval was ultimately given for the development of the sites at Sniperley Park and Howlands Farm, it will, in the light of the revised PPG13 which makes provision for Park and Ride sites to be appropriate development in the Green belt, be no longer necessary to amend the boundaries of the proposed Green Belt at these locations. In the longer term it may be necessary to provide additional Park and Ride sites to serve the other main transport corridors into the City Centre, particularly the A177 to the south east and the A690 to the west. Although the Durham City Travel Study suggested Shincliffe and Stonebridge as possible locations for such facilities, no specific sites have yet been identified as they will need to be the subject of detailed investigation at the appropriate time.
  Carrville
6.47 The site at Carrville is allocated in Policy T6 of the plan as an Inter Modal Transport Interchange, linked to the reopening of the Leamside Line. It is well located for development as a park and ride facility, being readily accessible to both the A690 and the A1(M). The Council considers that the Park and Ride site at Carrville should be the first such facility in Durham City to be developed.
  Sniperley
6.48 The site at Sniperley is located on the northern side of the A691 adjacent to Sniperley Grove and is one which was originally identified in the Durham City Travel Study. The site is reasonably well contained and low lying and affords direct linkages with both the A691 and the A167. Although it currently lies within the Durham City Green Belt it could, with appropriate structural landscaping, be developed in a manner which would not prejudice its peripheral urban location on the edge of open countryside.
  South Road (Option 1 - Howlands Farm)
6.50 This site is situated between South Road and the University development at Howlands Farm. Its location within the Durham City Green Belt and its semi-rural character means that any development of Park and Ride here will require careful consideration to the layout and landscaping of the site. Any mitigation required is likely to be extensive. It has the advantage of being close to the University and the proposed employment site at Mount Oswald identified in Policy EMP3 of the Plan.
  South Road (Option 2 - Mount Oswald)
6.51 This site lies on the opposite side of South Road to Howlands within the Mount Oswald Estate identified in Policy EMP3 of the Plan. The site is contained by a stone wall to the highway and contains extensive areas of mature tree cover. The quality of the site is recognised by the Council and the County Council and careful consideration will have to be given to the layout and landscaping of any scheme to maintain the visual attractions of the site. Any mitigation required in developing this site for park and ride is likely to be extensive. Nevertheless its development as a park and ride site could enhance the attractiveness of the Mount Oswald estate for strategic employment use in accordance with Policy EMP3.
  TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
 
POLICY T8 THE COUNCIL WILL SUPPORT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MEASURES WHICH SEEK TO IMPROVE HIGHWAY SAFETY, AMENITY AND EASE CONGESTION. PRIORITY WILL BE GIVEN TO MEASURES WHICH SPECIFICALLY:
  1. REDUCE CONGESTION AND DELAYS, PARTICULARLY FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT, AND IMPROVE SAFETY ALONG ROUTES INTO THE CITY CENTRE;
  2. EXTEND TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES WITHIN THE CITY CENTRE;
  3. IMPROVE SAFETY AND EASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN THE LOCAL CENTRES OF FRAMWELLGATE MOOR, GILESGATE, LANGLEY MOOR AND USHAW MOOR;
  4. INTRODUCE TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES INTO RESIDENTIAL AREAS;
  5. PROMOTE THE SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE OF PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS.
  Justification
6.52 Traffic management measures can bring benefits to all road users in terms of limiting the impact of traffic, managing the demand for access by car, improving public transport, improving facilities for cycling and walking, improving the environment of an area and assisting in the prevention of accidents.
6.53 Measures to improve traffic flows on the main road network and approach roads to the City Centre include peak period clearway orders, bus priority lanes, co-ordinated traffic signals and restrictions on accesses to and from side roads. Roads which would benefit from such proposals include the A690, A691, A177, and A181. The A167 between Pity Me and Farewell Hall would also benefit from traffic management schemes aimed at improving traffic flows and reducing accidents.
6.54 The County Durham Local Transport Plan 2001-2006 includes two bus priority measures within the District for implementation during the Local Plan period. These relate to the A690 between Durham City Centre and Carrville (part of a package of measures associated with the implementation of the Durham City Park and Ride Scheme), and the A690 between Carrville and the County boundary at Rainton.
6.55 Measures to improve safety and ease traffic congestion in the City Centre are aimed at restricting penetration of vehicles, reducing vehicle speed and improving safety for pedestrians. Those parts of the City Centre which would benefit from such traffic management schemes include the Market Place/Peninsula, North Road, and Claypath/Providence Row. Some of the Local Centres within the District could also benefit from traffic management schemes particularly those at Framwellgate Moor, Ushaw Moor and Langley Moor.
6.56 Measures to improve safety and ease traffic congestion in residential areas are aimed at reducing vehicle speed through traffic calming and other appropriate measures, discouraging through traffic and remove on-street commuter parking. Where it is considered appropriate, the City Council, in conjunction with Durham County Council, will seek to introduce "Residents Only" parking schemes in accordance with Policy T15.
6.57 The construction of the Witton Gilbert By-Pass has afforded the opportunity for a environmental improvement scheme to be prepared which will improve the amenity of local residents. Further improvement schemes with similar objectives will be sought in the Langley Moor/Meadowfield Corridor (A690) and the Coxhoe/Bowburn Corridor (A177/B6291) during the Plan period.
  MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT
 
POLICY T9 THE COUNCIL IN CONSULTATION WITH DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL AND OTHER APPROPRIATE BODIES WILL SEEK TO MINIMISE THE ADVERSE AFFECT OF THE MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT UPON COMMUNITIES BY:
  1. SEEKING THE CO-OPERATION OF VEHICLE OPERATORS TO USE DEFINED LORRY ROUTES WITHIN THE DISTRICT;
  2. ENCOURAGING THE INTRODUCTION OF WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON ROUTES NOT CONSIDERED SUITABLE FOR HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES;
  3. ENCOURAGING THE CARRYING OF FREIGHT AND BULKY GOODS BY RAIL; AND
  4. SUPPORTING THE RE-OPENING OF THE LEAMSIDE LINE FOR THE MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT BY RAIL; AND
  5. SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RAIL FREIGHT TERMINAL AT TURSDALE IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY EMP7.
  Justification
6.58 Freight movement has become increasingly concentrated onto roads with the introduction of larger and heavier loads. This has lead to a severe environmental damage to the communities through which these heavy lorries pass both in terms of noise, fumes and vibration and increased wear and damage to road surfaces and bridges. The Plan seeks to minimise the adverse affects of heavy lorries on the community by ensuring that they are restricted to suitable strategic routes and by encouraging the introduction of weight restrictions limiting access of heavy goods vehicles in areas of particular sensitivity.
6.59 This Council will in conjunction with the County Council support initiatives which are designed to transfer the transport of bulky goods from road to rail. Such initiatives should, wherever possible, make use of existing rail infrastructure (i.e. the East Coast Main Line and the Leamside Line and the proposed rail freight terminal at Tursdale as set out in Policy EMP7). The Council will seek to ensure that options for such transfer of freight and goods are not compromised by development proposals. Policy EMP7 of the Plan specifically seeks to support the establishment of a rail freight terminal at Tursdale.
  PARKING
  General Provision
 
POLICY T10 VEHICLE PARKING OFF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY IN NEW DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE LIMITED IN AMOUNT, SO AS TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT CHOICES AND REDUCE THE LAND-TAKE OF DEVELOPMENT. ON AVERAGE, IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, OFF-ROAD PROVISION SHOULD NOT EXCEED 1.5 SPACES PER DWELLING.
  Justification
6.60 The Council will require new development or redevelopment to comply with the parking standards approved by the County Council in its capacity as Highway Authority. Currently these parking standards are being revised. When a new set of standards is adopted by the County Council these will be adopted by the City Council as Supplementary Planning Guidance. In the interim period due regard will be taken by the Authority of the recommended maximum standards set out in Annexe B of PPG13 and in PPG3 para 62 (limiting the provision of off-road parking spaces in residential developments to a maximum average of 1.5 spaces per dwelling).
6.61 PPG13 states that there should be no minimum levels of parking provision except for parking for disabled people. In particular the Council will look favourably on schemes with reduced levels of parking when implementing the Parking Strategy for the City Centre in Policy T11, or where there is underused public parking available nearby, or where the provision of parking would conflict with the environmental quality of the area in which the development is located. Lower levels of off-road car parking will be encouraged in relation to residential development when applied to a proposal which is likely to be occupied by residents with low levels of car ownership (eg special needs groups) or in the achievement of other land use aims such as the re-use of vacant floorspace above shops in accordance with Policy H8. (Planning obligations will be used to achieve improvements to public transport, walking and cycling where such measures would be likely to influence travel patterns to the site involved either on their own or as part of a package of measures.
  Parking in the City Centre
 
POLICY T11 THE CITY COUNCIL WILL SUPPORT THE COUNTY COUNCIL IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARKING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY CENTRE WHICH SEEKS TO:
  1. INTRODUCE A CONTROLLED PARKING ZONE IN THE AREA SURROUNDING THE CITY CENTRE;
  2. USE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MEASURES TO LIMIT ANY INCREASE IN PRIVATE NON-RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING AND TO RESTRICT THE USE OF, AND ENCOURAGE REDUCTIONS IN, THE NUMBER OF EXISTING PRIVATE NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACES; AND
  3. LINK PARKING RESTRAINT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF PARK AND RIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY T7.
  Justification
6.62 Both the Durham City Travel Study and the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Study recommended the creation of resident permit areas and paid for parking in the City Centre with local authority enforcement. A Controlled Parking Zone, as shown in figure 1, is deemed appropriate with justification for its creation arising from the fact that:
 
  • The demand for on-street parking in the City Centre core is high, with full utilisation of the limited on-street parking space which is available. Consequently there is a need to regulate demand by the introduction of paid for parking.
  • Total public off-street car parking in the City Centre core is limited and well used even in off-peak periods. Accordingly enforcement of paid on-street parking can only result in a limited transfer into off-street car parks.
  • There is a high proportion of long term parking on streets around the City Centre, as a consequence of commuters utilising free parking spaces. This suggests that there is an opportunity to create additional limited waiting areas in the City Centre by introducing appropriate charging policies, thus giving priority to short-term parking so as to maintain the economic viability of the City Centre. " There is a recognised need for allocated residents' parking spaces in certain areas and to give priorities over other potential users of kerbside space.
6.63 Undertaking the measures outlined in Policy T11 will allow the amount and type of parking in the City Centre to be managed and, as a consequence, influence the future traffic growth within Durham. This use of parking as a demand restraint tool is a key to the success of the overall Transport Strategy. However, it is important to recognise the need to maintain adequate levels of parking for essential use and to sustain the economic vitality and viability of the City Centre as a commercial, shopping and tourist centre. The aims of the Parking Strategy outlined in Policy T11 should therefore be to:
 
  • Increase the availability of short-stay spaces for visitors, shoppers and the disabled at the expense of commuter parking.
  • Enable residents to park more easily.
  • Improve traffic flow and conditions for buses, including bus priority measures.
  • Introduce improved facilities to encourage cycling and walking.
  • Divert long-stay parking and some short-stay from the City Centre to more remote locations such as possibly park and ride and park and walk sites.
  • Increase modal change to reduce reliance on the private car.
  • Co-ordinate off and on-street parking provision.
  • To improve the pedestrian environment.
6.64 Within an overall parking strategy it is important to provide some alternatives for people travelling by car and parking long-stay in public car parks within the City Centre. Whilst some can be encouraged to transfer to other modes of travel, many will continue to use private cars. If no creditable alternative is provided, parking on-street on the fringes of the controlled parking zone could take place. Accordingly, the County Council is currently investigating, in conjunction with the City Council, a two stage implementation of the controlled parking zone. In the first stage controls will be introduced and all bays would be charged although some areas would be allocated for long-stay (ie no maximum duration limit would be identified). In the second stage, as alternatives to bringing the car into the City Centre are provided, maximum duration limits would be applied. There would be no length of stay duration for valid resident permit holders.
   
 
POLICY T12 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OVERALL PARKING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY CENTRE THE COUNCIL WILL ENCOURAGE THE MANAGEMENT OF OFF-STREET PUBLIC CAR PARKS AS FOLLOWS:
  1. SHORT-STAY PARKING:
    a) MILLBURNGATE MULTI-STOREY
    b) RIVERSIDE MULTI-STOREY
    c) PRINCE BISHOP MULTI-STOREY
    d) WALKERGATE
  2. LONG-STAY PARKING:
    a) THE SANDS
 
POLICY T13 THE PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL NEW PUBLIC CAR PARKS WITHIN DURHAM CITY CENTRE WILL ONLY BE APPROVED WHERE THERE THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL LONG OR SHORT STAY PUBLIC PARKING HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AS PART OF A CO-ORDINATED STRATEGY FOR PARKING IN THE CITY CENTRE. IN DETERMINING ANY NEED THE FOLLOWING SHOULD, IN PARTICULAR, BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT:
  1. THE EFFECTIVENESS ON THE VITALITY AND VIABILITY OF THE CITY CENTRE; AND
  2. THE NEED TO ENCOURAGE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PRIVATE CAR; AND
  3. THE NEED TO DISCOURAGE LONG STAY COMMUTER PARKING IN THE CITY CENTRE.
  Justification
6.65 The more centrally located off-street public car parks within the City Centre (Millburngate, Prince Bishops and Riverside Multi-storey Car Parks and the Walkergate and Sidegate Car Parks) provide approximately 875 spaces and are already managed with a differential pricing mechanism which favours the short stay needs of shoppers and visitors. Commuters are encouraged by a different pricing mechanism to use the more peripheral car parks at Walkergate, The Sands and Sidegate which will have a capacity of approximately 740 spaces yet still remain within easy walking distances of places of work. Walkergate and The Sands car parks are used both for short-term and long-term parking. Framwelgate Peth Car Park which was used for both short-term parking and long-term parking has now been redeveloped for housing. The redevelopment of Walkergate in accordance with Policy CC2b will include the provision of a 500-space multi-storey car park to replace the existing 300 space temporary surface car park. Details of the changes in public off-street parking between 1999 and 2006 are shown in Table 1. The management policy relating to the operation of these car parks may the subject of review and change once the Park and Ride system for Durham, as proposed in the County Durham Local Transport Plan, is implemented.
6.65A Recent changes in circumstances have cast doubt upon the likelihood of a new public car park being developed at Framwelgate Waterside as part of the new hotel development proposed in Policy V5 of the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan. This is because the developer is only willing to provide parking associated with the hotel and not the previously envisaged additional public parking. Whilst any potential shortfall in parking provision within the City Centre brought about by this situation will need to be resolved, no new car park site has yet been identified. Policy T13 has, therefore, been formulated to address this issue in a manner which would allow for the provision of additional long or short stay public parking within the City Centre without compromising the overall aims of the parking strategy set out in both the Durham Package of the County Durham Local Transport Plan 2001-2006 and the Revised City of Durham Local Plan.
  Table 1
  CHANGES IN PUBLIC OFF-STREET PARKING 1999-2006
 
CHANGES IN PUBLIC OFF-STREET PARKING 1999-2006
Car Park Level in 1999 Expected Level in 2006
Riverside 263 263
Millburngate 210 210
Prince Bishops 400 400
Framwelgate Peth 190 -
The Sands 350 136
Walkergate 300 500
Sidegate - 107
Total 1713 1616
   
6.66 The Durham Station Car Parks on the periphery of the City Centre are open for public use and have a capacity for approximately 300 spaces. The area is almost entirely occupied by long-stay parkers using the train services operating from Durham.
   
 
POLICY T14 THE COUNCIL WILL ENCOURAGE THE USE OF EXISTING PRIVATE NON-RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET CAR PARKS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC THROUGH NEGOTIATION WITH APPROPRIATE BODIES.
  Justification
6.67 Whilst Policy T11 seeks to reduce the number of private non-residential car parks within or on the periphery of the City Centre many of them are currently underused at weekends and public holidays. Their use temporarily, whilst the Parking Strategy outlined in Policy T11 was being implemented, by the general public, would help to cater for the extra parking demand created at these periods thereby reducing the problem of on-street parking in the residential streets on the periphery of the City Centre. The main off-street car parks are owned and controlled by either Durham University, various Government Departments or Durham County Council. It would be necessary to seek the agreement of the owners of these car parks if access to the general public were to be achieved.
  Parking in Residential Areas within Durham City
 
POLICY T15 THE COUNCIL WILL SEEK TO INTRODUCE CONTROLLED PARKING SCHEMES WHICH AIM TO:
  1. PROVIDE BETTER CONTROL OVER PARKING IN THE AREA;
  2. RESTRICT PARKING FOR NON-RESIDENTS, PARTICULARLY LONG-STAY COMMUTERS.
  PRIORITY WILL BE GIVEN TO THE INTRODUCTION OF SUCH SCHEMES IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS OF DURHAM CITY:
  a) THE AREA BOUNDED BY CHURCH STREET, WHINNEY HILL AND STOCKTON ROAD;
  b) THE AREA EAST OF SUTTON STREET INCLUDING CROSSGATE AND SOUTH STREET;
  c) THE AREA IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST OF SUTTON STREET FROM PRINCES STREET IN THE NORTH TO CROSSGATE PETH IN THE SOUTH;
  d) THE AREA AROUND CLAYPATH, PROVIDENCE ROW AND GILESGATE.
  Justification
6.68 Many of the residential areas which surround the City Centre have inadequate car parking and garaging facilities and consequently residents rely on the existing streets for parking spaces. Commuters and shoppers trying to avoid paying car park charges also park on these streets during the day to the detriment of the amenity of the local residents. The City Council, in conjunction with Durham County Council, will seek to introduce a viable residents permit parking scheme in these areas during the Plan period in order to alleviate this problem. Priority will be given to the introduction of resident permit parking schemes in the four areas fringing the City Centre identified in Policy T15 in accordance with the recommendations of the RTA Study on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement. In areas of environmental sensitivity, such as Conservation Areas, such as Conservation Areas, the Highway Authority will be expected to take into account the visual impact of the controlled parking scheme in order to minimise any damaging effects, thereby reflecting Policies E3, E6 and E22 of the Local Plan.
  Coach Parking
 
POLICY T16 A NEW COACH PARK IS TO BE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE PROPOSED ENHANCEMENTS TO THE RIVERSIDE CAR PARK AT THE SANDS AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSALS MAP.
  Justification
6.69 The Walkergate coach park was opened in 1997 as a temporary facility. The site is allocated for redevelopment for commercial leisure use in accordance with Policy CC2b. A permanent coach park is to be provided as part of the proposed enhancements to the Riverside Car Park at The Sands. The site of the coach park is close to the City Centre and has a capacity for up to 11 coaches. It will be the subject of substantial landscaping to break up the areas of tarmacadam in accordance with Policies Q3 and Q5.
  Storage of Caravans and Boats
 
POLICY T17 THE COUNCIL WILL APPROVE THE STORAGE OF CARAVANS AND BOATS ON SECURE SITES WITHIN EXISTING BUILT UP AREAS OR WITHIN FARMSTEADS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE GROUPS OF BUILDINGS IN RURAL AREAS PROVIDED THAT:
  1. IT DOES NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL VISUAL IMPACT ON THE AMENITY OF THE AREAS IN WHICH THEY ARE TO BE STORED; AND
  2. IT CAN BE ADEQUATELY SCREENED ALL THE YEAR ROUND; AND
  3. IT HAS A SATISFACTORY MEANS OF ACCESS; AND
  4. IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE AMENITIES OF OCCUPANTS OF NEARBY OR ADJACENT PROPERTY.
  Justification
6.70 In some parts of the District, caravans and boats parked on the highway and in gardens and on drives within existing housing estates are a problem, reducing open space, car parking, and generally looking unsightly. The problem is most acute during winter and secure storage sites in unobtrusive locations would do much to alleviate this. Such sites should ideally be situated within built up areas but small numbers of caravans might be stored in farmsteads or other appropriate groups of buildings in rural areas where screening can be achieved all year round by existing buildings and trees.
  TAXI RANKS
 
POLICY T18 THE COUNCIL WILL SUPPORT THE PROVISION OF TAXI RANKS AT CONVENIENT LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT PROVIDED THAT THERE IS A DEMAND FOR THE FACILITY AND THEY ARE SITED SYMPATHETICALLY WHERE THEY WOULD:
  1. NOT CAUSE HIGHWAY PROBLEMS OR TRAFFIC CONGESTION; AND
  2. BE SAFELY AND EASILY ACCESSED BY PEDESTRIANS; AND
  3. NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA; AND
  4. NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE AMENITY OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
  Justification
6.71 Taxis provide an important service as part of the transport network. Shoppers in the City Centre need ranks close to the pedestrianised streets and visitors needs ranks close to the railway station and bus station. They should also be provided within the local centres throughout the district, and at the Sherburn Road/Dragon Lane Centre and the Arnison/Mercia Centre at Pity Me and the new District General Hospital. Sympathetic consideration will be given to providing taxi ranks in other areas of the District if demand exists for such a facility. It is important that taxi ranks are located where they are accessible to people with disabilities in accordance with Policy Q1.
6.72 Although planning permission is not required for the provision of taxi ranks since they are located within the Highway, and, therefore are subject to the jurisdiction of the Highway Authority, the Council will seek to ensure that the location of a new rank would not lead to an unacceptable increase in traffic and congestion to the area and that the character of the area is not adversely affected by the proposal. Policy EMP15 addresses the issue of taxi booking offices.
  CYCLING
 
POLICY T19 THE COUNCIL WILL SEEK TO ENSURE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SAFE, ATTRACTIVE AND CONVENIENT NETWORK OF CYCLE ROUTES THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT.
  Justification
6.73 Cycling is an environmentally sustainable form of transport which is energy efficient and has considerable benefits to personal health. It is also an enjoyable leisure activity. The Integrated Transport White Paper and the National Cycling Strategy both stress the need to promote cycling. The national target is to double the existing level of cycle use by 2002 and to double it again by 2012.
6.75 Many journeys, especially in built up areas, are relatively short and could easily be made by bicycle rather than by car. It is important, therefore, that a comprehensive network of routes suitable for use at all times of the day is developed to facilitate utility and recreational cycling. This will often be best achieved through on-road routes giving priority to cyclists on the road network, as exemplified by the introduction of dedicated cycle lanes along part of the A167, clear sign posting of routes and links between routes to complete the overall network. In some situations, particularly in rural areas, off-road routes may be necessary using both bridleways and footpaths converted to accommodate cyclists. Careful consideration will need to be given, however, to their ongoing maintenance and to the provision of lighting. The ultimate aim is to develop a cycle network which will not only link settlements across the District (as exemplified by the 'Five Villages Project', one of whose aims is to create a network of new trails and cyclepaths between Bowburn, Cassop, Quarrington Hill, Kelloe and Coxhoe), but will also provide connections to adjoining Districts and the National Cycle Network.
6.76 The Local Transport Plan for County Durham includes a 'neighbourhood package' for Newton Hall which seeks to develop a network of routes for use by cyclists and walkers within the area and linking it to adjacent retail, educational and employment sites. The Transport Plan also reflects the Durham City Cycling Strategy by seeking to encourage Durham University to provide dedicated cycle routes between its various colleges, halls of residence, libraries and teaching centres. Full consultation on any new proposed route will take place with all the owners and occupiers of land at the earliest opportunity.
6.77 In order to increase the opportunity for greater recreational use and enjoyment of the countryside, the Council will, during the Plan period, support the provision of additional safe and direct cycle links between the City Centre and the long distance cycle routes which connect Durham with Consett (via the Lanchester Valley), Esh Winning (via the Deerness Valley) and Bishop Auckland (via the Wear Valley). Provision will also be made for connections to other long distance routes such as the National Cycle Network which is being developed during the Plan period. The development of the Millennium Scheme and Framwelgate Peth will afford the opportunity to provide two new cycle crossings over the River Wear and over the A690 at Castle Chare.
6.78 The needs of cyclists in the design of roads and traffic management schemes are addressed in Policies T4 and T8, and in the design of new development by Policy Q2.
   
 
POLICY T20 THE COUNCIL WILL ENCOURAGE THE PROVISION OF FACILITIES FOR PARKING CYCLES IN THE CITY CENTRE AND AT OTHER APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS WHICH ARE SECURE, PROTECTED FROM THE WEATHER AND CLEARLY SIGNED.
  Justification
6.79 Cycle routes will not be fully utilised unless there are safe places to leave cycles. The provision of cycle parking facilities should be attractive to users and located as close as possible to the destinations they serve. They should be situated where frequent surveillance is possible, suit all kinds of cycle without damage and be weather protected, lit at night and clearly signposted. Additionally, they should fit in with their surroundings and require a minimum of maintenance. Priority will be given to the provision of suitable cycle parking at shopping centres, factories, offices, educational establishments, sports and leisure centres, health centres, hospitals, libraries and other public buildings. Secure cycle parks provided at transport inter-changes such as rail and bus stations would encourage the use of cycles as part of a longer journey.
6.80 Both the Council and the University have provided stands and loops for cycle parking at various locations within the City Centre and University Campus. More will be provided at appropriate locations throughout the cycle network during the Plan period.
6.81 In order to facilitate the establishment of a pro-bike culture, particularly for journeys to work, employers will be encouraged to provide dedicated and secure on-site cycle parking, changing and shower facilities for employees.
  WALKING
 
POLICY T21 THE COUNCIL WILL SEEK TO SAFEGUARD THE NEEDS OF WALKERS BY ENSURING THAT:
  1. EXISTING FOOTPATHS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY ARE PROTECTED;
  2. A SAFE, ATTRACTIVE AND CONVENIENT FOOTPATH NETWORK IS ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT THE CITY; AND
  3. THAT THE FOOTPATH NETWORK TAKES THE MOST DIRECT ROUTE POSSIBLE BETWEEN DESTINATIONS; AND
  4. THE FOOTPATH NETWORK IS APPROPRIATELY SIGNED.
  WHEREVER POSSIBLE, FOOTPATHS SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF USE BY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, THE ELDERLY AND THOSE WITH YOUNG CHILDREN.
  DEVELOPMENT WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECTS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WILL ONLY BE CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE IF AN EQUIVALENT ALTERNATIVE ROUTE IS PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER BEFORE WORK ON SITE COMMENCES.
  Justification
6.82 The majority of short journeys and parts of longer trips involve walking so it is important to cater for the needs of pedestrians. Footpaths should be designed with personal safety in mind and should be located so as to minimise any conflict with motor vehicles. They should also be designed, wherever possible, to accommodate people in wheelchairs, those with walking difficulties and those with pushchairs. The use of disabled persons crossings at appropriate locations should be encouraged to aid mobility for the disabled.
6.83 Priority will be given to the establishment of routes which directly link residential areas with bus stops, schools, shops, community facilities and places of employment and fulfil the objectives set out in Policies R13 and R14 relating to public access to the countryside. Footpaths may also have historical connections and although they may not necessarily be public rights of way, they are valued by local residents and visitors to the area.
6.84 Existing footpaths will be protected from development or incorporated within new proposals. However, this may not always be possible and in these circumstances the Council will require the developer to provide an acceptable and equivalent alternative route before the development can take place.
6.85 The needs of pedestrians, in the design of roads and traffic management schemes, are addressed by Policies T4 and T8 and, in the design of new development, by Policy Q2. The need to improve facilities for pedestrians in the City Centre is addressed by Policy CC1.
 
 
 
Page footer graphic
top