Author/Lead Officer of Report: Andrew Marwood Senior Engineer - Strategic Traffic and Infrastructure, City Growth Department Tel: 0114 2736170

Report of: Executive Director, Place

Report to: Executive Member for Climate Change, Environment and Transport

Date of Decision: 24th June 2021

Subject: Grey to Green Phase 2 - Angel Street - Proposed Scheme and Associated Traffic Regulation Orders.

Is this a Key Decision? If Yes, reason Key Decision:- Yes x No

- Expenditure and/or savings over £500,000 x

- Affects 2 or more Wards

Which Executive Member Portfolio does this relate to? Climate Change, Environment and Transport

Which Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee does this relate to? Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee

Has an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) been undertaken? Yes x No

If YES, what EIA reference number has it been given? 258

Does the report contain confidential or exempt information? Yes No x

If YES, give details as to whether the exemption applies to the full report / part of the report and/or appendices and complete below: -

Purpose of Report:

To seek approval for the Angel Street scheme as shown in appendix ‘A’ and to proceed with the implementation of the traffic regulation measures (included those in the associated Traffic Regulation Order (TRO)) shown in appendix ‘B’, subject to authorisation of the project through the capital gateway process.

The report sets out the background to the scheme, consultation comments and officer recommendations.

Form 2 – Executive Report June 2021

Recommendations:

That the scheme is approved as shown in Appendix ‘A’.

That the associated traffic regulation measures (including those in the associated TRO) as shown in Appendix ‘B’ to facilitate the Angel Street project are implemented, subject to authorisation of the project through the capital gateway process.

Background Papers: Appendix ‘A’ – Scheme Concept Design Appendix ‘B’ – Traffic Regulation Order Changes Plan Appendix ‘C’ – Consultation Letter Appendix ‘D’ – Further Analysis of the Consultation Results

Lead Officer to complete:-

1 I have consulted the relevant departments Finance: Damian Watkinson in respect of any relevant implications indicated on the Statutory and Council Policy Checklist, and comments have Legal: Richard Cannon been incorporated / additional forms completed / EIA completed, where Equalities: Annemarie Johnston required.

Legal, financial/commercial and equalities implications must be included within the report and the name of the officer consulted must be included above.

2 EMT member who approved Edward Highfield submission:

3 Executive Member consulted: Cllr Douglas Johnson

4 I confirm that all necessary approval has been obtained in respect of the implications indicated on the Statutory and Council Policy Checklist and that the report has been approved for submission to the Decision Maker by the EMT member indicated at 2. In addition, any additional forms have been completed and signed off as required at 1.

Lead Officer Name: Job Title: Andrew Marwood Senior Engineer - Strategic Traffic and Infrastructure, City Growth Department

Date: 22/06/2021

Page 2 of 21

1.0 PROPOSAL

1.1 The multi-functional Grey to Green Phase 2 scheme around Castlegate, Exchange St/ Blonk St and Snig Hill was completed in September 2020. It links a pedestrianised Castlegate to the ‘hidden jewel’ of and has transformed the almost redundant former Inner Ring Road into a green corridor with sustainable drainage, floral meadows, segregated cycle lanes and public art.

1.2 As part of the completed improvements to Snig Hill, an additional segregated cycle lane has been provided, which has enhanced the approach to Angel St. Angel St has a number of important buildings, such as Castle House (an important Listed Building in the area which now houses popular food hall Kommune and tech workspace Kollider), the National Video Games Museum and other shops, hotels, offices and residential areas leading to Commercial St, and High St.

1.3 Additional funding has now been secured from the European Regional Development Fund, City Council and Yorkshire Water to extend the Grey to Green 2 improvements to Angel St, which remains a key link

of the gateway into the City Centre.

1.4 The proposals shown as a concept design in appendix ‘A’ include:

 High quality new shrub and perennial flower planting as well as retention of existing trees.  Improvements to the public open space outside Castle House, including additional seating, the replacement of the existing planted area with a new one at the junction of Angel St and Castle St, a new reconstructed wall and wider path.  Better pedestrian connectivity between ‘Grey to Green’ phase one (West Bar), Snig Hill and the Future High Streets scheme proposed for High Street.  Enhanced public spaces with perennial meadow planting, tree planting, quality materials and public art.  Providing areas where water run-off can be collected and gradually released, resulting in reduced pressure on already overburdened waterways and therefore reducing the risk of future flooding.  Segregated two-way cycle lane to connect Angel St to other riverside / local and national cycle routes with at least a 50mm level difference to the footway as agreed with the Access Liaison Group.  Reduction of road width to a single carriageway to allow for the extended cycle lane and planting.

Page 3 of 21  Wide and repaved footpaths in the same quality paving as Snig Hill.  New Street furniture (cycle stands and bins).  Two ‘bug hotels’ located within the planting (similar to those on Exchange Place).

1.5 Some of the road layout changes and traffic regulation measures that the scheme proposes can only be introduced following the making and

implementation of a TRO. The key elements of the TRO plan for Angel Street as seen in appendix ‘B’ are:  A proposed new location for the 24-hour taxi rank.

 Revised loading restrictions to compliment the new road layout.

 Revised taxi arrangements on a night so that after the last bus leaves the stops, taxis will be able to rank in the bus layby until the first bus in the morning at 5am.

In addition, it is proposed that a new speed plateau (implemented via road humps) be introduced to compliment the recently introduced 20mph speed limit throughout the City Centre.

1.6 The main objectives of the scheme are to;  Provide walkers and cyclists much easier and more enjoyable access to and from the city centre.

 Create the opportunity for outdoor events.  Attract further investment into the area.  Improve resilience to climate change.  Increase the city centre’s biodiversity from the previously hard ‘grey’ environment.

2.0 How Does this Decision Contribute?

2.1 The project will contribute directly through its interventions to the overall strategic vision and objectives of Sheffield City Council and the Sheffield City Region.

2.2 The scheme contributes to the Sub Regional Vision which promotes the Sheffield City Region as a place to collaborate, to invest, to innovate and grow a business, live, work, play and study. It will be supported by an unrivalled skills base and quality of life.

2.3 The scheme supports the key actions set out in the City’s Transport Strategy, adopted by Cabinet in March 2019.

Page 4 of 21

3.0 Has there been any consultation?

3.1 Consultation Strategy

In January 2021, a ‘Concept Design’ drawing was finalised, illustrating the initial ideas and key elements of the scheme for consultation purposes See appendix ‘A’. A questionnaire was also designed. The consultation

period ran from 18th January 2021 until 11th February 2021. As some of the road layout changes that the project is proposing could only be introduced following the making of a TRO, both the public/stakeholder and

TRO consultations ran concurrently. 163 letters were posted to occupiers of the area within an agreed boundary relevant to the project (which included the TRO proposals). A copy of this letter is attached, see

appendix ‘C’. Over 100 emails were sent to relevant groups/ stakeholders.

Given the Covid 19 pandemic and the Government’s lockdown, face to face consultation events were not possible. Instead, the project team organised two on-line webinars (via zoom) on two different dates. These events were very well attended with attendants encouraged to submit their comments via the Citizenspace website (part of SCC) or by contacting the project client / consultation lead. The SCC website was also updated with the project information and consultation details.

In addition to the above, an on-line questionnaire and all corresponding information was set up using the Council’s consultation platform, Citizenspace, seeking views on both the proposed improvements as well as on the statutory TRO by the deadline of 11th February 2021. A press release was issued to local newspapers.

Statutory consultees for the TRO were notified of the proposals and consultation took place directly with the Access Liaison Group as well as the Cycle Forum.

3.2 Consultation Analysis

167 formal responses were received within the consultation period. The breakdown was as follows; 143 questionnaires were received online via the Citizenspace platform and 24 emails were also sent with comments to the client and consultation lead.

From the questionnaires received (via Citizenspace), 143 in total, the breakdown is as follows (people may fall into more than one category);

 82% were local residents  25% work locally

Page 5 of 21  5% own or run a local business/ local property developer  11% were visitors to the area  6% other/ not answered

In terms of the gender of those who completed questionnaires;

 42.7% were female,  52.5 were male,  1.4% intersex/ other  3.4% did not answer

In terms of disability,

 84.6% considered themselves not to have a disability.  11.2% considered themselves to have a disability.  4.2% did not answer.

The disabilities most prominent were; mobility or physical disability, long term illness, mental health and a hearing impairment.

In terms of the ethnicity of those who completed questionnaires:

 91% were ‘white English/Welsh/Scottish/British/Northern Irish’  2% were ‘other white’

 7% did not answer

We asked people who responded if they wanted to be kept informed about the project and those who agreed have provided their contact details. We have, with this information, created a database and will write to keep people informed as the scheme progresses.

Out of the total 167 formal responses received:

• 92.8% (155 respondents) ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ with the overall vision for the scheme, with nearly three quarters of them in the first category (strongly agree) and very supportive of the project going ahead;

• 3.6% (6 respondents) disagreed or strongly disagreed;

• 3.6% (6 respondents) neither agreed nor disagreed.

Further analysis of the consultation results (for example what people liked / disliked about the scheme and officer responses can be found in Appendix ‘D’).

Page 6 of 21 3.3 Consultation Conclusions

Given the evidence provided above, it is clear there is overwhelming support and encouragement for the project to proceed. As a result of the consultation, officers have included as part of the project scope, a number of additional measures, (including 13 cycle stands and 5 information signs) and continue to liaise with frontages regarding the form of the open space in front of Kommune.

Officers have also made a list of additional features that would be supported and useful to fund (should funding be available from the project’s contingency). These include looking at the number and quality of seating benches, additional bollards/ wands to protect the mandatory cycle lane on Castle St from parked / loading vehicles and a historical/wayfinding lectern.

During the consultation period there were no objections to the changes proposed in the TRO and the recommendation is that these are implemented to compliment the new layout.

4.0 RISK ANALYSIS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISION

4.1 Equality of Opportunity Implications

An Equality Impact Assessment (reference 258) has been carried out for the ‘Grey to Green’ scheme. The additional Angel Street improvements should prove positive for everyone. Some aspects should be particularly positive for disabled people and those using pushchairs/prams by improving the accessibility of the area, with input from the Access Liaison Group in the design. It will add to areas in the city centre where people / communities can interact in using a common facility. This scheme will help to transform the areas image both to investors and to members of the public. This should lead to increased use of the area and in turn help improve the perception and therefore safety that people feel. No negative equality impacts have been identified.

4.2 Financial and Commercial Implications

This report does not approve the financial viability of the scheme. This will be approved in accordance with the Capital Gateway Process and CPG (expected CPG meeting 24th June 2021). However, see below the current financial situation for the scheme.

The current approved budget and funding sources for Angel St was originally approved by Cabinet in December 2020 and approved to proceed to procurement by CPG in April 2021.

The April 2021 expected breakdown of the project costs are: Contract costs £560,000 Fees & related £141,644

Page 7 of 21 Surveys £21,496 Contingency £88,455 TOTAL COSTS £811,595

The approved expected sources of funding is as follows: ERDF £360,092 SCC S106 £159,083 SCC NHB £262,420 Yorkshire Water £30,000 TOTAL £811,595

Tender returns came back to the\council on 1st June and there was initially a ‘funding gap’ of approx. £50k. This has currently been reduced to £10k (through Value Engineering options and reconciled tender costs) but a late potential diversion by BT (costing up to £69k) is being investigated.

In order to mitigate this risk, SCC has taken the following measures: a) valued engineered the scheme (completed) b) engaged with BT regarding the need to undertake this diversion (meeting on site on Friday 18 June) and c) considering an increase of the budget by £40k with additional CIF funding currently allocated to a different Castlegate budget. Edward Highfield is discussing this issue with Cllr Cate MacDonald on Tuesday 22nd June.

It is expected that a final financial position will be reported to CPG on 24th June 2021 and agreement on the deliverability/ financial robustness of the scheme (or otherwise) agreed then.

4.3 Legal Implications

The works elements of the project must be procured following the Council’s standing orders and all relevant EU procurement directives. The procurement process will therefore have to be open, transparent, fair and non-discriminatory. The contract awarded to the successful tenderer/s must ensure compliance with all applicable legislature requirements and provide for effective service delivery, value for money and ensure the delivery of the project outcomes.

The Council has powers under Part V of the Highways Act 1980 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (‘the 1984 Act’) to implement the improvements requested in this report, said works do not require planning permission where they are being carried out for the maintenance or improvement of the roads concerned, so long as they do not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

In exercising the powers under the 1984 Act, the Council is required to secure (a) the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic (including pedestrians) and (b) the provision of suitable and adequate

Page 8 of 21 parking facilities on and off the highway, and so far as practicable having regard to the matters listed below.

The matters to be considered before reaching any decision are: i) the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises; ii) the effect on the amenities of a locality and (including) the use of roads by heavy commercial vehicles; iii) the national air quality strategy prepared under Section 80 of the Environment Act 1995; iv) the importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and of securing the safety and convenience of passengers/potential passengers; and v) any other matters appearing to the Council to be relevant.

The Council received no objections to the proposed changes in the TRO. On that basis and in accordance with the procedure set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) ( and Wales) Regulations 1996, the Council will be acting lawfully and within its powers should the officer recommendations be approved to implement the changes.

5.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

5.1 Option 1; Do nothing: The project team do not consider this to be a viable option. It would lead to a further decline in the area, depressing property prices and the sustainability of businesses which in turn would affect business rates and investment. The current layout although maintained through the ‘Streets Ahead Maintenance Programme’ would simply replace like with like and at a similar maintenance cost and would not deliver the transformative benefits which have been outlined above.

5.2 Option 2; Providing a junction treatment at Castle Street / Angel Street / Snig Hill; This was considered in the early feasibility stage for the scheme and also suggested in some of the consultation responses. Officers considered that the changes required at this junction to provide segregated cycle and pedestrian controlled crossings would result in more than the scheme budget. There was also no certainty that the changes (given these would impact on bus routes short term and long term) could be delivered within the funding timescales. The changes at this location wouldn’t on their own deliver the environmental benefits such as sustainable urban drainage and planting which were a key part of gaining funding from ERDF. The preferred option below therefore currently ties in with the current junction layout which subject to future funding could be altered later with no impact to the changes proposed in Option 3.

5.3 Option 3; Angel Street Transformation (Preferred) Developing the proposed extension of the Grey to Green 2 scheme along Angel Street, through predominately ERDF funding will further transform the corridor running from Snig Hill to High Street. It would link and be consistent with the changes on West Bar / Bridge Street and further improves accessibility and safety as well as the local environment in order to

Page 9 of 21 encourage new investment and jobs. The changes link up with further proposed changes both approved and awaiting approval (Transforming Cities, Planning approval for Kings Tower, Future High Streets Fund).

6.0 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 To ensure the extension to the Grey to Green scheme at Angel Street can be constructed when the tender returns are received, and contract awarded.

6.2 Officers have considered alternative options and on balance consider the proposals to be the best solution to achieve the predicted benefits of the scheme, which are in line with the funding requirements.

6.3 Officers have carried out an extensive consultation with all stakeholders and frontages and in the main there was a very positive view on the proposals, many of which saw the benefit of the project to tackle several issues in this part of the City Centre, while providing better connectivity for people who are cycling and walking.

Page 10 of 21 Appendix ‘A’ – Concept Plan

Page 11 of 21 Appendix ‘B’ TRO Plan

Page 12 of 21 Appendix ‘C’ – Consultation Letter

Page 13 of 21

Page 14 of 21

Page 15 of 21 Appendix ‘D’ – Consultation Analysis

What did people ‘like’ about the scheme?

The comments received have been very positive. Over 42% of those who responded had nothing negative to say about the scheme. We have analysed any comments about what people dislike about the scheme and additional suggestions or features they may want to see included as part of the scheme.

In general, the key aims of the project have been overwhelmingly welcome. We have grouped the ‘likes’ in the following categories;

A. Safer cycling, segregation of cyclists and pedestrians and a more enjoyable/ better environment for cycling. B. A much improved environment for pedestrians. C. Welcome additional greenery, planting, interest, colour and texture. D. Improved/ more purpose for the outside space. It creates a space where, Corona virus permitting, people will feel comfortable meeting, socialising and exploring. E. Good linkages with previous completed phases of the Grey to Green project (towards West Bar, Castlegate (the street) and Exchange Place, joining up the green spaces and the rest of the City Centre (High St, Fargate, Arundel Gate and Kelham). This will make a big difference. F. Benefits of surface water management/ flood prevention. G. The project will promote better health, wellbeing and happiness in the City. H. Wildlife and bio-diversity improvements. The important role of green corridors for the survival of bees and other pollinators. Bug hotels a welcomed addition. I. The improvements promoted by the scheme will bring additional regeneration to the area, more visitors and investment into Castlegate, which is currently a run down and neglected part of the City Centre. J. Less pollution and Reclaim the streets from cars for pedestrians and cyclists. K. This is an appropriate response as part of Sheffield’s declaration of a climate emergency and an excellent example of adaptation to climate change. L. It will contribute to attracting more independent retailers to the area. M. As a resident of the City Centre, every street in the city Centre should be redesigned along these principles. N. The completed ‘Grey to Green’ projects in West Bar and Exchange Place/ Castlegate (the street)/ Snig Hill give people a reason to visit these areas. There are eateries and shops in these areas I never knew existed. These projects have had the most impact of any SCC has ever undertaken. O. Will extend the green corridor environment to access Victoria Quays and the hotels in this area. P. As the City Centre looks for a new role beyond shopping, this is a welcome radical and different idea. Q. Great ‘place making’ project. R. It will improve the safety of the area. S. Relocating the taxi rank a good idea.

Page 16 of 21 What did people ‘dislike’ about the scheme and team’s response.

Out of the 167 responses received, 103 (62%) did not have anything about the scheme that they ‘disliked’. The majority of the remaining 66 respondents have mainly provided additional features/ suggestions to add to the scheme. Many of these suggestions are not within the scope of the project. Irrespective of this, we have provided a team’s response to each comment made.

There are 6.3% of respondents (6 of the 167) that disagreed/ strongly disagreed with the scheme. This means that they do not like or accept the principles of the scheme. We have provided a team’s response to each comment made. Overall, the elements that respondents ‘disliked’ about the scheme (grouped and ranked by popularity) are:

1)Additional/ better connectivity to other cycling routes and other parts of the City Centre. (Team’s response on page 19).

2) Concern about adequate management during the construction of the works, changes to the highway and deliveries for traders

Team’s response: Traffic management is a critical element of the scheme. We have a robust communication strategy in place before and during construction. Also, as they say, "time is money" so we understand the need to keep disruption to a minimum and build the scheme as quickly as possible.

As regards changes to the highway, the scheme reduces the width of the road and provides a single lane carriageway. This arrangement has been used before in West Bar and Exchange Place and the results are positive and in line with expectations. It also retains the adjacent bus stops on Angel St.

The taxi bay will be relocated to the top of Angel St and a new arrangement will mean that taxis will only be able to use the bus bays on Angel St. from 11.30pm until 5am. This has been agreed with the South Yorkshire Public Transport Executive (SY PTE). No issues are expected with this and no objections have been received to the Traffic Regulation Order proposing these changes.

The Angel St project does not alter the current delivery arrangements as there are double yellow lines on Angel St currently and all deliveries should be done though the back (via King St).

3) Safety of the area at night and general anti-social behaviour and homelessness.

Team’s response: Although out of the scope with the improvements of this scheme, we are aware and are working with South Yorkshire Police and the City Centre Ambassadors (who patrol the area) to monitor the situation. For instance, we helped remove the permanent stalls on King St and replace with temporary ones (provided by Sheffield Markets) which minimise their use for drug purposes at night.

Page 17 of 21 4) Public transport and bus routes in the city centre in general.

Team’s response: This is not within the scope of the scheme. However, we have kept South Yorkshire Public Transport Executive (SY PTE) fully involved in discussions well before any design work and will pass these comments too.

5) Provide more cycle stands than currently on Angel St.

Team’s response: Please see the team’s response on page 20.

6) A lot of money to benefit a few, cars should be allowed on Angel St and “too much pandering to cycling in the City Centre”.

Team’s response: This project will enhance this part of the City Centre (with Sustainable Drainage, planting, a modernised and animated public space with additional seating and dual lane cycle path) to attract new visitors, new retail and investment to this area as well as enhance the experience for those working and living in the area. It is also in response to the increased demand for better cycling infrastructure/ active travel. Phase 1 in West Bar, completed in 2016, has brought a great deal of economic as well as well-being and environmental benefits to the people and the area. Feedback on Phase 1 as well as the recently completed Phase 2 on Exchange St/ Castlegate (the street) and Snig Hill is very positive, both from people living and working in the area as well as from those who come to visit.

As regards general traffic accessing Angel St, cars cannot currently use Angel Street due to the bus gate at the top. This is set by Sheffield's traffic management network and any changes are not within the project's scope.

As a general comment, the issue of less footfall in City Centres is not an isolated issue for Sheffield but also affects cities across the UK. These issues have been made worse by the Covid pandemic and the lockdowns. There are Council grants and other projects (such as the Future High St Fund, Transforming Cities and the Heart of the City) which are looking to reverse the declining trend in the city centre as well as using the city centre for other uses (such as increased residential accommodation).

7) Scheme/ planting does not go far enough, should be more radical with complete pedestrianisation and more cycle lanes.

Team’s response: We have provided planting everywhere we have been able to within the parameters of space for pedestrians and cycle lanes. Unlike Castlegate (the street) that lent itself for full pedestrianisation, Angel St was not in the same category given the highway network and businesses demands/ requirements.

8) Ensure good maintenance.

Team’s response: Please see the team’s response on page 20.

Page 18 of 21 Any other features/ any other suggestion that could be included or any other comments?

There have been over 81 responses to additional features and suggestions that people may like to see included in the scheme. Although we have provided a team’s response to every one of these comments for reporting purposes, we have grouped them as below.

It is also worth mentioning that many of the suggestion made (including some below) are not within the scope of the project, whether they fall geographically outside the boundary of the project or the budget is not available to provide it. As we explain below, where this is the case, we have contacted other relevant Council departments.

We have, as a result of the consultation, agreed to fund a number of additional features as part of the scheme and we also have a prioritised list of additional features that could be implemented should funding become available (following the agreed price on the procurement of a contractor and the potential release of the project’s contingency budget).

The additional features and suggestions respondents have provided (grouped and ranked by popularity):

1) The [Angel St] project should provide connections to other parts of the City Centre (Fargate, Castle Square and Watson Walk in particular) and it should be extended to other parts of the City Centre and Sheffield.

Team’s response: The junction lay-out to the north end (towards Castle Square/ High St) has been revised and it is as effective as possible with the available budget, given the complications of shared users near the Castle Square tram stop and the project’s budgetary constraints. Additionally, and although not within the project’s scope, linkages with other schemes and other parts of the City Centre are an important consideration. The G2G2 Angel St links up with Knowledge Gateway (at Fitzalan Square, which enhances SHU Campus). Access to the City Centre from UofS was also vastly improved a few years ago. Approved projects that are going ahead and include the Grey to Green principles are the Future High St Fund (High St and Fargate) as well as the Transforming Cities (towards Kelham, Attercliffe, Arundel Gate and London/ Abbeydale Road). We have written to the sponsors for these schemes to make them aware of the comments received.

2) Provision of additional cycle stands as part of the scheme. Some undercover cycle parking as well as secure bike storage would be welcomed.

Team’s response: As a result of the consultation’s clear demand for additional cycle stands, we have reviewed all the places where we can safely place them. We will be increasing the number of cycle stands from 7 (currently) to 13 (including one disabled space for adapted bikes). The issue of safe bike storage cannot be included in the scheme (as there isn’t the space). However, it is being looked at as a city strategy and a site for a central location is being considered. There is also some interest in secure bike storage in Castlegate.

Page 19 of 21 3) Additional benches and seating provided as part of the scheme.

Team’s response: There is currently no effective seating on Angel St. The only area for seating purposes is on the public space at the bottom of Angel St but it is covered at the moment with plants and soil so not usable. The project will be providing 5 new benches in the public /outdoor space at the bottom of Angel St. If the budget allows, we will look to extend or improve the number and quality of benches provided.

4) Educational signs explaining how the project supports wildlife and all the benefits of the scheme. Also a lectern (or equivalent) to explain the history of the area.

Team’s response: There will be two bug hotels as biodiversity and public art on Angel St as part of the scheme. The budget is very tight. However, as a result of the consultation, we are planning to deliver 5 signs with information on the benefits of the scheme (similar to the Exchange Place and Castlegate signs) in the planted areas. We would also like to include a historical lectern, if funding allows.

5) More trees, on the side of Angel St where 95% of the works are taking place as part of the G2G2 (east side) as well as on the other side (west side) if possible.

Team’s response: The project has retained all existing trees. An additional one was planned at the top of Angel St but further investigations mean that this is not possible (linked to the 'Hole in the Road' concrete infill). We always aim to plant as many trees as we can but in a city centre context with a lot of utilities, this is a challenge. As regards works on the other side (west side of Angel St, where Argos is), the only works planned here as part of the scheme are at the top, including pedestrian/ cycling crossing amendments. There is not the budget to do everything on both sides. But the whole street will benefit from the Sustainable Drainage and planting.

6) Cycle lane on Castle St. Can the project do something to avoid taxis parking on the cycle lane?

Team’s response: The project scope and budget cannot stretch to any additional costly improvements on Castle St. However, we are aware of the current issues with taxis parking on the Castle St cycle lane. As a result of the consultation, we will look to implement some obstacles (soft segregation in the form of wands / bollards) to prevent taxis from doing this as part of the scheme. We will discuss these with Highways and try to do this as part of the scheme.

7) Fully segregated cycle lane as part of the scheme, including different colour surface for the cycle path. Team’s response: The Angel St scheme will offer a fully segregated cycle lane with at least a 50mm level difference to the footway. And it will be of different colour and construction materials to the footway.

Page 20 of 21 8) Traffic lights at junction Angel St and Snig Hill. Can this be changed to be made priority for cyclists?

Team’s response: Unfortunately, the budget for this scheme is limited and, on that basis, the project team had a decision whether to remodel the junction (which would have been very difficult in the timescales and potentially wouldn't have included any further greenery / drainage improvements), or to transform Angel Street and come back to the junction when further funding allowed.

9) Provide good maintenance for the scheme.

Team’s response: We understand that this is an important issue. This is the reason why the project has secured funding for a 3-year dedicated maintenance on all the plants and trees, after which, as a mature scheme, Amey will take over the maintenance. This is the same arrangement for earlier phases of the Grey to Green project. Litter picking and street cleaning will be undertaking by Amey.

10) Install some children/ toddler pieces of equipment on the public space at the bottom of Angel St.

Team’s response: This was considered but the space available on the current outdoor space at the bottom of Angel St is not bid enough or sympathetic to a children's play area. These are being considered as part of the redevelopment of other parts of the city centre, such as Pounds Park. There is an expectation that the redevelopment of the Castle Hill Site (where the indoor market used to be until it was demolished) will provide an opportunity for this too.

11) Could the project provide public toilets on Angel St?

Team’s response: There are cafes and restaurants in the area offering these facilities. Public toilets are not part of the scope of the scheme. Space to locate them is also limited. There have been ASB and maintenance issues in the past with public toilets and it is not a strategy that SCC has pursued. Public toilet provision is included as part of the proposed Pounds Park.

Finally, other ‘one off’ comments received on this section are as follows and we have also passed on these comments to the relevant teams: • Create the conditions to bring people to the area (Castlegate) • Do the other site of the road (West side) • Create covered areas for people to use in bad weather • Additional CCTV • Too much graffiti on King St • Use the side of buildings for digital projections • Illuminate the statue/ public art on Castle House • Mark a jogging track on the pavement • Make former Castle Market a centre piece for the regeneration of the area • Do without advertising panels on the highway • Introduce water features.

Page 21 of 21